Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

Proof that Sil and Where_r_my_Keys scream to the end of days without effect at all.

 

[RKMBrown]

Clearly you don't remember way back in the 70s when it was illegal to be gay in this country.

I don't remember the 70s?

ROFLMNAO! You truly are helpless.

You are clearly a liar or an idiot. Which is it?

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where is a clearly a lying idiot.

 

[RKMBrown]

Where is a clearly a lying idiot.

My bad... was giving him the benefit of doubt.

 

[dblack]

That's part of liberty, yeah.

What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.

Wrong. Raping people is not liberty.

Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE? Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?

So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?

ROFLMNAO!

That is ADORABLE! I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning. Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.

OH! And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.

Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape. Yeah I like the Duke. Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public. Duh.

Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will never be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional limits on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.

These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws. But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Skylar]

There's nothing false about it.

Oh, its obviously, ineptly, gloriously false.....as no gay person need choose one or the other. Sodomy laws are unconstitutional, making them illegal. Instantly rendering your false dichotomy meaningless flotsam. As in no state is a gay person subject to criminal prosecution for coming out publicly about their sexuality. While marriage equality is expanding across the nation.

The only dichotomy that gays actually face is do they get married in their state. Or do they go to another State to have it done? As when gay marriage is legal in any state, its legal in every state due to the interstate reciprocity of contracts required by the constitution.

So get ready for married gay couples in your State! If they're not already there, they will be soon.

Yes, when you make your sexual orientation public, you forfeit your right to privacy regarding your sexual orientation...

If you come out as gay, sodomy laws criminalizing your sexual practices don't suddenly become legal again. They're still unconstitutional and unenforcible relics of an ignorant age, having no applicability or jurisdiction anywhere in the United States.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about, expressing your desires rather than any understanding of the actual law. Read up on Lawrence V. Texas if your desire for reason ever outweighs your personal bigotry.

Lawrence and Garner v. Texas The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

On the basis that one's sexual life is private... where one makes that sexual life public, demanding that others accept the underlying deviant behavior, demanding that behavior which incontestably deviates from sexual normality, be considered normal... THERE IS NO POTENTIAL FOR SUCH A RIGHT, THUS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR SUCH.

Wrong. It was three different basis. First, on the basis that the acts occurred in a private dwelling. Which, of course it still does. If a gay man wants to walk with a feather boa in the middle of a gay pride parade singing 'Its Raining Men' in his best Ru Paul impression, he's untouchable by sodomy laws for any sex he and his partner have in their own home.

Second, it was based on their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

Third, it was found that even the *existence* of such sodomy laws violated the rights of homosexuals as they were unequally applied, were discriminatory toward gays and lesbians and demeaned their dignity.

Getting married or announcing one's sexuality doesn't change the protection granted *anyone* from unwarranted government intrusion into their dwellings or other private places. Nor does it magically grant the government the the authority to intervene in conduct that gays and lesbians have a full right to engage in.

Rendering your false dichotomy just another piece of poorly thought through flotsam of no particular relevance to the law or the rights of anyone.

 

[Skylar]

True. Nature defines what legitimate sexual behavior is. And it does so SPECIFICALLY through the standards intrinsic to the physiological design of the human species.

You don't speak for nature. And nature doesn't have a thing to day about the 'legitimacy' of any sexual act. These are your value judgments based on your personal opinion. Which has no legal relevance.

There are many, many reasons to have sex. You acknowledge only one: conception. Your refusal to acknowledge any other reason a person might have sex has no effect on the existence of those reasons. As your personal opinion has no relevance to anyone but you. The other reasons still exist. Blow jobs, hand jobs, condoms, birth control, the belly method, old people having sex....none result in conception. And none are either 'legitimate' or 'fraudulent'. They simply are.

Your entire argument is predicated on us accepting your value judgments as 1) objectively authoritative 2) legally relevant.

They're neither. Leaving you with nothing but a bucket load of your own opinions mixed with a heaping mound of legal irrelevance.

 

[Skylar]

I'll say it: EVIL... Which is manifested through the irrational species of reasoning known as relativism. Evil is the force in nature which repels good.

If ya want to see what evil looks like, find a mirror.

Save of course that breaking into the homes of gay people to arrest them for consensual sex isn't 'good'. Nor is denying gays and lesbians the right to marry 'good' based on standards that apply to no one.

You may consider anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do to be 'evil'. But your opinion doesn't define morality anymore than it defines the law.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. Raping people is not liberty.

Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE? Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?

So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?

ROFLMNAO!

That is ADORABLE! I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning. Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.

OH! And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.

Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape. Yeah I like the Duke. Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public. Duh.

Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will never be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional limits on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.

These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws. But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.

I'm not sure what your point is.

I got that part.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Clearly you don't remember way back in the 70s when it was illegal to be gay in this country.

I don't remember the 70s?

ROFLMNAO! You truly are helpless.

You are clearly a liar or an idiot. Which is it?

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So a link to the oracle of all Leftist knowledge, proves that I am a liar and an idiot, or that the United States tried to starve homosexuals in the 1970s?

(OH! Just to be fair to you, given your the disadvantage; your link doesn't prove a dam' thing... but it shouldn't given its irrelevance to anything actually being debate, here. I hope that helps.)

But Pilgrim, I want you to know that it' clear to me that you're doin' the best you can! And no one can take THAT from ya.

 

[RKMBrown]

Clearly you don't remember way back in the 70s when it was illegal to be gay in this country.

I don't remember the 70s?

ROFLMNAO! You truly are helpless.

You are clearly a liar or an idiot. Which is it?

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So a link to the oracle of all Leftist knowledge, proves that I am a liar and an idiot, or that the United States tried to starve homosexuals in the 1970s?

(OH! Just to be fair to you, given your the disadvantage; your link doesn't prove a dam' thing... but it shouldn't given its irrelevance to anything actually being debate, here. I hope that helps.)

But Pilgrim, I want you to know that it' clear to me that you're doin' the best you can! And no one can take THAT from ya.

Try to keep up... I know it's hard for the mentally challenged.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'll say it: EVIL... Which is manifested through the irrational species of reasoning known as relativism. Evil is the force in nature which repels good.

If ya want to see what evil looks like, find a mirror.

Save of course that breaking into the homes of gay people to arrest them for consensual sex isn't 'good'.

Who is breaking into the homes and arresting people for having sex?

Nor is denying gays and lesbians the right to marry 'good' based on standards that apply to no one.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. But, because we in the United States do not discriminate against sexual deviants, until, inevitably, they molest a child, at which time we kill them...

You may consider anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do to be 'evil'.

DO I? In reality, you're conflating what I 'do' with what you NEED to project that I do... Which is what one would reasonably expect of evil.

But your opinion doesn't define morality anymore than it defines the law.

True, Natural Law and the means to reason objectively and soundly so as so to be able to observe those laws, is what defines morality. Which sits as the basis for legitimate law.

 

[Unkotare]

Try to keep up... I know it's hard for the mentally challenged.

You would know all about that.

 

[dblack]

Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE? Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?

So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?

ROFLMNAO!

That is ADORABLE! I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning. Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.

OH! And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.

Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape. Yeah I like the Duke. Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public. Duh.

Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will never be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional limits on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.

These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws. But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.

I'm not sure what your point is.

I got that part.

You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.

 

[Skylar]

Who is breaking into the homes and arresting people for having sex?

No one, now that its been ruled unconstitutional. You know, the half of your false dichotomy that doesn't apply anywhere in the US, to anyone?

But before those heinous laws were overturned, police were breaking into people's homes to arrest folks for engaging in consensual sexual activity. In the 2000s, it was Texas and their Sodomy laws. In the 60s, it was Virginia and their bans on interracial sex. Both on the grounds that such relations were 'unnatural'.

It didn't work out well for the State in either case. With the USSC overturning the unjust and discriminatory laws, rendering them illegal to enforce. As they should be.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. But, because we in the United States do not discriminate against sexual deviants, until, inevitably, they molest a child, at which time we kill them...

Says you. The law in 30 of 50 states says otherwise. Every circuit court to hear the issue has said otherwise. Clearly you citing yourself doesn't amount to much.

Get ready for married gay people in your State. Their marriages either are or will be just as legally valid as yours, convey the same rights and privileges as yours and be protected the same as yours. As the rights gay seek are the exact same rights you already have.

True, Natural Law and the means to reason objectively and soundly so as so to be able to observe those laws, is what defines morality. Which sits as the basis for legitimate law.

'Natural law' doesn't say anything about 'good or evil' related to sex. Those are your subjective value judgments based on your personal opinions. They have no relevance to the law, morality, objective truth, or any of the other criteria you fallaciously claim infallible interpretation of.

Its just you, citing you. And your feelings don't define anyone else's rights.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... it's hard for the mentally challenged.

Well, that does appear to be the case. I wish there was more that could be done for you folks. It breaks my heart to see you struggle so.

 

[Skylar]

What SPECIFIC 'excuses', do you 'feel' have been 'debunked'?

That marriage requires the ability to procreate. Or that children are in any way exclusively relevant to marriage.

That Windsor ruled that gay marriage bans are constitutional.

That the States have the authority to strip people of their individual rights with a simple majority vote.

The false dichotomies that gays must either remain secret about their sexual orientation or that sodomy laws criminalizing their behavior come back into force.

The nonsense idea that gay marriage in anyway effects straight marriage, robs straights of right, or effects straights in any meaningful way.

And the adorable but uselessly misinformed idea that you are immune to any law you disagree with.

All of these claims are debunked nonsense. And as they are stripped away, we get more and more anti-gay vitriol, naked bigotry and more babble about religion. Which may motivate some in their opposition to gay marriage, but is laughably irrelevant to the rights of gays and lesbians to be married under the law.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape. Yeah I like the Duke. Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public. Duh.

Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will never be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional limits on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.

These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws. But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.

I'm not sure what your point is.

I got that part.

You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.

People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone. The bigotry is real. If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules. You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Who is breaking into the homes and arresting people for having sex?

No one ...

Yet, you asserted, as fact, that such was the case, a fraudulence, advanced in a deceitful attempt to influence the ignorant. My goodness... isn't it remarkable how consistently your behavior maps that precisely, with that which one would reasonably expect of evil.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. But, because we in the United States do not discriminate against sexual deviants, until, inevitably, they molest a child, at which time we kill them...

Says you.

Well I do, that's true, but I only say it because that is what nature demonstrates through the intrinsic design of human phsyiology. Which otherwise stands as irrefutable fact, but all except the suffering the most profound sociopathy.

The law in 30 of 50 states says otherwise.

False, no less than 31 states in the United States have constitutions which define marriage as Nature Defines it.

Every circuit court to hear the issue has said otherwise.

Well one of the downsides to Relativism is that as a result if its axiomatic rejections of objectivity, where it finds power, it fails to service justice. And when justice is not served, the adjudicators responsible for such become quite irrelevant, as you're presently discovering.

Get ready for married gay people

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. I am a citizen of Florida and we have many sexually abnormal people who are married here. And have had since the inception of the state. We're quite comfortable with them. It's the price one pays for living in a free society. We keep as a close an eye on them as possible, doing what we can to preclude them from spending any time with children. But inevitably, we find from time to time that they've taken positions of trust and molested children.

At which time, more often than not we find them after they've taken their own lives... and where they haven't we help them along, where we can.

True, Natural Law and the means to reason objectively and soundly so as so to be able to observe those laws, is what defines morality. Which sits as the basis for legitimate law.

'Natural law' doesn't say anything about 'good or evil' related to sex.

It actually does... your ignorance of such, sadly for your argument, doesn't change that fact.

Those are your subjective value judgments based on your personal opinions.

Those are the soundly reasoned conclusions of men who observed those laws centuries before I came along. And there is nothing even potentially subjective about them. If you had the slightest understanding of the meaning of such, you'd know that.

There is no potential advantage to anyone to recognize nature's law. In truth, recognizing, respecting, defending and adhering to these laws is hard... it requires discipline and constant vigil.

Which is why you and the cult of perversion reject them. And such is the nature of evil, thus what one should reasonably expect, from it.

 

[dblack]

Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will never be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional limits on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.

These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws. But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.

I'm not sure what your point is.

I got that part.

You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.

People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone. The bigotry is real. If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules. You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.

C'mon. Stow the strawmen and address my arguments. I'm not denying bigotry exists. Morons on this thread are proving its true. I'm disputing that fact as a justification for PA laws. In particular, I'm calling bullshit on the alarmist nonsense that protected minorities will be "run out of the country" if such laws are repealed. The only bigotry PA laws ever impact is bigotry that's on the way out anyway. All they've done is paved the way for corporatist government where our rights are no longer equal for all individuals, but instead assigned by class, based on how much political clout a given interest group wields. That's really bad government, and we'll regret it in the long run.