A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Yet you exist as a function of the Creation, subject to the same laws as the Christians, who differ from you only in their objective recognition that where there is a creation, there exists a Creator.

What you need to understand is that your 'belief' in gravity... in no way determines if you're more or less subject to the influence of such. And the same goes for every other law of nature... from the physical laws to the laws governing human behavior.

The problem you have is that your violation of those laws often does not just affect you... and THAT is what is at issue here. You idiots have recently crashed the global financial markets and that affected us too, so we're crackin' down on idiocy.

You and the cult, should be so advised.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Leftists think they descended from crap flinging apes. It really explains a lot of their bizarre behaviors.

Yes... it explains a LOT! Everything from "HOPE for CHANGE" to the professed intent to "Fundamentally Change the United States of America!"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader... now THAT is how THAT is done.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

"Sexual deviants"

"Perversion of reason"

"Sexual abnormality"

"Human physiological standard"

"Nature of Evil"

Look, you've been repeating those phrases over and over and over. I'm not buying it. Your reasoning, I'd wager, is similar to what a white supremacist would attempt by trying justify his discrimination against blacks in society.

And why would you think all of them are evil? Just by saying so you have delegitimized your argument. That was the true crux of your argument all along, that gays are "evil." True some of them are evil to the point where they seek out and destroy other people because of their dissent, but the majority of them are regular citizens who live regular lives.

To posit that they are inherently evil is preposterous. Now answer me this:

Do you hate them?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

No I'm not. But you and keys are both exuding enormous amounts of hatred. Eh, yeah.

Anyhow, my contention has and always was that you can't ban gay marriage, for one simple reason:

If such a law is to be passed, like any other law, it is subject to the Constitutional standard. Whether I care for gays or their practices are irrelevant. In a strictly legal sense, the laws do not pass muster. My entire argument was purely based on that contention.

Government has already outlawed incest, but what it isn't allowed to do is regulate marriage to the point where anyone and anything can marry. Marriage now has two distinct definitions according to them: Heterosexual and Homosexual. It says nothing about legalizing incest, nothing about men marrying goats, dogs marrying cats, or anything of the sort. Your argument is absurd. How you correlate homosexuality and incest is...beyond me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

So, why did states feel that they could use government to do just that? What are these "amendments" you speak of?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

So, once again, why would you use government to ban gay marriage? You speak of government imposition, but you seem to ignore the fact that you are wanting government to insert itself into the love lives of other individuals. Quite ironic really. The whole idea is individual freedom, not government imposition, whether it agrees with you or not.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And again Reader, THAT is how THAT is done.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Read any of the court cases. The courts are not taking 'equal protection of the law' out of context- they are applying it to the rights of Americans.

It is well established that we have an individual right to marry- the Supreme Court has established that repeatedly- and the courts have the right to overturn state marriage laws that are unconstitutional- the Supreme Court has confirmed that at least 3 times.

A State can deny equal protection- but must establish a compelling State interest in doing so- like denying ex-felons the right to own a gun.

States have not been making compelling arguments on how preventing homosexuals from marrying accomplishes some compelling state interest.

Just finding gay marriage 'icky' is not a compelling argument.

 

[Syriusly]

And again Reader, THAT is how THAT is done.

That is how Keyes demonstrates his delusions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Okay, so where in the Bible does it tell you to openly discriminate against someone? By all means find me an exact passage which tells you to treat people different than you.

"Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body. Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

Ephesians 4:25-32

 

[Syriusly]

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.

LOL- I love it when homophobes drag that strawman out.

By your absurd definition, you have to say that mixed race marriage is not constitutionally protected. If you are not saying so, then you are a hypocrite.

And before you go all "that was about race"- the State of Virginia was making arguments just like yours at the time.

If the State of Virginia had said in regards to "Mixed Race marriage bans" and the equal protection argument":

"By your absurd definition of 'equal protection']in regards to mixed race marriage] you have to say that incestuous marriage is constitutionally protected. If you are not saying so, then you're a hypocrite."

Were the Lovings hypocritical when they fought to be legally married- and they didn't also fight for incestuous marriage?

No- of course not- every case is its own case. The case in Loving v. Virginia was about bans on mixed race marriage, the current cases are about bans on same gender marriage- each stands on its own merits.

If you want to pursue the right to marry you mother, you can do what the Lovings did and what same gender couples are doing- go to the court and make the argument that bans on son's marrying their mother are unconstitutional.

Each issue is distinct- and same gender marriage is not mixed race marriage is not incestuous marriage- but regardless ANYONE is entitled to argue for constitutional protections.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Okay, so where in the Bible does it tell you to openly discriminate against someone?

Seriously?

There's the whole thing where Christ discriminates by offering humanity God's grace and informs those who reject it, eternity in incomprehensible anguish.

There's where God discriminated against the tribes who rejected his law... Have ya heard of God's profound discrimination against HUMANITY... in the Great Flood? Or perhaps the discrimination demonstrated at Sodom and Gomorra?

(the Reader should note that Sodom and Gomorra were, by comparison, a Nirvana of Chastity and Saintliness, compared to any City on the planet controlled by Leftists... without even considering Las VEGAS!)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Sexual deviants"

"Perversion of reason"

"Sexual abnormality"

"Human physiological standard"

"Nature of Evil"

Look, you've been repeating those phrases over and over and over.

Yes... but in fairness, that's only because those concepts identify the traits at issue.

Whether you buy it, pass... agree, disagree... affirm or contest, the irrefutable fact is that Homosexuality is the consequence of perverse reasoning, not only deviating from the human physiological standard, but deviating as FAR FROM THAT STANDARD AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE; by a full 180 degrees... which, at the end of the day, is the Nature of Evil.

Which is to say that which is profoundly immoral and malevolent, due to such being harmful and tending to harm, as a result of the deceit wherein the irrefutable deviancy is denied, thus advising the individual that profound deceit is truth, presenting an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder; OKA: Delusion.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, once again, why would you use government to ban gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The irrefutable fact is that Keys' speaking for Christ makes the righteous person want to puke.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The irrefutable fact is that Keys' speaking for Christ makes the righteous person want to puke.

The irrefutable fact is he should seek out the mental health treatment he so clearly needs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys exemplifies the fanatic Lutheran minister, Catholic priest, and Mormon bishop who supported the Nazis.

 

[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.

LOL- I love it when homophobes drag that strawman out.

By your absurd definition, you have to say that mixed race marriage is not constitutionally protected. If you are not saying so, then you are a hypocrite.

And before you go all "that was about race"- the State of Virginia was making arguments just like yours at the time.

If the State of Virginia had said in regards to "Mixed Race marriage bans" and the equal protection argument":

"By your absurd definition of 'equal protection']in regards to mixed race marriage] you have to say that incestuous marriage is constitutionally protected. If you are not saying so, then you're a hypocrite."

Were the Lovings hypocritical when they fought to be legally married- and they didn't also fight for incestuous marriage?

No- of course not- every case is its own case. The case in Loving v. Virginia was about bans on mixed race marriage, the current cases are about bans on same gender marriage- each stands on its own merits.

If you want to pursue the right to marry you mother, you can do what the Lovings did and what same gender couples are doing- go to the court and make the argument that bans on son's marrying their mother are unconstitutional.

Each issue is distinct- and same gender marriage is not mixed race marriage is not incestuous marriage- but regardless ANYONE is entitled to argue for constitutional protections.

Meh meh meh momophobes (mocking). Meh meh meh mrawman (mocking more). Shut your face. You want to talk pretending; the 14th amendment NEVER regarded people's choice of sexual lifestyle. And it's frankly quite clear. I think the writers of it must've been pretty wise. But corruption may win out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Absent consensus, Christians have no 'argument' their faith 'condemns' homosexuality.

Of course, Christian denominations remain at liberty to interpret their faith as they see fit, as has been the Christian tradition for more than 500 years; but no Christian is in a position to admonish a fellow Christian whose denomination affords marriage to same-sex couples as a 'heretic,' nor may Christians seek to use their faith as an 'exemption' from just and proper secular laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Heretic?

Well, Christ said that those who harm children would be better off tying themselves to a millstone and throwing that into the depths of the sea... and sexual abnormality explicitly preys upon children.

So.. accepting such, is heresy.

And as a Christian, I just declared such to be heresy, therefore, it turns out the clueless barrister is demonstrated to be DEAD-WRONG... again.

See how easy that is?

How does same sex marriage prey on children?