A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[TemplarKormac]

By your absurd definition of 'equal protection' you have to say that incestual marriage is constitutionally protected.

Did I say that? Or is this something you guys are building into my position to justify yours?

Where specifically did I say such a thing? Letting gays marry will in no way legalize incest! For petes sakes man! At any rate, making a law that complies with the Constitution isn't hard, making a law which applies equally to whomever it pertains isn't rocket science. That's all I ask.

If you're not saying so, then you're a hypocrite.

Think what you will.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

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.

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?

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.

No problem... The issue is not that you advocated for the normalization of anything, the issue is that your lack of contest of the Advocacy to Normalize such is a tacit approval of such... making you part of the problem, that IS such.

Now here's your problem:

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.

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.

So... for the last time. Why are you against Equal Protection of the Law, for the lowly incestuous Homosexual, who just wants to marry his minor son?

We already know that such is illegal... which again is IRRELEVANT, because you're FOR changes in the law that provides for other sexual deviants to marrying the subject of their respective kink... why not the incestuous Homosexual Pedophile?

And with that... the lid closes on your feckless rationalization soup.

I'll look to see how ya inevitably concede, tomorrow.

 

[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.

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.

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?

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.

No problem... The issue is not that you advocated for the normalization of anything, the issue is that your lack of contest of the Advocacy to Normalize such is a tacit approval of such... making you part of the problem, that IS such.

Now here's your problem:

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.

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.

So... for the last time. Why are you against Equal Protection of the Law, for the lowly incestuous Homosexual, who just wants to marry his minor son?

We already know that such is illegal... which again is IRRELEVANT, because you're against the law that allows other sexual deviants to marry the subject of their kink... why not the incestuous Homosexual Pedophile?

And with that... the lid closes on your feckless rationalization soup.

I'll look to see how ya inevitably concede, tomorrow.

Bye! Oooh, and how do I contest a slippery slope argument? Please do tell.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why are you against Equal Protection of the Law, for the lowly incestuous Homosexual, who just wants to marry his minor son?

And why are you arguing for it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anybody else? Okay. Now I'm going to bed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

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.

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?

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.

No problem... The issue is not that you advocated for the normalization of anything, the issue is that your lack of contest of the Advocacy to Normalize such is a tacit approval of such... making you part of the problem, that IS such.

Now here's your problem:

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.

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.

So... for the last time. Why are you against Equal Protection of the Law, for the lowly incestuous Homosexual, who just wants to marry his minor son?

We already know that such is illegal... which again is IRRELEVANT, because you're against the law that allows other sexual deviants to marry the subject of their kink... why not the incestuous Homosexual Pedophile?

And with that... the lid closes on your feckless rationalization soup.

I'll look to see how ya inevitably concede, tomorrow.

Bye! Oooh, and how do I contest a slippery slope argument? Please do tell.

Oh...

That works.

Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted!

ROFLMNAO!

You've clearly given this a LOT of 'feeling' TK...

If ya ever find some valid reasoning, be sure to pm me with a heads up, I'd love to read it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why are you against Equal Protection of the Law, for the lowly incestuous Homosexual, who just wants to marry his minor son?

And why are you arguing for it?

LOL! That is as ADORABLE as it is Desperate.

Your re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL! That is as ADORABLE as it is Desperate.

You're the one making the argument, not me. So why are you arguing for constitutional rights of Incestuous Homosexuals, hmm?

 

[TemplarKormac]

By the way, I thought you were leaving? What happened? Your sleep number bed not working perchance?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

By your absurd definition of 'equal protection' you have to say that incestual marriage is constitutionally protected.

Did I say that? Or is this something you guys are building into my position to justify yours?

Where specifically did I say such a thing? Letting gays marry will in no way legalize incest! For petes sakes man! At any rate, making a law that complies with the Constitution isn't hard, making a law which applies equally to whomever it pertains isn't rocket science. That's all I ask.

If you're not saying so, then you're a hypocrite.

Think what you will.

Equal protection according to you. People have to be allowed to marry who they want. I guess your conscious 'discriminates' also.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I guess your conscious 'discriminates' also.

No it doesn't, sir. Simply put, straights can marry who they want, gays can marry who they want. There, no discrimination.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I guess your conscious 'discriminates' also.

No it doesn't, sir. Simply put, straights can marry who they want, gays can marry who they want. There, no discrimination.

There also is no discrimination in requiring the person married is an unrelated adult of the opposite sex.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I guess your conscious 'discriminates' also.

No it doesn't, sir. Simply put, straights can marry who they want, gays can marry who they want. There, no discrimination.

There also is no discrimination in requiring the person married is an unrelated adult of the opposite sex.

What?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Case law in an overwhelming super majority of cases and some legislatures and the majority of Americans disagree with your opinion that "There also is no discrimination in requiring the person married is an unrelated adult of the opposite sex."

And so will SCOTUS in some three months.

 

[Inevitable]

I had a tough go of it. No really, as a Christian I think homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong and patently sinful, thusly I don't condone either. I've really wrestled my conscience mightily over it. But after a mighty struggle and in a moment of clarity, it has dawned on me that gay people deserve rights like I do, and I will defend them, I won't force equality, I'll fight for it. America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom and free association.

Yes, the Republicans on this board can go ahead and get angry at me all they want, this position will not change. I really don't care how gay people become gay, they deserve to be treated equally. I don't have a problem with people holding true to their morals, but when they agree to serve people equally under the law, they should.

You can't just set aside a just law for the sole reason of your personal belief. You can serve people equally without ever personally condoning the lifestyle choices of others. Equality has no bias.

Though I don't agree with your beliefs I can respect them.

And I appreciate your position.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You don't understand how the Constitution works.

Explain to us what you think the Ninth Amendment means.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

It is well within the realm of biology that two people of the same sex can derive pleasure and satisfaction from interacting sexually in the same way and to the same extent that two people of the opposite sex can.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Neither does yours.

I never implied it did... I merely pointed out God's position, as God stated it in the scriptures. THAT being God's word is God, telling you what reality IS.

The scriptures are hearsay. We have no idea who really wrote the scriptures, nor do we even know that the God of the Bible is the one and only true God.

So you're saying you have no idea who wrote such, but you're positive God did not inspire such?

Fascinatin'... thanks for sharing. If that had ANY relevance to the discussion, that would be ... relevant.

I don't have to be positive. There are hundreds of gods in hundreds of religions.

There are hundreds of expressions which recognize God.

But in fairness to you, given your intellectual limitations, there was no way you could hope to recognize that... .

I recognize that the best evidence is that Gods are human inventions. It is entirely possible that future additional evidence might confirm the actual existence of a God, or gods, but barring that,

it is irrational and prejudicial to treat an invented supernatural being as a legal authority in a secular society.

It is also fallacious to try to use such an invention as a logical argument in a debate that should rightly be fact based.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Any sexual deviant can marry any other sexual deviant, as long as they apply for marriage, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE... with a person of the distinct gender.

A non sequitur.

A fact.

An unsupported supposition.

In truth Nature supports it, through the human physiological design.

It's not even a debatable point.

Nature supports polygamy in many species including primates. Nature supports attacking one's neighbor to steal his woman or women. Nature supports females breeding at puberty, which in humans is what, 12 or 13?

Furthermore, there's a virtually interminable list of horrible things in the animal kingdom that are supported by 'Nature'.

What is 'natural' is the worst argument ever for codifying human behavior.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

It is well within the realm of biology that two people of the same sex can derive pleasure and satisfaction from interacting sexually in the same way and to the same extent that two people of the opposite sex can.

Not really. Heterosexual sex is natural and simultaneously gives both partners pleasure. The vagina is biologically designed to accommodate the male penis and goes through a serious of changes when a woman is aroused, increased blood flow, lubrication, etc. The anus is not designed this way and gay men have to lubricate it themselves and give a reach around in order to pleasure both. If every baby boy was given a tattoo on his ass saying "exit only" you Leftists might understand it, but because they don't, you have to have simple biology explained to you.