Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Secure in papers from search and seizure is the definition of privacy. To pretend it's not there because they did not use the word privacy, thus arguing its constitutional to take away your privacy by unreasonably searching and seizing your papers is ludicrous.

Nothing in the Constitution, and especially nothing in the fourteen amendment provides for a definition of protection of marriage. The only thing that even comes close is the right to life and liberty, which one could argue includes marriage. But more particularly, the 14th is not the right TO life and liberty, the 14th is the right of the state to TAKE your life and liberty with due process. IOW the 14th is more the authoritarian right of the majority to limit, through due process, the rights of the people. For example the right to limit gays from getting married through tyranny of the majority if they say they used due process.

However privacy covers more than just searches of your papers, wouldn't you say? This is merely one part of privacy.

Who you choose to marry is your own matter and part of personal privacy.

A lot of what is considered privacy has come through interpretation through the courts, the same as the right to marry.

Also, you're missing the 9th amendment from this, which makes it clear not all rights are protected in writing with the actual words in the BoRs.

I think you are confusing personal decisions, such as private matters between you and your wife as privacy.

As to the 9th amendment... yeah the 9th and 10th amendments were made entirely moot by the amendments that came after the civil war.

Incorrect.

The fact is the 9th and 10th Amendments never meant what you and others on the right perceived them to mean:

From the beginning and for many years, the [10th A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

United States v. Darby | LII / Legal Information Institute

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court explained it was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government, Federal laws, and the rulings of Federal courts be supreme.

What most conservatives fail to understand, or refuse to accept, is the fact that Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, and residents of a given state subordinate to that. The states may not interfere with the relationship between a citizen and his Federal government, or the Federal Constitution whose case law safeguards his civil liberties (US Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)).

The states, therefore, have never had the ‘right’ to deny citizens of the United States their civil liberties, including the right to vote, the right to move about the country freely, and the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

 

[MaryL]

Again, this reminds me of that one Twilight zone episode, with the kid that controlled everything, A metaphor. Gays are like that now, with all that money buying up media and lawyers.Think happy thoughts! This realy isn't what freedom is about, now, is it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Again, this reminds me of that one Twilight zone episode, with the kid that controlled everything, A metaphor. Gays are like that now, with all that money buying up media and lawyers.Think happy thoughts! This realy isn't what freedom is about, now, is it?

That's nuts, and totally unrelated to Equal before the Law, a long-appreciated American value.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As soon as they walk into a Christian business making demands that a man of faith appease something he sees as a sin. Lawsuits result, supreme court rulings are made, and those rulings ultimately affect the America I live in.

Either you cannot think, or are not willing to think of a circumstance, ergo no real argument. "I know of a tonne of gay people" is nothing but you falling on mere anecdotal evidence to prove your point. Please.

Anyway you wash it, it is bigotted behaviour. You don't get to push your faith down my throat. So if a Christian believes all blacks are going to hell, they don't have to serve them? Pahleeze....

Talk about clutching at straws...

I have given up hope trying to reason with them about it.

It works like this:

Christians claim that the blood of Christ replaces with old Noadic blood-covenant, and therefore, they don't really need to concern themselves with the 613 commandments (Mitzvoteem) laid out in the Torah, which is, of course, the Christian Old Testament as well.

In fact, TK claimed that the blood of Christ especially covers -and renders null-and-void- any of those 613 Mitzvoteem that bring a death penalty with them.

But when it comes to two lone verses in Leviticus, 2 out of 613 commandments, both of which use verbage about a specific homosexual act (mishkav Z'char) but not about homosexuality, both of which are called abominations and both of which carry the death penalty with them, all of a sudden, many Christians are totally interested in the book of Leviticus, specifically 18:22 and 20:13. I bet they don't even know one other verse out of that book.

Never mind that Jesus was not quoted even once on the subject, not even once. Never mind that not one of his apostles refers to homosexuality specifically, but rather, once again, to a homosexual act.

Never mind any of that: some Christians find homsexuality to be totally abhorrent, and I get that. And I respect that they don't like it.

But to make business decisions based on that? Really?

The seven deadly sins as laid out:

Seven deadly sins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lust
gluttony
greed
sloth
wrath
envy
pride

Those sins all have a much higher status, or severity, than a homosexual act.

But some Christians are just absolutely wanting to see gays as the enemy. They need a picture of an enemy in front of them to somehow march forward, it seems.

Using TKs logic, and the logic of many others, if such Christians really mean what they say, then she cannot sell to or partake in the marriages of:

people who are obese (gluttony)
people who have had affairs (lust)
cheapskates (greed)
people out of work (lazy)

etc. etc.


And actually, the prohibition against jacking-off or even ejaculating anywhere other than in the vagina is much harsher than that of a homosexual act:

Beresheet (Genesis) 38:8-10

Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

This translations is way too tame. In original hebrew G-d struck Onan with lighting and fried him.


So, this logically means that Christians should under no circumstances allow the wedding of any man whose seed has landed anywhere but inside a woman's vagina, that is very, very clear.

You can see how this all slowly goes down the rabbit hole of looniness ad absurdium.

Not to mention that gay marriage is technically a legal issue, not a religious issue.

And not to mention that Christians still don't get that homosexuality - a state of being and feeling - is NOT prohibited in the Torah. Specific homosexual acts are, two times, out of 613 commandments or 0.33% of all commandments. That's how important G-d thought this issue to be. And his "Son", as Christians call Yeshuah, didn't even speak a word over it. Not one word.


So, I've given up on the whackos.


Let the Christians discriminate, and when they can't keep their businesses open any more, it's not my problem. Being a good capitalist, I will tell them: tough shit.

According to the Apostle Paul:

Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon . . . These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ . . . Why do you submit to regulations, "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:16-17; 20-23)

Also it is quite clear that we are no longer bound by the mosaic laws. Jesus is the law, the fulfillment of the law, and therefore has ultimate plurality over the law. No two ways about it.

John 1:16-17

16 From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (NRSV)

Acts 13:38-39
38 Let it be known to you therefore, my brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you; 39 by this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. (NRSV)

Romans 2:25-29

25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart--it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God. (NRSV)

Romans 8:1-4

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NRSV)

1 Corinthians 9:19-21

19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law. (NRSV)

Galatians 2:15-16

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. (NRSV)

Ephesians 2:14-15

14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. (NRSV)

In fact, the moral standards called for in the Old Testament were strengthened even further in the New Testament. Just because the Old Law doesn't apply now, doesn't mean the principles shouldn't be ignored. That doesn't mean we relax our moral standards as people like you have done.

Do we wantonly kill people for breaking the mosaic law now? No. Do we stone people for adultery? No. Do we kill homosexuals for giving themselves up to unnatural pleasure? No. What you don't understand is when Jesus died on the cross, he fulfilled the law, and ultimately became the law.

And believe it or not, I don't believe in the 7 deadly sins, I only adhere to the Commandments set forth by God in Exodus, the Ten Commandments. Your entire premise is facetious in nature and easily dealt with. The monk Evagrius Ponticus came up with a list of evil thoughts namely the traditional seven sins. However, I am not Catholic, I am a Protestant. Those laws were codified into the Modern Catholic Catechism, but not into the Protestant Denominational belief system.

And it also appears you gave into stereotyping as well, Stat. Jesus assumed power over the law to change the law to fit the purpose of his ministry. The Torah is a rigid set of principles, not a set of laws, at least to me anyhow. I refer to it as a moral measure, not as a set of supreme all encompassing laws to be followed. You used the Torah to justify homosexuality, but yet it condemns anyone found to have been practicing in it. In Leviticus 18:22. Thus, a contradiction is born. How can the Torah allow for homosexuality when it very clearly states to the contrary? "You shall not lie with a man as you do with a woman, it is an abomination." That is as much a prohibition against homosexuality in the Torah than anything else. It's pretty dishonest to sit there and say that the Torah wasn't referring to homosexuality in general, from the lust to the actual act. I'm sorry. Not happening. Man on man sexual activity is by definition homosexuality.

 

[TemplarKormac]

However privacy covers more than just searches of your papers, wouldn't you say? This is merely one part of privacy.

Who you choose to marry is your own matter and part of personal privacy.

A lot of what is considered privacy has come through interpretation through the courts, the same as the right to marry.

Also, you're missing the 9th amendment from this, which makes it clear not all rights are protected in writing with the actual words in the BoRs.

I think you are confusing personal decisions, such as private matters between you and your wife as privacy.

As to the 9th amendment... yeah the 9th and 10th amendments were made entirely moot by the amendments that came after the civil war.

Incorrect.

The fact is the 9th and 10th Amendments never meant what you and others on the right perceived them to mean:

From the beginning and for many years, the [10th A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

United States v. Darby | LII / Legal Information Institute

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court explained it was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government, Federal laws, and the rulings of Federal courts be supreme.

What most conservatives fail to understand, or refuse to accept, is the fact that Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, and residents of a given state subordinate to that. The states may not interfere with the relationship between a citizen and his Federal government, or the Federal Constitution whose case law safeguards his civil liberties (US Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)).

The states, therefore, have never had the ‘right’ to deny citizens of the United States their civil liberties, including the right to vote, the right to move about the country freely, and the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Yeah, predictable enough for you to argue against states rights. Powers not enumerated by the Constitution to the Government is thereby reserved for the states. I don't like the way you misconstrue Supreme Court cases, Clayton.

 

[Seawytch]

Other scientists debunked him too Greenie. His public humiliation came as the result of the court.

Yet you can't point out anyone not influenced by political bias. Nobody outside the APA - which is not a scientific organization by the way - but a politicized one. In fact the only so called "debunking" was not based on any factual evidence, but misguided sense of social conscience, and ideological agenda.

Nobody in the scientific community or the the political arena was able to prove that his results were any less valid than that of Hooker or Kinsey - both of whom have been proven a laughing stock and total charlatans . Not a single MF fact he presented can be or ever will be disproven . YOu can not disprove Good SCience but only try to hide the truth behind a facade of false noise . The Regenrus Study is valid - never has been proven otherwise and when you can demonstrate that 2+2= 3 and not 4 than perhaps you'll be able to do something about altering reality - in the interim STFU .

All his study ended up showing was that intact families are better than divorced families.

In other words, a study from the Department of No Shit Sherlock.

200 researchers respond to Regnerus paper

STATEMENT FROM THE CHAIR REGARDING PROFESSOR REGNERUS

the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds

Professor)Darren)E.)Sherkat’s)Audit)of)the)“Severely)Flawed”)Regnerus)Paper

His study is garbage and treated by such by the scientific community.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yet you can't point out anyone not influenced by political bias. Nobody outside the APA - which is not a scientific organization by the way - but a politicized one. In fact the only so called "debunking" was not based on any factual evidence, but misguided sense of social conscience, and ideological agenda.

Nobody in the scientific community or the the political arena was able to prove that his results were any less valid than that of Hooker or Kinsey - both of whom have been proven a laughing stock and total charlatans . Not a single MF fact he presented can be or ever will be disproven . YOu can not disprove Good SCience but only try to hide the truth behind a facade of false noise . The Regenrus Study is valid - never has been proven otherwise and when you can demonstrate that 2+2= 3 and not 4 than perhaps you'll be able to do something about altering reality - in the interim STFU .

All his study ended up showing was that intact families are better than divorced families.

In other words, a study from the Department of No Shit Sherlock.

200 researchers respond to Regnerus paper

STATEMENT FROM THE CHAIR REGARDING PROFESSOR REGNERUS

the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds

Professor)Darren)E.)Sherkat’s)Audit)of)the)“Severely)Flawed&#8221Regnerus)Paper

His study is garbage and treated by such by the scientific community.

Sure, if you call freedomtomarry.org or familyinequality.wordpress.com "the scientific community."

 

[Vandalshandle]

Gis, meet GB. GB, meet Gis. You have a lot in common. I recommend that you get together over a beer, and yuck it up!

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think you are confusing personal decisions, such as private matters between you and your wife as privacy.

As to the 9th amendment... yeah the 9th and 10th amendments were made entirely moot by the amendments that came after the civil war.

You're now claiming the 9th is moot. Er...... you're wrong. Seeing as the Supreme Court still uses the 9th.

From wikipedia

"The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991) that the Ninth Amendment was intended to vitiate the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius according to which the express mention of one thing excludes all others:

[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution."

For a quick example.

But, does the govt have the right to tell you who you can marry? They don't tell straight people who they can marry as long as it doesn't harm people and it's only one.

But gay people cannot do this in many cases. So..........

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, predictable enough for you to argue against states rights. Powers not enumerated by the Constitution to the Government is thereby reserved for the states. I don't like the way you misconstrue Supreme Court cases, Clayton.

But the states have to follow the 9th amendment, don't they?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, this reminds me of that one Twilight zone episode, with the kid that controlled everything, A metaphor. Gays are like that now, with all that money buying up media and lawyers.Think happy thoughts! This realy isn't what freedom is about, now, is it?

Nonsense.

Same-sex couples are exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, where the states are in violation of the 14th Amendment by denying them access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.

This conflict is solely the result of those hostile to gay Americans seeking to make same-sex couples different from anyone else, something the states are not allowed to do.

That you and others on the right hate gay Americans is not justification to deny them their civil liberties.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Again, this reminds me of that one Twilight zone episode, with the kid that controlled everything, A metaphor. Gays are like that now, with all that money buying up media and lawyers.Think happy thoughts! This realy isn't what freedom is about, now, is it?

Nonsense.

Same-sex couples are exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, where the states are in violation of the 14th Amendment by denying them access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.

This conflict is solely the result of those hostile to gay Americans seeking to make same-sex couples different from anyone else, something the states are not allowed to do.

That you and others on the right hate gay Americans is not justification to deny them their civil liberties.

Nonsense. Since when do their civil liberties trump ours?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Again, this reminds me of that one Twilight zone episode, with the kid that controlled everything, A metaphor. Gays are like that now, with all that money buying up media and lawyers.Think happy thoughts! This realy isn't what freedom is about, now, is it?

Nonsense.

Same-sex couples are exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, where the states are in violation of the 14th Amendment by denying them access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.

This conflict is solely the result of those hostile to gay Americans seeking to make same-sex couples different from anyone else, something the states are not allowed to do.

That you and others on the right hate gay Americans is not justification to deny them their civil liberties.

Nonsense. Since when do their civil liberties trump ours?

They don't, they're EQUAL, whether you like it or not.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nonsense.

Same-sex couples are exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, where the states are in violation of the 14th Amendment by denying them access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.

This conflict is solely the result of those hostile to gay Americans seeking to make same-sex couples different from anyone else, something the states are not allowed to do.

That you and others on the right hate gay Americans is not justification to deny them their civil liberties.

Nonsense. Since when do their civil liberties trump ours?

They don't, they're EQUAL, whether you like it or not.

They're supposed to be, yes. But why act as if they are superior? Hmm? Quite the quandary you have there. Why must we temper our civil liberties to appease someone or some group? We have just as much right to our faith as gays have to homosexuality. Equal? Not by a long shot.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nonsense. Since when do their civil liberties trump ours?

They don't, they're EQUAL, whether you like it or not.

They're supposed to be, yes. But why act as if they are superior? Hmm? Quite the quandary you have there. Why must we temper our civil liberties to appease someone or some group? We have just as much right to our faith as gays have to homosexuality. Equal? Not by a long shot.

You're correct, they aren't equal to you yet, but they will be shortly.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They don't, they're EQUAL, whether you like it or not.

They're supposed to be, yes. But why act as if they are superior? Hmm? Quite the quandary you have there. Why must we temper our civil liberties to appease someone or some group? We have just as much right to our faith as gays have to homosexuality. Equal? Not by a long shot.

You're correct, they aren't equal to you yet, but they will be shortly.

Since when have they ever been equal? You act as if their rights are superior to mine. In that instance, they never will be equal. Case in point. Oh for two buddy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They're supposed to be, yes. But why act as if they are superior? Hmm? Quite the quandary you have there. Why must we temper our civil liberties to appease someone or some group? We have just as much right to our faith as gays have to homosexuality. Equal? Not by a long shot.

You're correct, they aren't equal to you yet, but they will be shortly.

Since when have they ever been equal? You act as if their rights are superior to mine. In that instance, they never will be equal. Case in point. Oh for two buddy.

They were born equal. Now we're adjusting the laws to say so.

 

[rightwinger]

Again, this reminds me of that one Twilight zone episode, with the kid that controlled everything, A metaphor. Gays are like that now, with all that money buying up media and lawyers.Think happy thoughts! This realy isn't what freedom is about, now, is it?

That is one of the dumbest analogies I have read on this board

Thanks for sharing

 

[zeke]

Nonsense. Since when do their civil liberties trump ours?

They don't, they're EQUAL, whether you like it or not.

They're supposed to be, yes. But why act as if they are superior? Hmm? Quite the quandary you have there. Why must we temper our civil liberties to appease someone or some group? We have just as much right to our faith as gays have to homosexuality. Equal? Not by a long shot.

Has anyone ever noticed that it is only things like a karmac, or another kind of right winger who believes that gays are superior to them.

That's why they go so apeshit. Don't know any Dems or Independents who think a gay person is better than them. But you hear it all the time from Republicans. Afraid that the gays are better than them.

By god, I believe they are correct. If given a choice of a person to hang out with for a day and I had to chose between a gay person and a Republican. Well that would be an easy choice.

Hang out with a gay person and you might learn something worthwhile.

Hang out with a Republican and learn hate, envy and jealousy. Oh boy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Since when have they ever been equal? You act as if their rights are superior to mine. In that instance, they never will be equal. Case in point. Oh for two buddy.

All men are created equal, that was said and written in 1776 at the founding of the USA.

Rights, inherently, are for all people. When there is a conflict one part simply isn't a right, like the right to free speech with the ability to hurt people through libel, treason and so on, they simply aren't part of rights because they hurt others.

Gay people's rights aren't superior, they can do what they like as long as it doesn't hurt others, two gay people marrying doesn't hurt you at all. Hence why it's a right.