A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You quoted Romans which said that the law is the law and we're all subject to it or else

Nope. You want to selectively quote me.

The record is right up there for anyone to read. It's not even a debatable point TK.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope... Not a single one of those states banned homosexuals from anything.

Really? Your ignorance of the law is astounding. Do you even research any of the claims you make?

In those states, the majority of the people, merely elected, the majority of the legislators; a majority of which offered and debated bills which DEFENDED THE LONGSTANDING, CENTURIES OF PRECEDENT WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE... Defining such as the Joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

And without considering the constitutional implications did so debate, vote on and pass those laws. As they say, laws have constitutional consequences; of which these laws breached the rights of another group of people. Majority rule, minority rights. Go read Federalist #10.

In ANY of those states, ANY homosexual was and remains free to walk into any courthouse and apply to marry with no fear of rejection where they apply with ANOTHER Homosexual of the distinct gender.

What? You aren't making any sense whatsoever. When a ban was in place, the clerk was forbidden to issue gay marriage licenses. Come on, not even you are that obtuse.

What THAT MEANS is that THERE IS NO BAN upon Homosexuals... to marry... PERIOD!

Sigh. I don't get it, how can you say "In those state the majority of people, merely elected, the majority of the legislators; a majority of which offered and debated bills, which DEFENDED THE LONGSTANDING CENTURIES OF PRECEDENT WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE" in one breath, acknowledging that such bans existed, then in another say "There is no ban upon homosexuals to marry?"

Please reevaluate your position.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The record is right up there for anyone to read. It's not even a debatable point TK.

I know what's there. It is in fact debatable, for we are debating it, are we not?

Now, once again, you are failing to answer my questions.

How am I trying to normalize homosexuality?

How am I deceiving anyone?

Where in the constitution does it allow for discrimination?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How is it equal treatment to ban one behavior but not another?

ROFL!

Seriously?

One behavior is designed into the species as it's Biological IMPERATIVE, which establishes the standard for the nucleus of Civilization itself... while the OTHER stands wholly antithetical to that design and is HOSTILE TO THE STANDARD ON WHICH CIVILIZATION RESTS!

The BEHAVIORS ARE NOT EQUAL... therefore the reasonable response to each is different.

It's like Good Health... and say... EBOLA!

We don't treat those two things equally, either...

Understand?

 

[Syriusly]

MR.RIGHT SAID:

“The Constitution says nothing about protecting sexual deviants.”

No one ever said it did.

It does, however, protect the right to due process and equal protection of the law, requiring the states to allow same-sex couples access to marriage.

Equal protection under the law, does not protect those advancing deceit as truth. \.

Yes- it even protects those who advance deceit as truth as you do.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nope... Not a single one of those states banned homosexuals from anything.

Really? Your ignorance of the law is astounding. Do you even research any of the claims you make?

I challenged you to site a statute which bans gay people from joining.

You cited no such cases.

I noted your failure...

Nothing has changed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

One behavior is designed into the species as it's Biological IMPERATIVE

But does that mean we are allowed to discriminate against other people who display a different behavior?

The BEHAVIORS ARE NOT EQUAL

According to the law, they are. What you and I think of the behavior is irrelevant, it is the law. (Geez, how many times have I said "it is the law?" I must be Judge Dredd or something.)

It's like Good Health... and say... EBOLA!

We don't treat those two thing equally either...

(Snort)

Does that still mean we should deny equal protection under the law to people? Hello? Are your ears turned on?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I challenged you to site a statute which bans gay people from joining.

Here is my state's version, as cited from Article I, Section IV of the Georgia Constitution:

(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.

(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.

And here, my friend are all the others:

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

By the way, there are no statutes, all of these bans exist in state constitutions.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

MR.RIGHT SAID:

“The Constitution says nothing about protecting sexual deviants.”

No one ever said it did.

It does, however, protect the right to due process and equal protection of the law, requiring the states to allow same-sex couples access to marriage.

Equal protection under the law, does not protect those advancing deceit as truth. \.

Yes- it even protects those who advance deceit as truth as you do.

Once again, there's the emphatic assertion, accompanied by ABSOLUTELY NO SUSTAINING EVIDENCE.

Lemma guess: Democrat? With a strong aversion to reason... .

 

[TemplarKormac]

I noted your failure...

I also note your failure to address the rest of that post. Yeah. You're through.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

One behavior is designed into the species as it's Biological IMPERATIVE

But does that mean we are allowed to discriminate against other people who display a different behavior?

The BEHAVIORS ARE NOT EQUAL

According to the law, they are. What you and I think of the behavior is irrelevant, it is the law. (Geez, how many times have I said "it is the law?" I must be Judge Dredd or something.)

It's like Good Health... and say... EBOLA!

We don't treat those two thing equally either...

(Snort)

Does that still mean we should deny equal protection under the law to people?

It means we treat people equally before the law.

It does NOT mean that we change the law and lower standards to help the mentally ill feel better about themselves.

And we don't pretend that treating the mentally ill differently than we treat the mentally sound is inequity before the law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I noted your failure...

I also not your failure to address the rest of that post. Yeah. You're through.

I address all salient points. If I hit you on everything, that'd be running up the score and that's poor sportsmanship.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Has any state made a law that abridges the privilege of traditional marriage? No.

But they have made laws which ban other styles of marriage, take gay marriage for example. That sir, is a deflection.

You have fallaciously claimed that the 14th amendment is somehow a statement that gay marriage is a right.

No, I didn't. I simply said that any law that is passed has to comply with that Amendment. That includes bans on gay marriage. Whoops.

Nobody is ignoring equal protection of the laws.

So, why the passage of gay marriage bans?

You're ignoring the context within which it was stated.

No I'm not. I am applying the law in context. Any law you pass must apply equally to every citizen. Whether I want gays to marry or not is irrelevant. Great Scott! How many times must I repeat myself here?

They have as much right to life, liberty and property as I do.

Then why pass bans on gay marriage?

I'm going to repeat this; sexuality as a means of gaining added rights was never the intent of the 14th amendment.

And who was talking about "added rights?" Why do we get to selectively apply the 14th Amendment?

Legally speaking, judges are supposed to account for that when utilizing any law.

Yes, they are supposed to consider the constitutional ramifications of a law, not yours or anyone else's feelings about them.

You're just jumping ship because you don't want to be on the so-called wrong side of history.

It is a matter of conscience. Don't worry, I can swim!

But don't think there's any honor in what you're doing; there isn't.

You're one to lecture me about honor. What honor is there in discrimination? I find it that nobody in this thread has been able to answer that question. Thank you for reminding me why I am a libertarian.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Has any state made a law that abridges the privilege of traditional marriage? No.

But they have made laws which ban other styles of marriage gay marriage for example.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Wo-Man... >.<

 

[TemplarKormac]

It does NOT mean that we change the law and lower standards to help the mentally ill feel better about themselves.

The law does not in fact work by your standards. It works via constitutional standards, something you fail to acknowledge.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Wo-Man... >.<

You can repeat that as many times as you wish, but eventually you'll have to come to terms with the fact that banning any form of marriage is unconstitutional.

Move along now.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What honor is there in discrimination?

The honor in abiding by the laws of nature, which govern human behavior... laws which require discrimination as an essential trait in the survival of the individual... thus be extension the sum of individuals OKA: The Human Species.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And we don't pretend that treating the mentally ill differently than we treat the mentally sound is inequity before the law.

Yet the sane and insane are all governed under the same laws, are they not?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Wo-Man... >.<

You can repeat that ...

And I will repeat it as often as I find people pretending that Marriage is something other THAN the Joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

The fact is that Nature is the authority that defined the human species... thus defining the nucleus of the sustainable collective of humanity, OKA: Civilization.

So if you've got a problem with the laws of nature... you should take it up with Nature.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The honor in abiding by the laws of nature, which govern human behavior

Oh brother. In America, the law governs human behavior. Therefore obeying the law is the honorable thing to do in this circumstance.

laws which require discrimination as an essential trait in the survival of the individual

So, when racial discrimination was outlawed, did anyone die? Nope. All of them survived. And so, too, will you survive, should the law change to allow gays to marry. And frankly I don't care who other people marry. Why should you? Why the government intervention in marriage in the first place.