A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[TemplarKormac]

That in no way means that we should all suspend judgment.

Read the edit to my post.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That in no way means that we should all suspend judgment.

Read the edit to my post.

John 13:16

"The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these."


Ok... How does that require one accept thy neighbor's deceit, as truth?

I'm not followin' ya here TK.

Just because the Left claims that rejecting their behavior equates to hate, does not actually make rejecting deviant behavior, hateful. In truth, it is holding the deviant accountable, which is the only means to turn them back toward God.

Using your reasoning we must accept the sin... when such is decidedly, forbidden, setting one on the fast track to eternal damnation.

 

[Silhouette]

I had a tough go of it. No really, as a Christian I think homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong and patently sinful, thusly I don't condone either. I've really wrestled my conscience mightily over it. But after a mighty struggle and in a moment of clarity, it has dawned on me that gay people deserve rights like I do, and I will defend them, I won't force equality, I'll fight for it. America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom and free association.

Yes, the Republicans on this board can go ahead and get angry at me all they want, this position will not change. I really don't care how gay people become gay, they deserve to be treated equally. I don't have a problem with people holding true to their morals, but when they agree to serve people equally under the law, they should.

You can't just set aside a just law for the sole reason of your personal belief. You can serve people equally without ever personally condoning the lifestyle choices of others. Equality has no bias.

But will you defend children of legitimate marriage and the state's rights to incentivize that environment to include a father for sons and a mother for daughters? How deeply have you really looked into the matter on behalf of kids on the brand new social experiment. The folks below want to use them as lab rats to see how them playing "mom and dad" pans out for our collective future. Since it is a collective future we are tampering with by redacting the physical structure of the word "marriage", should it be up to just 5 people (2 of which are biased: Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 51 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ) or up to the majority within the sovereign states?

Who is more worth fighting for? All the children into time unknown, or these folks? Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[TemplarKormac]

Because the only thing that Homosexuals are crying about, in terms of inequality, is that people of reason do not accept sexual deviancy as sexual abnormality.

Listen to yourself. Republicans like you champion the law, but only wish to apply it selectively when it comes to homosexuals. I've watched this go on for a long while. The law applies equally to all of us, not just to people who aren't gay or homosexual. Why can't you see that?

This stems off into a plethora of subsequent issues, with their demand that the culture shoudl reject the natural standard of marriage based again: upon the deceit, that sexual deviancy is normal.

Where did I say it was normal? Who said anything about "rejecting the natural standard?" I believe marriage is between a man and a woman myself, but where the law goes, it must be applied equally, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I would appreciate you reading the OP before making your snap judgments

It's not normal, and marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

So? The Constitution does not have a stipulation on marriage either way. Just a bunch of people repeating this "between one man and one woman" statement.

So... what are you 'accepting', if not a demonstrable falsity, as truth?

What you deem a "demonstrable falsity" is perfectly acceptable in the law. I am accepting the fact that gay people are American citizens, and are thusly entitled to the same treatment under the law. Same benefits, same consequences. I use Federalist 10 for my reasoning.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sweet! Now the barrage begins.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The barrier from the judgmental brethren of the far social right will continue.

The following will help, TK, I hope, as it does for me as I pray for the release of Keys and those like him him.

There is probably nothing to which our Lord attached a greater warning than judging our brother.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged and with the same measure you use, itwill be measured back to you” (Matthew 7:1-2).

St. Dorotheos of Gaza, that great spiritual teacher of the seventh century, had much to say about judging our brother: “Nothing angers God so much or strips a man so bare or carries him so effectively to ruin as condemning or despising his neighbor. There are three things here: running a man down; condemning him unjustly; and despising him.”

For St. Dorotheos, running a man down is gossiping about his behavior or lifestyle. Condemning a man is judging the state or condition of his soul. Despising, of course, is wishing his ruin.

No wonder God hates itwhen we judge our brother. No wonder the unnamed monk was assured of heaven. Despite his outward negligence, he never judged anyone.

St. Dorotheos tells us that those who want to be saved should never scrutinize the sins of their brother, but always their own and should then set about eliminating them. Such was the man who, when seeing his brother doing wrong, groaned, “Woe is me; him today, me tomorrow.” By this response he avoided focusing on the sin of his brother and looked at his own.

St. Dorotheos tells the story of Isaac the Theban. An angel appeared before Isaac and presented before him the soul of someone who had just died. “Here is the soul of a person you have judged,” said the angel. “Where do you order him to be put, into the Kingdom or into eternal punishment? Since you want to judge the just and the unjust, what do you command for this poor soul?”

Frightened beyond measure, Isaac spent the rest of his life praying with sighs and tears to be forgiven of this sin. He had seen the seriousness of judging another. March 30 2011 Judge Not Lest You Be Judged Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese​

I strongly all of us to pray for forgiveness in the same mete as we forgive others who offend us.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Because the only thing that Homosexuals are crying about, in terms of inequality, is that people of reason do not accept sexual deviancy as sexual abnormality.

Listen to yourself. Republicans like you champion the law, but only wish to apply it selectively when it comes to homosexuals. I've watched this go on for a long while. The law applies equally to all of us, not just to people who aren't gay or homosexual. Why can't you see that?

The subject to which you responded was sexual deviancy... not law.

Science, which is the objective study of the physical universe, holds that homosexuality deviates 180 degrees from the human physiological standard.

Like Science, Law also only works where such is objective. And objective science and objective law (Pardon the Redundancy) does not pretend that profound deviancy is equal to normality.

Marriage, is defined by the objectivity, intrinsic to NATURE... as the joining of one man and one woman.

What you're asking is that conclusions which were drawn from purely subjective inference, which is deceitfully advanced as science, alter the law... which would render the law SUBJECTIVE and in so doing delegitimizing the law... in that it causes such to serve the narrow interests of not just a tiny minority, but a tiny deceptive minority, which demands that deceit, be accepted as truth.

That's something which is well beyond foolish, and again it serves nothing but the destruction of the individual that holds it and the collective which is influenced by its fools.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ok... How does that require one accept thy neighbor's deceit, as truth?

You don't have to accept anything your neighbor does, just that you treat him with the same dignity that you require for yourself. What is so hard about that? Hmm?

Just because the Left claims that rejecting their behavior equates to hate, does not actually make rejecting deviant behavior, hateful.

So this is the Right's version of "Moral Equivalency." Now I've seen it all. Yes, yes, this is why I stopped being a Republican, and why I swore never to become a Democrat.

And I never said I hated them, I simply don't approve of their behavior. But in all matters regarding the governance of America, they should be treated equally. You simply cannot selectively apply the law. If you don't want government making laws that dictate your faith, the don't demand that your faith dictate the law. The book of Romans tells us to respect and obey the governing authorities, and that's what I plan on doing.

Using your reasoning we must accept the sin... when such is decidedly, forbidden, setting one on the fast track to eternal damnation.

Go read John 8

"1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them

3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin."

Using your reasoning, Keys, we should automatically condemn the sinner, without so much as one iota of compassion or forgiveness. Right then, as if we have no sin in our lives to be forgiven.

"21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."

Matthew 18:21-22

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This stems off into a plethora of subsequent issues, with their demand that the culture shoudl reject the natural standard of marriage based again: upon the deceit, that sexual deviancy is normal.

Where did I say it was normal? Who said anything about "rejecting the natural standard?" I believe marriage is between a man and a woman myself, but where the law goes, it must be applied equally, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I would appreciate you reading the OP before making your snap judgments

Marriage laws are equally enforced on everyone. They do not unjustly discriminate against anyone. And the claims that by simply BEING a STANDARD... that it unjustly discriminates, notwithstanding.

Standards are designed to discriminate... . And they do so to defend the integrity of the subject which they serve.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I had a tough go of it. No really, as a Christian I think homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong and patently sinful, thusly I don't condone either. I've really wrestled my conscience mightily over it. But after a mighty struggle and in a moment of clarity, it has dawned on me that gay people deserve rights like I do, and I will defend them, I won't force equality, I'll fight for it. America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom and free association.

Yes, the Republicans on this board can go ahead and get angry at me all they want, this position will not change. I really don't care how gay people become gay, they deserve to be treated equally. I don't have a problem with people holding true to their morals, but when they agree to serve people equally under the law, they should.

You can't just set aside a just law for the sole reason of your personal belief. You can serve people equally without ever personally condoning the lifestyle choices of others. Equality has no bias.

But will you defend children of legitimate marriage and the state's rights to incentivize that environment to include a father for sons and a mother for daughters? How deeply have you really looked into the matter on behalf of kids on the brand new social experiment. The folks below want to use them as lab rats to see how them playing "mom and dad" pans out for our collective future. Since it is a collective future we are tampering with by redacting the physical structure of the word "marriage", should it be up to just 5 people (2 of which are biased: Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 51 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ) or up to the majority within the sovereign states?

Who is more worth fighting for? All the children into time unknown, or these folks? Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That's very cute. I've seen pro gun advocates demanding they not be stereotyped because of the actions of crazed gunmen and murderers, and I agree. But I also demand that homosexuals not be judged by the actions of a few. Really. Stereotypes are destructive. And it's ironic you would stoop to the same behavior.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Marriage laws are equally enforced on everyone.

Really? So, where is the proof? Why do states make laws banning one type of marriage but not the other?

Argumentum ad ignoratiam.

Standards are designed to discriminate

So? Does that mean we should?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This stems off into a plethora of subsequent issues, with their demand that the culture shoudl reject the natural standard of marriage based again: upon the deceit, that sexual deviancy is normal.

Where did I say it was normal? Who said anything about "rejecting the natural standard?" I believe marriage is between a man and a woman myself, but where the law goes, it must be applied equally, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I would appreciate you reading the OP before making your snap judgments

Marriage laws are equally enforced on everyone. They do not unjustly discriminate against anyone. .

Really? In a state where a man can marry a woman, but a woman could not marry the same women,

that's equal enforcement?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because the only thing that Homosexuals are crying about, in terms of inequality, is that people of reason do not accept sexual deviancy as sexual abnormality.

Listen to yourself. Republicans like you champion the law, but only wish to apply it selectively when it comes to homosexuals. I've watched this go on for a long while. The law applies equally to all of us, not just to people who aren't gay or homosexual. Why can't you see that?

The subject to which you responded was sexual deviancy... not law.

Science, which is the objective study of the physical universe, holds that homosexuality deviates 180 degrees from the human physiological standard.

Like Science, Law also only works where such is objective. And objective science and objective law (Pardon the Redundancy) does not pretend that profound deviancy is equal to normality.

Marriage, is defined by the objectivity, intrinsic to NATURE... as the joining of one man and one woman.

What you're asking is that conclusions which were drawn from purely subjective inference, which is deceitfully advanced as science, alter the law... which would render the law SUBJECTIVE and in so doing delegitimizing the law... in that it causes such to serve the narrow interests of not just a tiny minority, but a tiny deceptive minority, which demands that deceit, be accepted as truth.

That's something which is well beyond foolish, and again it serves nothing but the destruction of the individual that holds it and the collective which is influenced by its fools.

Science rejects the existence of a God as nothing more than religious mythology.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ok... How does that require one accept thy neighbor's deceit, as truth?

You don't have to accept anything your neighbor does, just that you treat him with the same dignity that you require for yourself. What is so hard about that? Hmm?

Straw reasoning? At this early stage? That's not a good sign TK.

Nothing I've said invokes ill treatment of anyone. Yet there you are implying that Americans who reject homosexual behavior, are by their position, treating homosexuals poorly.

Not good buddy.

Just because the Left claims that rejecting their behavior equates to hate, does not actually make rejecting deviant behavior, hateful.

So this is the Right's version of "Moral Equivalency."

Huh... false.

There is no moral equivalency. Sexual Deviancy is morally vacuous... .

Using your reasoning we must accept the sin... when such is decidedly, forbidden, setting one on the fast track to eternal damnation.

Go read John 8

"1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them

3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin."

Using your reasoning, Keys, we should automatically condemn the sinner, without so much as one iota of compassion or forgiveness. Right then, as if we have no sin in our lives to be forgiven.

"21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."

Matthew 18:21-22

Man that is some twisted crapola right there. Forgiving the sinner... GOOD. Accepting the SIN, OKA: SIN... BAD!

At the end of the day, that Prostitute is going to spend eternity in incomprehensible anguish, sent there by Christ, unless and until she admits to Christ that she is a sinner and TURNS FROM THAT SIN... . Accepting Christ as her Lord and Savior, thus his gift in providing God's grace.

Now that you're up to speed... Feel free to revise and retract.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The cult members on the right won't attack you until they're certain they've lost you to the dark side.

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't it adorable when they mimic those they believe are making the most effective argument?

I just don't seem to be able to get my fill of watchin' 'em do it.

Your childish ridicule only identifies you as a child.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ok... How does that require one accept thy neighbor's deceit, as truth?

You don't have to accept anything your neighbor does, just that you treat him with the same dignity that you require for yourself. What is so hard about that? Hmm?

Straw reasoning? At this early stage? That's not a good sign TK.

Nothing I've said invokes ill treatment of anyone. Yet there you are implying that Americans who reject homosexual behavior, are by their position, treating homosexuals poorly.

Not good buddy.

Just because the Left claims that rejecting their behavior equates to hate, does not actually make rejecting deviant behavior, hateful.

So this is the Right's version of "Moral Equivalency."

Huh... false.

There is no moral equivalency. Sexual Deviancy is morally vacuous... .

Using your reasoning we must accept the sin... when such is decidedly, forbidden, setting one on the fast track to eternal damnation.

Go read John 8

"1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them

3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin."

Using your reasoning, Keys, we should automatically condemn the sinner, without so much as one iota of compassion or forgiveness. Right then, as if we have no sin in our lives to be forgiven.

"21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."



Man that is some twisted crapola right there. Forgiving the sinner... GOOD. Accepting the SIN, OKA: SIN... BAD!

At the end of the day, that Prostitute is going to spend eternity in incomprehensible anguish, sent there by Christ, unless and until she admits to Christ that she is a sinner and TURNS FROM THAT SIN... . Accepting Christ as her Lord and Savior, thus his gift in providing God's grace.

Now that you're up to speed... Feel free to revise and retract.

You invoke science in one breath, and religion in the next.

You need to pick a side, because the two are incompatible.

 

[Skylar]

I had a tough go of it. No really, as a Christian I think homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong and patently sinful, thusly I don't condone either. I've really wrestled my conscience mightily over it. But after a mighty struggle and in a moment of clarity, it has dawned on me that gay people deserve rights like I do, and I will defend them, I won't force equality, I'll fight for it. America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom and free association.

Yes, the Republicans on this board can go ahead and get angry at me all they want, this position will not change. I really don't care how gay people become gay, they deserve to be treated equally. I don't have a problem with people holding true to their morals, but when they agree to serve people equally under the law, they should.

You can't just set aside a just law for the sole reason of your personal belief. You can serve people equally without ever personally condoning the lifestyle choices of others. Equality has no bias.

Well, kudos to you for wrestling mightly with the issue. Most opponents of gay rights don't really think too hard about it. And most of those that do generally become gay rights advocates...for the very reason you've cited.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This stems off into a plethora of subsequent issues, with their demand that the culture shoudl reject the natural standard of marriage based again: upon the deceit, that sexual deviancy is normal.

Where did I say it was normal? Who said anything about "rejecting the natural standard?" I believe marriage is between a man and a woman myself, but where the law goes, it must be applied equally, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I would appreciate you reading the OP before making your snap judgments

Marriage laws are equally enforced on everyone. They do not unjustly discriminate against anyone. .

Really? In a state where a man can marry a woman, but a woman could not marry the same women,

that's equal enforcement?

Yes... it is. And it is because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ok... How does that require one accept thy neighbor's deceit, as truth?

You don't have to accept anything your neighbor does, just that you treat him with the same dignity that you require for yourself. What is so hard about that? Hmm?

Straw reasoning? At this early stage? That's not a good sign TK.

Nothing I've said invokes ill treatment of anyone. Yet there you are implying that Americans who reject homosexual behavior, are by their position, treating homosexuals poorly.

Not good buddy.

Just because the Left claims that rejecting their behavior equates to hate, does not actually make rejecting deviant behavior, hateful.

So this is the Right's version of "Moral Equivalency."

Huh... false.

There is no moral equivalency. Sexual Deviancy is morally vacuous... .

Using your reasoning we must accept the sin... when such is decidedly, forbidden, setting one on the fast track to eternal damnation.

Go read John 8

"1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them

3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin."

Using your reasoning, Keys, we should automatically condemn the sinner, without so much as one iota of compassion or forgiveness. Right then, as if we have no sin in our lives to be forgiven.

"21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."

Matthew 18:21-22

Man that is some twisted crapola right there. Forgiving the sinner... GOOD. Accepting the SIN, OKA: SIN... BAD!

At the end of the day, that Prostitute is going to spend eternity in incomprehensible anguish, sent there by Christ, unless and until she admits to Christ that she is a sinner and TURNS FROM THAT SIN... . Accepting Christ as her Lord and Savior, thus his gift in providing God's grace.

Now that you're up to speed... Feel free to revise and retract.

You invoke science in one breath, and religion in the next.

You need to pick a side, because the two are incompatible.

(Edit: No extra charge for fixing you train-wreck post construction.)
Where the issue is science, I speak to science. Where the issue is Christianity I speak to Christianity.

You 'feel' that the two subjects are mutually exclusive, they're not; with your 'feelings' notwithstanding.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nothing I've said invokes ill treatment of anyone.

Your rants of "sexual deviants" and "natural standards" would suggest otherwise.

Man that is some twisted crapola right there. Forgiving the sinner... GOOD. Accepting the SIN, OKA: SIN... BAD!

Are you simply a man of words? Because all I see here is direct condemnation, and no consideration except to insult my reasoning without providing any of your own.

At the end of the day, that Prostitute is going to spend eternity in incomprehensible anguish, sent there by Christ, unless and until she admits to Christ that she is a sinner and TURNS FROM THAT SIN... . Accepting Christ as her Lord and Savior, thus his gift in providing God's grace.

The whole idea is forgiveness! "Nor will I condemn you." he said. If a homosexual deems fit to do the same, let them.