A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

Uh, because it's a crime?

So wait.... government does have a say in who shags who or it doesn't? You're sending mixed messages.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

But there are two amendments that keep the federal government, INCLUDING FEDERAL COURTS, out of the issue of marriage.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Share the truth all you want.

But always remember our country is governed by the Constitution, not by a doctrine by a far right contentious Christian sect.

For instance, don't be a self loathing projector like the author of this: "But if you feel you must litter the thread with your own addled rationalizations, you're entitled to do so,"

Our country is governed by fallible people who sometimes misuse or ignore the Constitution.

The Universe is governed by God according to His perfect law.

Which is better to obey?

"1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."

Romans 13:1-2.

"Then Peter and the apostles answered and said, 'We ought to obey God rather than men.'" Acts 5:29

I can do that too.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Hey, I think I just became a classical liberal!

No, classical liberals don't draw rights out of thin air and they don't give the federal government powers not granted by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

saintmike, you will not be forced to marry someone of your own sex.

saintmike, SCOTUS in in the constitutional business, whether or not you approve.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are no 'natural standards of marriage'...

So you're assuring the Reader, that Nature did not design humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders, wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted...

You're describing fucking. ...

Well, aren't you the cutting edge of intellect?

Sadly, for your would-be argument... What I described was the nature of human civilization, which is intrinsic to human physiology and the perpetuation of the species... wherein the highest probability for such, is through the natural and wholly sustainable human physiological construct, wherein nature designed humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted... the consequences of which cause the female to become physically compromised, which is offset by the complimenting traits of the male to tend to her sustenance and security pre-natal and post-natal to assist the female in training the progeny as she nurtures them, until such time that the child matures, establishing them self as a productive member of society... so that they can REPEAT THE PROCESS.

OKA: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION.

These being the Incontrovertible Facts of Nature, which you previously assured the reader, that such did not exist. And which you now return to again DENY what is OKA: REALITY.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

How does allowing gays to exist as co-equals with heterosexuals threaten the perpetuation of the human species?

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.

No discrimination in the laws of marriage, whatsoever.

You feel that such DOES discriminate because to men can't marry each other.

And that's because you refuse to recognize that MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

And that is because the marriage standard PRECLUDES MEN FROM MARRYING MEN, AND WOMEN MARRYING WOMAN, because (Pay close attention here) MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Now the law provides that two men, a goat and a 12 cats can join together incorporate... which provides them with the means to be recognized as ONE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED ENTITY.

Which is NOT MARRIAGE...

Marriage is the legitimate nucleus of civilization... but that is only because it precludes two men from joining together.

You never answered the question.

btw. How can marriage be only defined as one man one woman if polygamous marriage exists and has probably existed as long as one man one woman marriage has?

Who redefined marriage as only opposite sex monogamy?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you're assuring the Reader, that Nature did not design humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders, wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted...

You're describing fucking. ...

Well, aren't you the cutting edge of intellect?

Sadly, for your would-be argument... What I described was the nature of human civilization, which is intrinsic to human physiology and the perpetuation of the species... wherein the highest probability for such, is through the natural and wholly sustainable human physiological construct, wherein nature designed humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted... the consequences of which cause the female to become physically compromised, which is offset by the complimenting traits of the male to tend to her sustenance and security pre-natal and post-natal to assist the female in training the progeny as she nurtures them, until such time that the child matures, establishing them self as a productive member of society... so that they can REPEAT THE PROCESS.

OKA: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION.

These being the Incontrovertible Facts of Nature, which you previously assured the reader, that such did not exist. And which you now return to again DENY what is OKA: REALITY.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

How does allowing gays to exist as co-equals with heterosexuals threaten the perpetuation of the human species?

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.

No discrimination in the laws of marriage, whatsoever.

You feel that such DOES discriminate because to men can't marry each other.

And that's because you refuse to recognize that MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

And that is because the marriage standard PRECLUDES MEN FROM MARRYING MEN, AND WOMEN MARRYING WOMAN, because MARRIAGE IS THE JOING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

Now the law provides that two men, a goat and a 12 cats can join together incorporate... which provides them with the means to be recognized as ONE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED ENTITY.

Which is NOT MARRIAGE...

Marriage is the legitimate nucleus of civilization... but that is just because it precludes two men from joining together.

I reject your demand that the argument be premised on an agreed to fact that marriage by definition can only be between one man and one woman.

You are demanding that we accept as fact something that is in fact the subject of the debate itself.

The 'demand' should be rejected because as a fact of law marriage is not just between one man and one woman, marriage is the union of two equal partners, two consenting adults not related to each other, same- or opposite-sex.

We know this to be a fact because same-sex couples are indeed marrying in accordance with their states' laws, laws unchanged and not amended to accommodate same-sex couples.

Again, the issue has nothing to do with 'changing' marriage law or 'redefining' marriage – same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states now, that fact is beyond dispute.

The issue concerns the states seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in predicated solely on animus toward gay Americans, which explains why these laws are being invalidated by the courts.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So you're assuring the Reader, that Nature did not design humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders, wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted...

You're describing fucking. ...

Well, aren't you the cutting edge of intellect?

Sadly, for your would-be argument... What I described was the nature of human civilization, which is intrinsic to human physiology and the perpetuation of the species... wherein the highest probability for such, is through the natural and wholly sustainable human physiological construct, wherein nature designed humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted... the consequences of which cause the female to become physically compromised, which is offset by the complimenting traits of the male to tend to her sustenance and security pre-natal and post-natal to assist the female in training the progeny as she nurtures them, until such time that the child matures, establishing them self as a productive member of society... so that they can REPEAT THE PROCESS.

OKA: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION.

These being the Incontrovertible Facts of Nature, which you previously assured the reader, that such did not exist. And which you now return to again DENY what is OKA: REALITY.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

How does allowing gays to exist as co-equals with heterosexuals threaten the perpetuation of the human species?

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.

No discrimination in the laws of marriage, whatsoever.

You feel that such DOES discriminate because to men can't marry each other.

And that's because you refuse to recognize that MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

And that is because the marriage standard PRECLUDES MEN FROM MARRYING MEN, AND WOMEN MARRYING WOMAN, because (Pay close attention here) MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Now the law provides that two men, a goat and a 12 cats can join together incorporate... which provides them with the means to be recognized as ONE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED ENTITY.

Which is NOT MARRIAGE...

Marriage is the legitimate nucleus of civilization... but that is only because it precludes two men from joining together.

You never answered the question.

btw. How can marriage be only defined as one man one woman if polygamous marriage exists and has probably existed as long as one man one woman marriage has?

Who redefined marriage as only opposite sex monogamy?

Nobody redefined it. Marriage defined as one man and one woman has always been in response to others trying to expand what marriage is, beginning with the 1862 Morril Anti Bigamy law signed by your hero, Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I reject your demand that the argument be premised on an agreed to fact that marriage by definition can only be between one man and one woman.

You are demanding that we accept as fact something that is in fact the subject of the debate itself.

First: it's not my demand...

Second: any rejections you may have, regarding the laws of nature, should be taken up with the Creator of the universe.

... that said, I hear your feckless rejection, advanced through the fabrication common to straw reasoning and laugh and laugh, toward the belittlement of your addled perspective.

You concession is duly noted and summarily accept.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I reject your demand that the argument be premised on an agreed to fact that marriage by definition can only be between one man and one woman.

You are demanding that we accept as fact something that is in fact the subject of the debate itself.

First: it's not my demand...

Second: any rejections you may have, regarding the laws of nature, should be taken up with the Creator of the universe.

... that said, I hear your feckless rejection, advanced through the fabrication common to straw reasoning and laugh and laugh, toward the belittlement of your addled perspective.

You concession is duly noted and summarily accept.

Since the scriptures recognize the existence of polygamous marriage, and since you rely on scriptural evidence to make your arguments,

your claim that marriage is only between one man and one woman has been comprehensively refuted by your own source.

 

[Dana7360]

Christians are commanded to love everyone. If you love someone, and they are engaged in an activity that can potentially separate them from God for all eternity, aren't you required to guide them to the truth? To allow them to continue to practice what God has condemned is not love; it's avoiding your responsibility.

It's interesting to consider Romans 1:18 - 32. Homosexuality and lesbianism are not condemned in these passages. These practices are condemned elsewhere in the Bible. In these verses, homosexuality and lesbianism are the punishment for not acknowledging God as creator and Lord. God "gave them over" to their own destructive practices because they rejected His truth. They chose to follow man's ways, not God's ways.

Speak and apply God's truth in love. This will resolve your moral and political dilemma.

What you typed applies to christians and only those christians who actually buy it.

I'm not christian. Millions of other Americans aren't christian.

Live your life as you want. Be as christian as you want.

What you aren't allowed to do is force your christian beliefs on anyone else.

So stop doing it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hey, I think I just became a classical liberal!

No, classical liberals don't draw rights out of thin air and they don't give the federal government powers not granted by the U.S. Constitution.

The issue has nothing to do with 'Federal government powers,' whatever that's supposed to mean, the conflict is solely between the states and the American citizens who reside in the states who happen to be gay.

And the civil rights the states seek to deny gay Americans are the same rights you enjoy as a theist.

Let's assume your state sought to deny you a professional license simply because you're a Christian, allowing those of other faiths to obtain that same license although you are just as qualified as they.

That would be a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, where simply being Christian is not a rational basis upon which to deny anyone a professional license.

Likewise, seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in simply because they're gay also violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, where simply being gay is not a rational basis upon which to deny anyone a marriage license.

Consequently, no one is 'drawing rights out of thin air'; instead, the courts are correctly and appropriately applying 14th Amendment jurisprudence to cases where the states are seeking to disadvantage same-sex couples predicated solely on who they are, devoid of a rational basis, absent any objective, documented evidence in support, and not pursuant to a legitimate legislative end – where the right to due process and equal protection of the law is clearly 'granted' by the Constitution.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Hey, I think I just became a classical liberal!

No, classical liberals don't draw rights out of thin air and they don't give the federal government powers not granted by the U.S. Constitution.

The issue has nothing to do with 'Federal government powers,' whatever that's supposed to mean, the conflict is solely between the states and the American citizens who reside in the states who happen to be gay.

And the civil rights the states seek to deny gay Americans are the same rights you enjoy as a theist.

Let's assume your state sought to deny you a professional license simply because you're a Christian, allowing those of other faiths to obtain that same license although you are just as qualified as they.

That would be a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, where simply being Christian is not a rational basis upon which to deny anyone a professional license.

Likewise, seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in simply because they're gay also violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, where simply being gay is not a rational basis upon which to deny anyone a marriage license.

Consequently, no one is 'drawing rights out of thin air'; instead, the courts are correctly and appropriately applying 14th Amendment jurisprudence to cases where the states are seeking to disadvantage same-sex couples predicated solely on who they are, devoid of a rational basis, absent any objective, documented evidence in support, and not pursuant to a legitimate legislative end – where the right to due process and equal protection of the law is clearly 'granted' by the Constitution.

Your comparison is myopic. Religious faith and practice is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Living a perverted lifestyle is not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You're describing fucking. ...

Well, aren't you the cutting edge of intellect?

Sadly, for your would-be argument... What I described was the nature of human civilization, which is intrinsic to human physiology and the perpetuation of the species... wherein the highest probability for such, is through the natural and wholly sustainable human physiological construct, wherein nature designed humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted... the consequences of which cause the female to become physically compromised, which is offset by the complimenting traits of the male to tend to her sustenance and security pre-natal and post-natal to assist the female in training the progeny as she nurtures them, until such time that the child matures, establishing them self as a productive member of society... so that they can REPEAT THE PROCESS.

OKA: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION.

These being the Incontrovertible Facts of Nature, which you previously assured the reader, that such did not exist. And which you now return to again DENY what is OKA: REALITY.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

How does allowing gays to exist as co-equals with heterosexuals threaten the perpetuation of the human species?

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.

No discrimination in the laws of marriage, whatsoever.

You feel that such DOES discriminate because to men can't marry each other.

And that's because you refuse to recognize that MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

And that is because the marriage standard PRECLUDES MEN FROM MARRYING MEN, AND WOMEN MARRYING WOMAN, because (Pay close attention here) MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Now the law provides that two men, a goat and a 12 cats can join together incorporate... which provides them with the means to be recognized as ONE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED ENTITY.

Which is NOT MARRIAGE...

Marriage is the legitimate nucleus of civilization... but that is only because it precludes two men from joining together.

You never answered the question.

btw. How can marriage be only defined as one man one woman if polygamous marriage exists and has probably existed as long as one man one woman marriage has?

Who redefined marriage as only opposite sex monogamy?

Nobody redefined it. Marriage defined as one man and one woman has always been in response to others trying to expand what marriage is, beginning with the 1862 Morril Anti Bigamy law signed by your hero, Abraham Lincoln.

Nonsense.

The doctrine of coverture was abandoned in all 50 states well over half a century ago; since that time marriage has been between two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other, where they enter into a marriage contract recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Well, aren't you the cutting edge of intellect?

Sadly, for your would-be argument... What I described was the nature of human civilization, which is intrinsic to human physiology and the perpetuation of the species... wherein the highest probability for such, is through the natural and wholly sustainable human physiological construct, wherein nature designed humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted... the consequences of which cause the female to become physically compromised, which is offset by the complimenting traits of the male to tend to her sustenance and security pre-natal and post-natal to assist the female in training the progeny as she nurtures them, until such time that the child matures, establishing them self as a productive member of society... so that they can REPEAT THE PROCESS.

OKA: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION.

These being the Incontrovertible Facts of Nature, which you previously assured the reader, that such did not exist. And which you now return to again DENY what is OKA: REALITY.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

How does allowing gays to exist as co-equals with heterosexuals threaten the perpetuation of the human species?

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.

No discrimination in the laws of marriage, whatsoever.

You feel that such DOES discriminate because to men can't marry each other.

And that's because you refuse to recognize that MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

And that is because the marriage standard PRECLUDES MEN FROM MARRYING MEN, AND WOMEN MARRYING WOMAN, because (Pay close attention here) MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Now the law provides that two men, a goat and a 12 cats can join together incorporate... which provides them with the means to be recognized as ONE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED ENTITY.

Which is NOT MARRIAGE...

Marriage is the legitimate nucleus of civilization... but that is only because it precludes two men from joining together.

You never answered the question.

btw. How can marriage be only defined as one man one woman if polygamous marriage exists and has probably existed as long as one man one woman marriage has?

Who redefined marriage as only opposite sex monogamy?

Nobody redefined it. Marriage defined as one man and one woman has always been in response to others trying to expand what marriage is, beginning with the 1862 Morril Anti Bigamy law signed by your hero, Abraham Lincoln.

Nonsense.

The doctrine of coverture was abandoned in all 50 states well over half a century ago; since that time marriage has been between two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other, where they enter into a marriage contract recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

No, that has NOT been the prevailing legal trend for the last half a century.

Stop lying, Leftists!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes... I've just re-read your citation just to be sure... and I find nothing in your citation which requires that equal treatment under the law, forces one citizen to accept demonstrable deceit, as truth.

Just what is this 'deceit?'

When you agree to obey the law, you must obey it. When you agree to serve the public, you must. Thus you cannot claim ignorance to the law when such obedience conflicts with your morality. Sorry.

Um... the deceit is advanced where it is claimed that Sexual Abnormality does not deviate from the human physiological standard, thus is not the consequence of mental disorder, which hold deceit as truth... thus is not a threat to society, ergo, the deviancy establishes a legitimate 'sexuality, which is to say a quasi-third gender, and as such should be provided special protections above the law.

In truth Sexual Abnormality is a consequence of a perversion of reason, which rationalizes that one's own subjective needs supersede the rights of others; that that which is otherwise unacceptable, is acceptable; which rejects soundly reasoned cultural standards which preclude the behavior central to their kink... thus demonstrating the individuals axiomatic rejection of the essential elements required to recognize truth, thus rendering the individual unworthy of trust, ergo, a danger to society.

This is the same perversion of reason which concluded that sound lending principle was unfair... which ultimately crashed the international financial markets. Costing tens of millions of US Citizens their jobs and internationally, hundreds of millions of jobs... . It's the same perversion which rationalizes that paying a person to not work will influence them to seek gainful employment and that illicit drugs should be legalized and that pornography should be readily distributed, where children can have easy access to all of it.

And so on and so forth... .

So yeah... it's a menace... but hey, that IS the Nature of Evil. So it makes sense that it would be.

Does that help?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Christians are commanded to love everyone. If you love someone, and they are engaged in an activity that can potentially separate them from God for all eternity, aren't you required to guide them to the truth? To allow them to continue to practice what God has condemned is not love; it's avoiding your responsibility.

It's interesting to consider Romans 1:18 - 32. Homosexuality and lesbianism are not condemned in these passages. These practices are condemned elsewhere in the Bible. In these verses, homosexuality and lesbianism are the punishment for not acknowledging God as creator and Lord. God "gave them over" to their own destructive practices because they rejected His truth. They chose to follow man's ways, not God's ways.

Speak and apply God's truth in love. This will resolve your moral and political dilemma.

What you typed applies to christians and only those christians who actually buy it.

I'm not christian. Millions of other Americans aren't christian.

Live your life as you want. Be as christian as you want.

What you aren't allowed to do is force your christian beliefs on anyone else.

So stop doing it.

And the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, where there's clearly no consensus among Christians that their faith 'condemns' homosexuality.

If Christians themselves are in disagreement and conflict over the issue, they're clearly in no position to compel others to abide by a dogma of hate and ignorance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're describing fucking. ...

Well, aren't you the cutting edge of intellect?

Sadly, for your would-be argument... What I described was the nature of human civilization, which is intrinsic to human physiology and the perpetuation of the species... wherein the highest probability for such, is through the natural and wholly sustainable human physiological construct, wherein nature designed humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted... the consequences of which cause the female to become physically compromised, which is offset by the complimenting traits of the male to tend to her sustenance and security pre-natal and post-natal to assist the female in training the progeny as she nurtures them, until such time that the child matures, establishing them self as a productive member of society... so that they can REPEAT THE PROCESS.

OKA: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION.

These being the Incontrovertible Facts of Nature, which you previously assured the reader, that such did not exist. And which you now return to again DENY what is OKA: REALITY.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

How does allowing gays to exist as co-equals with heterosexuals threaten the perpetuation of the human species?

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.

No discrimination in the laws of marriage, whatsoever.

You feel that such DOES discriminate because to men can't marry each other.

And that's because you refuse to recognize that MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

And that is because the marriage standard PRECLUDES MEN FROM MARRYING MEN, AND WOMEN MARRYING WOMAN, because (Pay close attention here) MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Now the law provides that two men, a goat and a 12 cats can join together incorporate... which provides them with the means to be recognized as ONE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED ENTITY.

Which is NOT MARRIAGE...

Marriage is the legitimate nucleus of civilization... but that is only because it precludes two men from joining together.

You never answered the question.

btw. How can marriage be only defined as one man one woman if polygamous marriage exists and has probably existed as long as one man one woman marriage has?

Who redefined marriage as only opposite sex monogamy?

Nobody redefined it. Marriage defined as one man and one woman has always been in response to others trying to expand what marriage is, beginning with the 1862 Morril Anti Bigamy law signed by your hero, Abraham Lincoln.

Polygamous marriage predates 1862 by centuries.

Yes... I've just re-read your citation just to be sure... and I find nothing in your citation which requires that equal treatment under the law, forces one citizen to accept demonstrable deceit, as truth.

Just what is this 'deceit?'

When you agree to obey the law, you must obey it. When you agree to serve the public, you must. Thus you cannot claim ignorance to the law when such obedience conflicts with your morality. Sorry.

Um... the deceit is advanced where it is claimed that Sexual Abnormality does not deviate from the human physiological standard, thus is not the consequence of mental disorder, which hold deceit as truth... thus is not a threat to society, ergo, the deviancy establishes a legitimate 'sexuality, which is to say a quasi-third gender, and as such should be provided special protections above the law.

In truth Sexual Abnormality is a consequence of a perversion of reason, which rationalizes that one's own subjective needs supersede the rights of others; that that which is otherwise unacceptable, is acceptable; which rejects soundly reasoned cultural standards which preclude the behavior central to their kink... thus demonstrating the individuals axiomatic rejection of the essential elements required to recognize truth, thus rendering the individual unworthy of trust, ergo, a danger to society.

This is the same perversion of reason which concluded that sound lending principle was unfair... which ultimately crashed the international financial markets. Costing tens of millions of US Citizens their jobs and internationally, hundreds of millions of jobs... . It's the same perversion which rationalizes that paying a person to not work will influence them to seek gainful employment and that illicit drugs should be legalized and that pornography should be readily distributed, where children can have easy access to all of it.

And so on and so forth... .

So yeah... it's a menace... but hey, that IS the Nature of Evil. So it makes sense that it would be.

Does that help?

Abnormal does not does not equate to unacceptable. It's abnormal to have blue eyes. It's abnormal for married couples to only have sex when they're trying to make a baby. It's abnormal now to hunt, since only a fraction of the population do it. It's abnormal to own a handgun, since most people don't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Christians are commanded to love everyone. If you love someone, and they are engaged in an activity that can potentially separate them from God for all eternity, aren't you required to guide them to the truth? To allow them to continue to practice what God has condemned is not love; it's avoiding your responsibility.

It's interesting to consider Romans 1:18 - 32. Homosexuality and lesbianism are not condemned in these passages. These practices are condemned elsewhere in the Bible. In these verses, homosexuality and lesbianism are the punishment for not acknowledging God as creator and Lord. God "gave them over" to their own destructive practices because they rejected His truth. They chose to follow man's ways, not God's ways.

Speak and apply God's truth in love. This will resolve your moral and political dilemma.

What you typed applies to christians and only those christians who actually buy it.

I'm not christian. Millions of other Americans aren't christian.

Live your life as you want. Be as christian as you want.

What you aren't allowed to do is force your christian beliefs on anyone else.

So stop doing it.

And the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, where there's clearly no consensus among Christians that their faith 'condemns' homosexuality.

If Christians themselves are in disagreement and conflict over the issue, they're clearly in no position to compel others to abide by a dogma of hate and ignorance.

Presbyterians approve gay marriage in constitution

Presbyterians approve gay marriage in constitution The Columbian

That makes gay marriage officially a Christian institution.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you're assuring the Reader, that Nature did not design humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders, wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted...

You're describing fucking. ...

Well, aren't you the cutting edge of intellect?

Sadly, for your would-be argument... What I described was the nature of human civilization, which is intrinsic to human physiology and the perpetuation of the species... wherein the highest probability for such, is through the natural and wholly sustainable human physiological construct, wherein nature designed humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted... the consequences of which cause the female to become physically compromised, which is offset by the complimenting traits of the male to tend to her sustenance and security pre-natal and post-natal to assist the female in training the progeny as she nurtures them, until such time that the child matures, establishing them self as a productive member of society... so that they can REPEAT THE PROCESS.

OKA: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION.

These being the Incontrovertible Facts of Nature, which you previously assured the reader, that such did not exist. And which you now return to again DENY what is OKA: REALITY.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

How does allowing gays to exist as co-equals with heterosexuals threaten the perpetuation of the human species?

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.

No discrimination in the laws of marriage, whatsoever.

You feel that such DOES discriminate because to men can't marry each other.

And that's because you refuse to recognize that MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

And that is because the marriage standard PRECLUDES MEN FROM MARRYING MEN, AND WOMEN MARRYING WOMAN, because (Pay close attention here) MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Now the law provides that two men, a goat and a 12 cats can join together incorporate... which provides them with the means to be recognized as ONE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED ENTITY.

Which is NOT MARRIAGE...

Marriage is the legitimate nucleus of civilization... but that is only because it precludes two men from joining together.

You never answered the question.

btw. How can marriage be only defined as one man one woman if polygamous marriage exists and has probably existed as long as one man one woman marriage has?

Who redefined marriage as only opposite sex monogamy?

Nature... .

Of which you've been informed on this thread alone no less than 25 times.

I realize that you feel that because the lower species fling their feces that such is acceptable behavior for Human beings. But you feel that way because YOU do not possess the higher level of intellect which separates the Human being from the lower species, thus your means to reason is lower.

But in reality, where a human being flings their feces, we beat their ass... slap them in handcuffs, declare them a medical threat, lock their ass up and let medical professionals visit them once a week to fill out a form and move on to the next fruitcake to repeat the process.