A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[TemplarKormac]

So, tell me, how come the incestuous don't get equal protection under the law.

Uh, because it's a crime?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did the Constitution design the human species?

No. But the human species, namely the segment living in the United States, designed the Constitution.

And for what its worth, if ya took this position in the presence of the founders, they'd have executed you.

Actually not. Argumentum ad baculum. Individual freedom is something they they held dear, and something you would deny. You hypocrite. Whether being gay is a choice, or genetically inclined, or both, it is an act of individual freedom. Sorry, this argument holds no water.

But only because they wouldn't allow you to spread that crap around the asylum.

Ahh, your argument is deteriorating.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, tell me, how come the incestuous don't get equal protection under the law.

Uh, because it's a crime?

So incest is wrong because it's illegal?

Huh...

Fascinatin'.

So, let's assume that there's a law of nature wherein what one generation accepts, the next will embrace... and that where you lower the standards of acceptable behavior to include the sexual abnormality Homosexuality, that the rationalizers of other deviancies will demand that THEY TWO are treated equally before the law.

Now, the law changes and Daddy can marry his minor son... (Homosexuality will become a protected sexuality).

Your position claims that you're good to go with that, as soon as the law is lifted.

So... be honest... When the laws precluding incestuous homosexuality are lifted... Are you going to go to your neighbor's son and grandson's wedding?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey, I'm capable of staying up all night, keys, can you debate me that long?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Did the Constitution design the human species?

No. But the human species, namely the segment living in the United States, designed the Constitution.

Good BOY!

So Nature designed the US Constitution... Now given that nature also designed the Human Species... which is designed SPECIFICALLY with TWO DISTINCT AND COMPLIMENTING GENDERS... designed SPECIFICALLY FOR JOINING SEXUALLY... and GIVEN THAT NO WHERE IN THE US CONSTITUTION IS THERE A WORD WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THOSE WHO DEVIATE FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD SHOULD FORCE THE CULTURE TO ALTER THE STANDARDS THAT NATURE DESIGNED ... where are ya getting the idea that Sexual Deviants are within their rights to force this nonsense in direct defiance of the laws of nature and the US constitution?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, let's assume that there's a law of nature wherein what one generation accepts, the next will embrace... and that where you lower the standards of acceptable behavior to include the sexual abnormality Homosexuality, that the rationalizers of other deviancies will demand that THEY TOO are treated equally before the law.

Loaded question.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hey, I'm capable of staying up all night, keys, can you debate me that long?

This is a text forum... If I go to bed, I'll just pick it up the next time I stop in.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now given that nature also designed the Human Species... which is designed SPECIFICALLY with TWO DISTINCT AND COMPLIMENTING GENDERS... designed SPECIFICALLY FOR JOINING SEXUALLY... and GIVEN THAT NO WHERE IN THE US CONSTITUTION IS THERE A WORD WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THOSE WHO DEVIATE FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD SHOULD FORCE THE CULTURE TO ALTER THE STANDARDS THAT NATURE DESIGNED

Repeat after me:

There is no Amendment

(Repeat)

In the Constitution

(Repeat)

that governs marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, let's assume that there's a law of nature wherein what one generation accepts, the next will embrace... and that where you lower the standards of acceptable behavior to include the sexual abnormality Homosexuality, that the rationalizers of other deviancies will demand that THEY TOO are treated equally before the law.

Loaded question.

Yes... and YOU LOADED it.

Answer it or concede that your reasoning is fatally flawed.

For your convenience:

So, let's assume that there's a law of nature wherein what one generation accepts, the next will embrace... and that where you lower the standards of acceptable behavior to include the sexual abnormality Homosexuality, that the rationalizers of other deviancies will demand that THEY TWO are treated equally before the law.

Now, the law changes and Daddy can marry his minor son... (Homosexuality will become a protected sexuality).

Your position claims that you're good to go with that, as soon as the law is lifted.

So... be honest... When the laws precluding incestuous homosexuality are lifted... Are you going to go to your neighbor's son and grandson's wedding?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now given that nature also designed the Human Species... which is designed SPECIFICALLY with TWO DISTINCT AND COMPLIMENTING GENDERS... designed SPECIFICALLY FOR JOINING SEXUALLY... and GIVEN THAT NO WHERE IN THE US CONSTITUTION IS THERE A WORD WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THOSE WHO DEVIATE FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD SHOULD FORCE THE CULTURE TO ALTER THE STANDARDS THAT NATURE DESIGNED

Repeat after me:

There is no Amendment

(Repeat)

In the Constitution

(Repeat)

that governs marriage.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is a text forum... If I go to bed, I'll just pick it up the next time I stop in.

Well then. So will I. I have been known here to debate well into the morning when engaging the opponent the evening before.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So... be honest... When the laws precluding incestuous homosexuality are lifted... Are you going to go to your neighbor's son and grandson's wedding?

Who said I wanted to normalize incest? Hmm? What does incest have to do with this discussion? You can't answer it.

Be honest, did I ever advocate for the normalization of homosexuality or incestuous behavior?

Answer this question or forfeit the point. Do it now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now given that nature also designed the Human Species... which is designed SPECIFICALLY with TWO DISTINCT AND COMPLIMENTING GENDERS... designed SPECIFICALLY FOR JOINING SEXUALLY... and GIVEN THAT NO WHERE IN THE US CONSTITUTION IS THERE A WORD WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THOSE WHO DEVIATE FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD SHOULD FORCE THE CULTURE TO ALTER THE STANDARDS THAT NATURE DESIGNED

Repeat after me:

There is no Amendment

(Repeat)

In the Constitution

(Repeat)

that governs marriage.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Oh, so, there is an Amendment? Please by all means show me. Funny how you won't contest otherwise. Go to bed, kid.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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.

Banning so-called styles of marriage is not unconstitutional. You have not made that case except by taking 'equal protection of the law' out of context.

Every law passed must apply to every citizen? No. I'm sure you could find plenty of legislation in which that is not the case. The Constitution most certainly does not say that.

Gay marriage is an 'added right.' The Constitution never explicitly or implicitly guaranteed it as a right. Never. It's not 'selectively applying' the 14th ammendment. It never historically guaranteed it either.

Constitution ramifications? Are you just throwing out stuff and hoping it sticks. The ramifications are courts have consistently not followed the law of the land and subverted democracy and the Constitution.

You can support gay marriage as a matter of conscious. But creating lies about the fabric of America is not honorable; and your conscious is not at the level you purport.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So... be honest... When the laws precluding incestuous homosexuality are lifted... Are you going to go to your neighbor's son and grandson's wedding?

Who said I wanted to normalize incest? Hmm? What does incest have to do with this discussion? You can't answer it.

What you said was that you are for anyone marrying anyone that they want...

You also said that you're fine with the law being changed to accommodate sexual deviants.

You also said that there's no honor in not obeying the law.

And you said you don't support incestuous homosexual marriage of Father's to their Minor son, because it's illegal. And you refuse to say if you would support such marriages when the law is changed to allow such.

You're all over the place here TK... There's not a discernible principle to be found in a dam' thing ya say.

And neither a Libertarian or a libertarian... would be very comfortable with that.

And with that said... Your concessions are ONCE AGAIN... duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Every law passed must apply to every citizen? No. I'm sure you could find plenty of legislation in which that is not the case. The Constitution most certainly does not say that.

Uh yeah, it does. No citizen should be deprived equal protection of the law, whatever law it may be, whether through marriage, crime and punishment, or anything else. It applies equally to those it pertains.

The Constitution never explicitly or implicitly guaranteed it as a right.

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't. What I'm saying is that if you are going to make a law pertaining to marriage, it should apply equally. I'm sorry that's such an issue with people. My position is from the strict legal position.

Constitution ramifications? Are you just throwing out stuff and hoping it sticks.

Nope. Any law that is legislated needs to be tested against the Constitution. Thus such a test is considering what ramifications it has on the Constitutional rights of those it governs.

You can support gay marriage as a matter of conscious.

As a matter of conscience, I don't; and I made that clear in Post #1. But also as a matter of conscience, I don't think people should pass laws which demand they be treated differently than everyone else. I'm sorry you don't like that position, but that is your right.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now given that nature also designed the Human Species... which is designed SPECIFICALLY with TWO DISTINCT AND COMPLIMENTING GENDERS... designed SPECIFICALLY FOR JOINING SEXUALLY... and GIVEN THAT NO WHERE IN THE US CONSTITUTION IS THERE A WORD WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THOSE WHO DEVIATE FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD SHOULD FORCE THE CULTURE TO ALTER THE STANDARDS THAT NATURE DESIGNED

Repeat after me:

There is no Amendment

(Repeat)

In the Constitution

(Repeat)

that governs marriage.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Oh, so, there is an Amendment? Please by all means show me. Funny how you won't contest otherwise. Go to bed, kid.

Psst... the Bill of Rights protects the means to exercise rights which are inseparable from the being... that there is no right protecting the right to marry a person of one's own gender is a clue that the framers of the US Constitution did not recognize a right to advance perverse reasoning as truth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You also said that you're fine with the law being changed to accommodate sexual deviants.

No. I have repeatedly stated laws should not be created that discriminate against other people. How hard is that for you to understand?!

If you make a law, example (The X Act) it has to be measured against the constitution. If the law deprives any citizen, of a constitutional right, then it is thereby unconstitutional.

You also said that there's no honor in not obeying the law.

Yes I did. There is no honor in discrimination, discrimination is within itself unlawful, thus dishonorable. Capische?

And you said you don't support incestuous homosexual marriage of Father's to their Minor son, because it's illegal.

Would you prefer it were?

And with that said... Your concessions are ONCE AGAIN... duly noted and summarily accepted.

And once again, there is no concession. I told you I would fervently defend this position, and so far all you have to say is

"Your concessions are duly noted and summarily accepted."

Keep trying.

You're all over the place here TK... There's not a discernible principle to be found in a dam' thing ya say.

Uh, then, why are you still debating me? Hmm?

So... be honest... When the laws precluding incestuous homosexuality are lifted... Are you going to go to your neighbor's son and grandson's wedding?

Who said I wanted to normalize incest? Hmm? What does incest have to do with this discussion? You can't answer it.

Be honest, did I ever advocate for the normalization of homosexuality or incestuous behavior?

Answer this question or forfeit the point. Do it now.

I also note you failed to answer this question:

Thus you automatically forfeit this debate.

Moving along.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Psst... the Bill of Rights protects the means to exercise rights which are inseparable from the being... that there is no right protecting the right to marry a person of one's own gender is a clue that the framers of the US Constitution did not recognize a right to advance perverse reasoning as truth.

So, how can you contend to separate people from their rights using a document meant to guarantee rights? You'd think if marriage was such an issue to the founders, that they would have put something in the Constitution to, you know, deal with it. But hey, you can use the Constitution to discriminate if you wish. Don't let me stop you.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

So... be honest... When the laws precluding incestuous homosexuality are lifted... Are you going to go to your neighbor's son and grandson's wedding?

Who said I wanted to normalize incest? Hmm? What does incest have to do with this discussion? You can't answer it.

Be honest, did I ever advocate for the normalization of homosexuality or incestuous behavior?

Answer this question or forfeit the point. Do it now.

By your absurd definition of 'equal protection' you have to say that incestual marriage is constitutionally protected. If you're not saying so, then you're a hypocrite.