Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[TemplarKormac]

Can you tell me where in the Constitution it grants people the right to suppress the beliefs of Christians to appease the sensibilities of a homosexual?

No one is advocating to "suppress the beliefs of Christians to appease the sensibilities of a homosexual,” the notion is ignorant nonsense.

That the Constitution forbids you and others on the right from seeking to codify your subjective religious dogma designed to deny gay Americans their civil liberties does not ‘violate’ your beliefs as Christians.

Your right to religious expression, as is the case with all other rights, although inalienable, is not absolute, and is subject to reasonable restrictions by the government (see, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)), where your religious believes do not give you license to violate the civil liberties of others.

No one is advocating to "suppress the beliefs of Christians to appease the sensibilities of a homosexual,” the notion is ignorant nonsense.

Interesting. Then why is it, Clayton, that a Christian baker must be forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, thus being forced to condone that way of life against their faith? Why must a Christian photographer photograph a same sex wedding? Why, Clayton, must Catholic institutions be forced to provide abortifacient coverage for their female employees against their faith? And you're telling me that we aren't trying to suppress the religious in this country? Please, kindly remove your head from your posterior.

Why, Clayton, does one person's lifestyle trump the religious rights of another? I could assume by your logic, that your secular beliefs should not be able to infringe on the civil liberties of others either, but hey, gay people have a right to commit sacrilege, but Christians cannot commit to their faith. Utter hypocrisy.

Moreover, the Aguillard case is irrelevant to this discussion. Seeing as how it dealt with a Supreme Court ruling that a Louisiana law requiring schools to teach creation science (which has ironically, NOTHING to do with homosexuality) violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutional, your argument is thus a non sequitur.

I find your selective application of the law to be rather disturbing, Clayton. And let me instruct you on the Lemon test (which was ironically used in the Aguillard case). This test was used in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). It is a three pronged assessment used by the Supreme Court to judge the requirements for legislation (secular or religious) concerning religion, it consists of A) Purpose B) Effect and C) Entanglement:


1. (Purpose) The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. (Effect) The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. (Entanglement) The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

Thus as far as Public Accommodation laws go, they are unconstitutional and violate the First amendment, simply for breaching the 2nd and 3rd clause. I assume this case can be made that the reverse is true for secular laws concerning religion also. My argument goes as such: that A) Public Accommodation laws do in fact have the primary effect of inhibiting religion (and the religious practices of proprietors) in this case; and B) such determinations by the Government of what entails religious practice as far as the proprietor goes is therefore excessive entanglement of government and religion.

No Clayton, sit down.

 

[GISMYS]

THIS ""IS"" THE WORD OF GOD!! Do you deny that truth?????? == Don’t forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God’s judgment. jude 1:7Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 corinthians 6:9-11==ALMIGHTY GOD has the first and last word on the sin of sick sexual perversion.=== So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
Romans 1:24-32

 

[TemplarKormac]

Unless you are trying to argue that the 10 Commandments were written by the Finger of God I really don't see your point.

What KNB doesn't know is that we aren't confined simply to the 10 Commandments. God issues many other commands and directions in the Bible; including that one. As one can plainly see in that libbed version of Leviticus 18:22, the disdain God has for homosexuality is clearly evident.

Yeah, it's right up there with the disdain God has for mouthy kids, eating shellfish, and wearing clothing made of different materials.

And your selective quotation of the Bible is dishonest. Should I start quoting the New Testament to you? You do realize that Jesus' death absolved people of the death penalty for those sins, right? Or are you just as dishonest as the rest of these liberals and homosexuals here in simply assuming that we are supposed to kill them for being homosexual?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I really don't care what Bob and Bill call it. But it won't be traditional marriage even if they call it that. Those who are unwilling to compromise in the least to accommodate something that is good just so they can be considered 'no different than' somebody else, are not advocating equality. They are demanding one group give up something very important to them to accommodate somebody else. That is not equality. And many believe it is as wrong as the National Football League being required to change its rules and concept to accommodate women or the NBA having to change its format to allow short guys to play with the giants or requiring Christian churches or Jewish synagoguea to include Atheist beliefs in their liturgy. This would give the illusion of 'equality' but it would not be that. It would be taking something away from another group to accommodate a different group and thereby completely change what the original concept is.

This is comprehensively ignorant, and very telling about conservatives.

The notion that American citizens should ‘compromise’ their civil liberties to accommodate the hate and ignorance of others is repugnant to the Constitution and the fundamental tenets of this Republic:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 [seeking to deny homosexuals access to anti-discrimination laws] classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

This a state cannot do, a state cannot make homosexuals unequal to everyone else, which is what you advocate with your inane ‘compromise,’ a ‘compromise’ that is fundamentally un-Constitutional.

Same-sex couples are not “demanding one group give up something very important to them to accommodate somebody else,” that’s ignorant idiocy; same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, and by doing so will in no way ‘change’ marriage, where opposite-sex couples aren’t ‘giving up’ anything.

‘Compromise’ one’s civil rights, what a telling conservative concept.

Dear CCJ:

You could also say the same of LIBERALS.
When LIBERALS push for "separation of church and state"
when it suits their agenda.

But in the case of gay marriage crossing the line and imposing a church function
of marriage on the state, suddenly LIBERALS WANT to mix church and state functions.

Why is that?

Can you tell me how "gay marriage" respects "separation of church and state"?

No, one could not also say the same of ‘liberals.’

‘Liberals’ correctly understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and they respect and follow that case law, including that of First Amendment jurisprudence, which maintains there is indeed to be a separation of church and state, where the case law in no way disadvantages religious expression.

‘Liberals’ aren’t ‘pushing’ for anything, nor do they have an ‘agenda,’ save that of ensuring subjective religious dogma not be codified in secular law, in accordance with the Framers’ wishes.

Take, for example, the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992), invalidating a school policy authorizing prayer during graduation ceremonies, which the Supreme Court correctly found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This ruling was predicated on long-standing Establishment Clause jurisprudence, exhaustively reviewed by the courts in an objective, factual manner, and decided having nothing to do with a ‘liberal agenda.’

Moreover, the ruling in no way ‘violated’ religious expression, where theists are at liberty to pray, provided it not be at the behest of the state.

Otherwise, your question with regard to ‘gay marriage’ and the Constitution’s requirement that church and state remain separate makes no sense.

First, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law, as written by the states and administered by state courts; this is the same law afforded to both same- and opposite-sex couples, as both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

Second, the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, as this is a 5th and 14th Amendment issue pertaining to the right to due process and equal protection of the laws, in this case equal access to marriage law.

Last, that theists perceive some sort to religious aspect to the issue is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as religious dogma has no bearing on the issue. Federal courts recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law is based on 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the context of substantive due process, where the state has failed to establish a rational, compelling reason to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law pursuant to a proper legislative end. Indeed, to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law predicated on religious dogma is un-Constitutional because it is not rational, it lacks objective facts and evidence in support, and it fails to pursue a proper legislative end.

A ‘religious objection’ to affording same sex couples access to marriage law is mere demagoguery on the part of the social right, realizing they’ve long ago lost the legal argument.

 

[GISMYS]

Why show your ignorance?? Laws about eating shellfish, and wearing clothing made of different materials were special laws for God's chosen people the Jews under the old covenant before Jesus gave all mankind the new covenant laws!! Pray for wisdom and understanding!

 

[Statistikhengst]

What KNB doesn't know is that we aren't confined simply to the 10 Commandments. God issues many other commands and directions in the Bible; including that one. As one can plainly see in that libbed version of Leviticus 18:22, the disdain God has for homosexuality is clearly evident.

Yeah, it's right up there with the disdain God has for mouthy kids, eating shellfish, and wearing clothing made of different materials.

And your selective quotation of the Bible is dishonest. Should I start quoting the New Testament to you? You do realize that Jesus' death absolved people of the death penalty for those sins, right? Or are you just as dishonest as the rest of these liberals and homosexuals here in simply assuming that we are supposed to kill them for being homosexual?

So, of the 613 commandments in Torah, can you tell us exactly which ones Jesus's death absolves us of, and which not? Is the "sin" of homosexuality absolved, or not?

Oh, and just in passing, how's your Hebrew? Do you know how many verses there are about Homosexuality in the Torah, and exactly what verbs are used?

Just curious.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This is comprehensively ignorant, and very telling about conservatives.

The notion that American citizens should ‘compromise’ their civil liberties to accommodate the hate and ignorance of others is repugnant to the Constitution and the fundamental tenets of this Republic:



This a state cannot do, a state cannot make homosexuals unequal to everyone else, which is what you advocate with your inane ‘compromise,’ a ‘compromise’ that is fundamentally un-Constitutional.

Same-sex couples are not “demanding one group give up something very important to them to accommodate somebody else,” that’s ignorant idiocy; same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, and by doing so will in no way ‘change’ marriage, where opposite-sex couples aren’t ‘giving up’ anything.

‘Compromise’ one’s civil rights, what a telling conservative concept.

Dear CCJ:

You could also say the same of LIBERALS.
When LIBERALS push for "separation of church and state"
when it suits their agenda.

But in the case of gay marriage crossing the line and imposing a church function
of marriage on the state, suddenly LIBERALS WANT to mix church and state functions.

Why is that?

Can you tell me how "gay marriage" respects "separation of church and state"?

No, one could not also say the same of ‘liberals.’

‘Liberals’ correctly understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and they respect and follow that case law, including that of First Amendment jurisprudence, which maintains there is indeed to be a separation of church and state, where the case law in no way disadvantages religious expression.

‘Liberals’ aren’t ‘pushing’ for anything, nor do they have an ‘agenda,’ save that of ensuring subjective religious dogma not be codified in secular law, in accordance with the Framers’ wishes.

Take, for example, the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992), invalidating a school policy authorizing prayer during graduation ceremonies, which the Supreme Court correctly found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This ruling was predicated on long-standing Establishment Clause jurisprudence, exhaustively reviewed by the courts in an objective, factual manner, and decided having nothing to do with a ‘liberal agenda.’

Moreover, the ruling in no way ‘violated’ religious expression, where theists are at liberty to pray, provided it not be at the behest of the state.

Otherwise, your question with regard to ‘gay marriage’ and the Constitution’s requirement that church and state remain separate makes no sense.

First, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law, as written by the states and administered by state courts; this is the same law afforded to both same- and opposite-sex couples, as both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

Second, the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, as this is a 5th and 14th Amendment issue pertaining to the right to due process and equal protection of the laws, in this case equal access to marriage law.

Last, that theists perceive some sort to religious aspect to the issue is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as religious dogma has no bearing on the issue. Federal courts recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law is based on 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the context of substantive due process, where the state has failed to establish a rational, compelling reason to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law pursuant to a proper legislative end. Indeed, to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law predicated on religious dogma is un-Constitutional because it is not rational, it lacks objective facts and evidence in support, and it fails to pursue a proper legislative end.

A ‘religious objection’ to affording same sex couples access to marriage law is mere demagoguery on the part of the social right, realizing they’ve long ago lost the legal argument.

 

[Avatar4321]

God didn't claim that homosexuality is a sin, the Bible did.

God didn't write the Bible, humans did.

Greed is a sin, but not homosexuality, according to God in the Bible.

So we are supposed to believe that God said greed is a sin when the Bible says it, but we aren't supposed to believe that God said homosexuality is a sin when the Bible says it?

Seems radically inconsistant. Especially for someone who continually advocates taking the money of others.

 

[GISMYS]

USA= in GOD WE TRUST!!! One nation under God with liberty and justice for all,but sis is sin and the abomination of sexual perversion is a compound sin. For those perverts to say their sin is not sin is to deny the truth of God's word thius they compound their sin!!! and you???

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't recall saying Jesus had a problem with anything, can you point out where I did?

What, other than being an actor and agreeing with you, makes him an expert in anything?

The dude is an expert. Look him up. He puts people with theology degrees to shame on a regular basis.

That is because he agrees with your bias. If he said something different you wouldn't think anything of his opinion and that is all he has, is an opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Another idiot. That dude is a believer. As such, we disagree on all of this shit. But he has an understanding of the bible and is able to communicate it to people who can't be bothered to read the shit. He's an expert.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have a degree in theology and you think that Jesus had a problem with homosexuality? Is that a fact?

John Fugelsang is an expert when it comes to the bible. Period.

I don't recall saying Jesus had a problem with anything, can you point out where I did?

What, other than being an actor and agreeing with you, makes him an expert in anything?

The dude is an expert. Look him up. He puts people with theology degrees to shame on a regular basis.

Being able to argue his way out of a wet paper bag which is all the ability it takes to make you think he can confound anyone, does not make him an expert.

For example, this is what he uses to base his argument that Romans does not condemn homosexuality.

But when you read what comes before, Paul’s talking in the past tense about God punishing Romans for worshiping Roman gods. How? By giving them up unto vile affections.

That is certainly an interesting take on that passage, especially when you consider that Paul did no such thing.

Unless, of course, I missed it. Maybe you can find it.

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

But, by all means, keep citing him as an expert.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I quote the Bible, you quote a blog that claims the Bible doesn't actually say what it says.

Good job.

I cited an expert. A person who knows the bible inside out. He laid it out for you. Try reading what he wrote. I know you didn't.

Dear LL and QW:
There is a way you can both be right.

People can still break God's laws as given in the Bible
and can also still be saved in Christ Jesus and not be condemned to hell.

These two things are not mutually exclusive as either/or.

Just because that through Christ Jesus
people can be spared condemnation to eternal suffering
does NOT mean their actions WEREN'T against God's will and laws.

NOTE: One exception or clarification I would make:
with some homosexual tendencies, relations, or oriention
I believe these are caused by PAST sins or karma passed down
from previous generations. The sins may have been in the past.
And the manifestations in future generations are a sign that the
past conflicts were not fully forgiven, resolved or healed.

It is not necessarily that the people today are "guilty of sin"
but are manifesting past sins passed down to the fourth and fifth generations.
The purpose is still the same: to heal and resolve these issues by FORGIVENESS.
So I still focus on FORGIVENESS and healing on all levels
and not on judgment, punishment or condemnation which complicates
or blocks the process of healing and recovery from past sins or karma
causing suffering to repeat in future generations. I am more interested
in breaking the vicious cycle of unforgiveness, and I trust that will do more
to heal abuses in ALL relationships, whether heterosexual, homosexual,
religious or political. The point is to forgive and quit punishing abuse with more abuse.
All these other problems will take care of themselves as we forgive whatever is wrong.

There is no way we can both be right, LoonyL claimed that the New Testament does not even mention homosexuality, and is now trying to argue that, even though it does, it really doesn't. I, on the other hand, am taking the stance that it does. Only one of us can be right in this argument, and it won't be LoonyL.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yeah, it's right up there with the disdain God has for mouthy kids, eating shellfish, and wearing clothing made of different materials.

And your selective quotation of the Bible is dishonest. Should I start quoting the New Testament to you? You do realize that Jesus' death absolved people of the death penalty for those sins, right? Or are you just as dishonest as the rest of these liberals and homosexuals here in simply assuming that we are supposed to kill them for being homosexual?

So, of the 613 commandments in Torah, can you tell us exactly which ones Jesus's death absolves us of, and which not? Is the "sin" of homosexuality absolved, or not?

Oh, and just in passing, how's your Hebrew? Do you know how many verses there are about Homosexuality in the Torah, and exactly what verbs are used?

Just curious.

Fallacy of the loaded question. Stat, I'm disappointed.

Perhaps you've read Matthew 5:17?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

I'm referring to the Bible, not to the Tanakh or the Torah. The Bible in it's entirety. Why is it you think we don't observe the Mosaic Law today? Because it involved killing people for breaching them. Jesus' death on the cross absolved us all of the death penalty of those laws. The meaning though, still remains.

How's my Hebrew? Don't know a single word. But I do know you're dancing around the issue by attacking my knowledge of the issue. I don't need to know hermeneutics or exegesis to know that what you just tried to do here was change the subject via argumentum ad hominem.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I cited an expert. A person who knows the bible inside out. He laid it out for you. Try reading what he wrote. I know you didn't.

Dear LL and QW:
There is a way you can both be right.

People can still break God's laws as given in the Bible
and can also still be saved in Christ Jesus and not be condemned to hell.

These two things are not mutually exclusive as either/or.

Just because that through Christ Jesus
people can be spared condemnation to eternal suffering
does NOT mean their actions WEREN'T against God's will and laws.

NOTE: One exception or clarification I would make:
with some homosexual tendencies, relations, or oriention
I believe these are caused by PAST sins or karma passed down
from previous generations. The sins may have been in the past.
And the manifestations in future generations are a sign that the
past conflicts were not fully forgiven, resolved or healed.

It is not necessarily that the people today are "guilty of sin"
but are manifesting past sins passed down to the fourth and fifth generations.
The purpose is still the same: to heal and resolve these issues by FORGIVENESS.
So I still focus on FORGIVENESS and healing on all levels
and not on judgment, punishment or condemnation which complicates
or blocks the process of healing and recovery from past sins or karma
causing suffering to repeat in future generations. I am more interested
in breaking the vicious cycle of unforgiveness, and I trust that will do more
to heal abuses in ALL relationships, whether heterosexual, homosexual,
religious or political. The point is to forgive and quit punishing abuse with more abuse.
All these other problems will take care of themselves as we forgive whatever is wrong.

There is no way we can both be right, LoonyL claimed that the New Testament does not even mention homosexuality, and is now trying to argue that, even though it does, it really doesn't. I, on the other hand, am taking the stance that it does. Only one of us can be right in this argument, and it won't be LoonyL.

Nope. I did not say that the New Testament does not mention homosexuality. Why lie?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The dude is an expert. Look him up. He puts people with theology degrees to shame on a regular basis.

That is because he agrees with your bias. If he said something different you wouldn't think anything of his opinion and that is all he has, is an opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Another idiot. That dude is a believer. As such, we disagree on all of this shit. But he has an understanding of the bible and is able to communicate it to people who can't be bothered to read the shit. He's an expert.

A believer in what?

 

[LoneLaugher]

A fun website. Enjoy.

Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dear LL and QW:
There is a way you can both be right.

People can still break God's laws as given in the Bible
and can also still be saved in Christ Jesus and not be condemned to hell.

These two things are not mutually exclusive as either/or.

Just because that through Christ Jesus
people can be spared condemnation to eternal suffering
does NOT mean their actions WEREN'T against God's will and laws.

NOTE: One exception or clarification I would make:
with some homosexual tendencies, relations, or oriention
I believe these are caused by PAST sins or karma passed down
from previous generations. The sins may have been in the past.
And the manifestations in future generations are a sign that the
past conflicts were not fully forgiven, resolved or healed.

It is not necessarily that the people today are "guilty of sin"
but are manifesting past sins passed down to the fourth and fifth generations.
The purpose is still the same: to heal and resolve these issues by FORGIVENESS.
So I still focus on FORGIVENESS and healing on all levels
and not on judgment, punishment or condemnation which complicates
or blocks the process of healing and recovery from past sins or karma
causing suffering to repeat in future generations. I am more interested
in breaking the vicious cycle of unforgiveness, and I trust that will do more
to heal abuses in ALL relationships, whether heterosexual, homosexual,
religious or political. The point is to forgive and quit punishing abuse with more abuse.
All these other problems will take care of themselves as we forgive whatever is wrong.

There is no way we can both be right, LoonyL claimed that the New Testament does not even mention homosexuality, and is now trying to argue that, even though it does, it really doesn't. I, on the other hand, am taking the stance that it does. Only one of us can be right in this argument, and it won't be LoonyL.

Nope. I did not say that the New Testament does not mention homosexuality. Why lie?

My apologies, I confused you with Mertex. That doesn't change the fact that you are only citing the actor because you agree with him, and that, magically, makes him an expert.

By the way, did you ever find the post where I claimed Jesus didn't approve of anything?

Didn't think so.

Yet, despite the fact that I never said what you claimed, and you never found evidence I did, I never called you a liar.

And I even admitted I was wrong.

Interesting, isn't it?

 

[Statistikhengst]

And your selective quotation of the Bible is dishonest. Should I start quoting the New Testament to you? You do realize that Jesus' death absolved people of the death penalty for those sins, right? Or are you just as dishonest as the rest of these liberals and homosexuals here in simply assuming that we are supposed to kill them for being homosexual?

So, of the 613 commandments in Torah, can you tell us exactly which ones Jesus's death absolves us of, and which not? Is the "sin" of homosexuality absolved, or not?

Oh, and just in passing, how's your Hebrew? Do you know how many verses there are about Homosexuality in the Torah, and exactly what verbs are used?

Just curious.

Fallacy of the loaded question. Stat, I'm disappointed.

Perhaps you've read Matthew 5:17?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

I'm referring to the Bible, not to the Tanakh or the Torah. The Bible in it's entirety. Why is it you think we don't observe the Mosaic Law today? Because it involved killing people for breaching them. Jesus' death on the cross absolved us all of the death penalty of those laws. The meaning though, still remains.

How's my Hebrew? Don't know a single word. But I do know you're dancing around the issue by attacking my knowledge of the issue. I don't need to know hermeneutics or exegesis to know that what you just tried to do here was change the subject via argumentum ad hominem.

NO, it is not a loaded question. I will ask again. This time, don't run away from it.

Of the 613 Commandments, exactly which ones are absolved by the blood of Christ in your belief system, and which are not? Yes, I am aware of Matt 5:17, I quote it oft.

I asked about your knowledge of Hebrew because two entire different verbs are used, and the descriptor for "abomination" is different. Did you know that?

So, let me get this straight: You are saying that the blood of Christ makes pretty much everything in the "Old Testament" obsolete, but these two verses from Leviticus, they are suddenly very important.

And did you not just say the following:

"Why is it you think we don't observe the Mosaic Law today? Because it involved killing people for breaching them. Jesus' death on the cross absolved us all of the death penalty of those laws."

Ahh, but those two verses from Leviticus do carry the death penalty with them.

Quandary, what?

And what if I were to say to you that Homosexuality is not at all forbidden in Torah? How would you react?

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no way we can both be right, LoonyL claimed that the New Testament does not even mention homosexuality, and is now trying to argue that, even though it does, it really doesn't. I, on the other hand, am taking the stance that it does. Only one of us can be right in this argument, and it won't be LoonyL.

Nope. I did not say that the New Testament does not mention homosexuality. Why lie?

My apologies, I confused you with Mertex. That doesn't change the fact that you are only citing the actor because you agree with him, and that, magically, makes him an expert.

By the way, did you ever find the post where I claimed Jesus didn't approve of anything?

Didn't think so.

Yet, despite the fact that I never said what you claimed, and you never found evidence I did, I never called you a liar.

And I even admitted I was wrong.

Interesting, isn't it?

Well...I assumed that you believe that the bible us the "word of god"....and therefore the word of Jesus. If you don't, please accept my apologies.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is comprehensively ignorant, and very telling about conservatives.

The notion that American citizens should ‘compromise’ their civil liberties to accommodate the hate and ignorance of others is repugnant to the Constitution and the fundamental tenets of this Republic:



This a state cannot do, a state cannot make homosexuals unequal to everyone else, which is what you advocate with your inane ‘compromise,’ a ‘compromise’ that is fundamentally un-Constitutional.

Same-sex couples are not “demanding one group give up something very important to them to accommodate somebody else,” that’s ignorant idiocy; same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, and by doing so will in no way ‘change’ marriage, where opposite-sex couples aren’t ‘giving up’ anything.

‘Compromise’ one’s civil rights, what a telling conservative concept.

Dear CCJ:

You could also say the same of LIBERALS.
When LIBERALS push for "separation of church and state"
when it suits their agenda.

But in the case of gay marriage crossing the line and imposing a church function
of marriage on the state, suddenly LIBERALS WANT to mix church and state functions.

Why is that?

Can you tell me how "gay marriage" respects "separation of church and state"?

No, one could not also say the same of ‘liberals.’

‘Liberals’ correctly understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and they respect and follow that case law, including that of First Amendment jurisprudence, which maintains there is indeed to be a separation of church and state, where the case law in no way disadvantages religious expression.

‘Liberals’ aren’t ‘pushing’ for anything, nor do they have an ‘agenda,’ save that of ensuring subjective religious dogma not be codified in secular law, in accordance with the Framers’ wishes.

Take, for example, the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992), invalidating a school policy authorizing prayer during graduation ceremonies, which the Supreme Court correctly found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This ruling was predicated on long-standing Establishment Clause jurisprudence, exhaustively reviewed by the courts in an objective, factual manner, and decided having nothing to do with a ‘liberal agenda.’

Moreover, the ruling in no way ‘violated’ religious expression, where theists are at liberty to pray, provided it not be at the behest of the state.

Otherwise, your question with regard to ‘gay marriage’ and the Constitution’s requirement that church and state remain separate makes no sense.

First, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law, as written by the states and administered by state courts; this is the same law afforded to both same- and opposite-sex couples, as both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

Second, the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, as this is a 5th and 14th Amendment issue pertaining to the right to due process and equal protection of the laws, in this case equal access to marriage law.

Last, that theists perceive some sort to religious aspect to the issue is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as religious dogma has no bearing on the issue. Federal courts recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law is based on 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the context of substantive due process, where the state has failed to establish a rational, compelling reason to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law pursuant to a proper legislative end. Indeed, to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law predicated on religious dogma is un-Constitutional because it is not rational, it lacks objective facts and evidence in support, and it fails to pursue a proper legislative end.

A ‘religious objection’ to affording same sex couples access to marriage law is mere demagoguery on the part of the social right, realizing they’ve long ago lost the legal argument.

So basically, the First Amendment be damned, correct? Prohibiting people to freely practice their faith whilst running their business is ALSO demagoguery on the part of the social left, realizing that letting people freely exercise their faith anywhere they choose means surrender on a very important issue. They lose as far as the First Amendment is concerned.

Show me where the government has a compelling interest to keep someone from objecting via their religious rights to serve someone or appease something that violates their faith? You would be hard pressed to.

Moreover, the Courts only have their interpretations of marriage to work from. Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit, nor encourage states to make laws concerning marriage. Now, how can banning same sex marriage be unconstitutional when there is nothing in the Constitution regarding marriage? Hmm? Marriage itself is a majorly religious and ceremonial rite, not subject to the whims of Government nor to the oft cited Constitution.

All the laws concerning marriage have been legislated, not derived from the Constitution itself. This is, my friend a fundamental flaw in your argument, and of the proponents of same sex marriage equality. You cannot construe the document to impart nor disparage marriage equality, yet, here you are doing so, brazenly. Your interpretation of the 14th can be described as this: that it guarantees the rights and equality of someone, while disparaging the rights and equality of another.

Notice, I can make an argument against equality, as well as for. But I choose equality, frankly because it is within my nature to treat people equally.