Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[Quantum Windbag]

You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?

I call bullshit.

Of course you do. Unfortunately, for you, I can find examples on the internet.

I?m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage | Public Discourse

Gays Against Gay Marriage | Just another WordPress.com weblog

You know those people? Cool.

Do I know everyone in the world?

No.

 

[emilynghiem]

Whether one is born gay or ‘decides’ to be gay, both manifestations are protected by the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause, guaranteeing every American the right to self-determination free from interference by the state:

It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Private citizens are of course at liberty to hate and exhibit their ignorant concerning gay Americans, but they are not at liberty to seek to codify that hate and ignorance in secular law, such as laws currently being determined un-Constitutional designed to deny same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.

Dear CCJ: It goes BOTH ways (no pun intended).

People have the right to believe and exercise beliefs in gay marriage.

But neither the people for or the people against gay marriage
have the right to IMPOSE these beliefs IN PUBLIC and IN PUBLIC POLICY
either by BANNING or ESTABLISHING "gay marriage" through the STATE.

All are free to exercise their own beliefs personally through the institutions
of their choice; but where people don't all agree PUBLICLY then neither type of beliefs
can be imposed PUBLICLY without violating the EQUAL constitutional protections of the other beliefs.

Whatever rules you enforce for beliefs you deem to be based on "hate and ignorance"
other people EQUALLY have the same protections against policies being imposed on them they deem to be based on "promoting unnatural behavior or deviant lifestyles."

Can we agree that the same rules apply to both sides of these arguments?
Neither one can be established or imposed on the other through public policy,
without violating Constitutional laws against govt establishing religion (ie religious bias in policy) and/or discriminating against people by their beliefs?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
What is unfair to one side, is equally unfair when the shoe is on the other foot.

Can we agree to treat all people's views as equal under the law?
And agree not to impose any bias in policy so that it excludes others?

 

[RosieS]

Excuse me? And you are going to use this thread to denigrate the beliefs of others? Ah, but you think you can lecture others on being rational. How cute. Just who made you the supreme authority on religion, hmm?

(coff, coff) Ahem. The U.S. Constitution makes every individual the supreme authority on religion.

That is what freedom of religion means.

Regards from Rosie

You have no clue what you just said, do you? Perhaps you may have misread my statement?

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? Hmm? No, the Constitution does not give anyone the right to be an authority on anything, save their freedom and liberty. That's it. It gives people authority over their government, not the other way around.

I advocate equality for homosexuals, even against my better judgement as a man of faith, simply because the Bible says "judge not", and "love one another." Moreover, as a student of the law, it's a no brainer what the 14th Amendment says. Though, some actual homosexuals are just as bad about flaunting their lifestyle as those Christians (like GIMSYS) are with flaunting theirs. They could do without it.

Evidently you have no idea what the Bill of Rights is about.

The people have the right to suppress anything about any religion.

The Bill of Rights states what the GOVERNMENT may not do. The government may not forbid anyone to have any religion, and the government may not promote one religion over the others.

The states that are voting not to have gay marriage are voting to promote Christianity over all other religions.

NO state or local or federal entity may do that. It is forbidden by the U.S.Constitution, which has Supremacy (there is a Clause for that) over every and all state Constitutions.

That is why Federal Courts are overturning the bans on gay marriage and all such efforts by the states are doomed to fail.

Because governments are not allowed to do that. Absolutely not allowed. All of them.

Read the first ten amendments in light of the restrictions they put on governance. That is precisely what James Madison intended. Governments to be restricted.

Regards from Rosie

 

[TemplarKormac]

Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to share with you some of my views regarding the topic of homosexuality. So, here goes.



1) You must be a hateful bigot. No. Just because I don't accept or agree with everything homosexuality, doesn't make me a hateful bigot. That is intellectually lazy, not to mention very partisan. Since when does “I don't support gay marriage, agree with people being born gay, or think it's moral” the same as “I hate you for being gay?” There is so much difference there. Disagreeing isn't automatically hating. You may not believe it, but there are Christians out there who believe homosexuality is a sin and hate it, but don't hate the actual person.


2) ...it's OK to insult and mock homosexuals? Sure, you can do that, if you want to be a completely incredulous jerk. That's especially bad when in the same breath you're calling homosexuality a sin. You give homosexuals justified ammo to call you hateful when you deliberately insult and mock them. Do you think Christians should mock and insult people with vile slurs like “faggot”? No. Those who don't support homosexuality can certainly be civil and respectful in their disagreement.


3) How completely intolerant of you.... Not 100% accepting homosexuality means I'm intolerant? Really? I don't think so. If I could not tolerate you, I would attempt to erase you from existence. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't tolerate you. I tolerate you plenty, with your obscene gay pride parades, snarky and flamboyant drama, and your annoyingly forced lisping. And when I say “you,” I mean certain loud homosexuals like Perez Hilton. So, no. I'm more than happy to disagree with you while coexisting peacefully. One can tolerate those who disagree. Do you?


4) But wait, homosexuals are pedophiles!!! Oh, god, be quiet. Homosexuality is when two people of the same sex have sexual attraction towards one another, which typically leads to them having sex. That ain't pedophilia. Being a pedophile is when you have sexual attraction towards a child. Gay, straight, and bisexual pedophiles exist. If you really want to poison the discussion, keep calling homosexuals pedophiles and see what happens. They are two completely different things.


5) Portrayal and reality regarding homosexuality. For some reason people have made it seem like homosexuals are happy, carefree, fabulous people. And they even took our rainbow and put it in their background. Now, the rainbow, a beautiful and natural phenomenon, has become a symbol of something that's not quite natural or beautiful. The reality is that gay men penetrate the anuses of other men with their genitalia. That means part of their body is going to have feces on it. Does that sound beautiful? No. Saying it like it is isn't a bad thing. Perhaps the “fabulous” imagery some homosexuals enshroud themselves in is compensation for the disgusting nature of their sex. As for lesbians, I've heard one puts on a modified strap that resembles male genitalia. I don't quite understand that. Do more expensive models warm up? Why a woman would prefer another woman with some modified contraption to a living, breathing man merits its own pile of questions. I don't believe in sacred cows, so I have no problem discussing any unsavory detail so long as it's done in a civil manner.


6) Homosexuals can't be good parents. I don't believe that for a minute. While in my view it'd be better if a child has both a mommy and a daddy for balance, I don't think gay couples are inherently bad parents, or people, at all. Two men or two women can definitely love, cherish, and care for children. It just isn't the same as one mama and one papa. For thousands of years it's been normal for offspring to have one mother and one father. Child's going to be confused, in my opinion. That imbalance doesn't mean homosexual people can't be loving parents. There are two issues here: 1) The imbalance two male or two female parents can bring and 2) Assuming homosexual couples are automatically bad, unfit parents. On the 2nd, no, that assumption is really wrong. On the 1st, I do favor how the yin and yang of man and woman together can bring a balance of two vastly different worlds and perspectives together. I wish my fellow conservatives would stop making that cruel assumption.


7) If you disagree, you must be gay. That's just juvenile. Seriously. You're not a teenager.


8) Don't you know people are born gay? According to who? How so, and why? Like I say to religious folk: show me your scientific evidence. In my opinion, people are born straight, because nature has it so that both man and woman have what they need to mate and procreate. I don't understand why homosexual people have their homosexual feelings/attractions. I may be wrong about everything; who knows? It could very well be due to a chemical imbalance in the brain. At the very least keep that possibility in your mind for the sake of unbiased, scientific research explanation. Instead of flying into a furor when some try to research and better understand the science behind homosexuality without a progressive slant, let everyone research the issue. Knowledge is power, and nothing should be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. I wonder what research would unearth if the intelligentsia weren't of an incredibly liberal---or conservative---slant.


9) Homosexuals are evil and deserve Hellfire. Boy, this one is tough. I was raised in an Apostolic-Pentecostal home. Now, I'm a nonreligious conservative. Do I believe the traditional Bibles consider it a sin in spite of what revisionist liberals say? Yes. Do I believe in the Bible? Currently, no. That's a whole 'nother discussion. Are homosexuals inherently evil? Absolutely not. All have sinned in the eyes of God... … ...assuming a god even exists, and the one in question at that. Some liberal Christians say we shouldn't judge homosexuals as sinning, but I could just as easily turn the tables by taking the dusty old book and ask them why they absolutely won't acknowledge homosexuality as a sin, unlike other sins they do. If homosexuality is sinful, OK. Now how about greed, lust, and any other conceivable sin out there the Bible mentions? I think it would be wise for liberal Christians to stop ignoring what the Bible mentions about homosexuality, say “alright,” and then point out every other sin that all people so casually do. And I do completely acknowledge how supremely hypocritical some religious people can be.


10) You've a different opinion? How DARE you!! As history has shown, there's been quite a bit of outrage by some on the left when someone has an opinion in favor of Traditional marriage, etc. I don't understand how some people could get so angry and inflamed over someone else voicing an opinion. That kind of crap needs to stop, because it's immature and detrimental to general discussion. Not only that, but taking it a step further and actually trying to destroy peoples' livelihoods... Holy crap that's wrong. “OH, you believe in taxation? How dare you! I'm going to try and destroy everything you've worked so hard for!” Imagine if someone told you that because you did something so innocuous as sharing your opinion when asked for one. The whole Duck Dynasty debacle is one example of that kind of overreaction. Same with Chick-Fil-A. Same with Miss California (Carrie Prejean) and that loudmouth, Perez Hilton. People like those responsible for this kind of inflamed, Herpe-like overreaction is one thing that hurts the image of ALL homosexual people. It makes them look like they absolutely cannot stand opposing views, and that they have really, really, really thin skin. I'm aware people have very different views from mine, but you don't see me hopping up and down with seething rage while trying to ruin your life over it.


11) Romeikes & Mathericks. Europe isn't free like America.


12) Homosexuals and the Military Not sure what to say about this. Let 'em fight for our country. If they sexually harass other military members or do lewd sexual acts in front of other soldiers, punish them for misconduct. Have them fight, but don't tolerate sexual harassment from anyone, whoever they are.


13) Summary. I'd like to see everyone stop fighting, insulting, disrespecting, and slandering one another over this. All that does is stir up more hatred and anger, which is never going to bring peace about for all here. Respect each other's right to have an opinion, and don't freak out or try to destroy people for disagreeing with you. These sensitive issues aren't nearly as cut-and-dried as some would have you believe. Don't assume homosexuals are pedophiles or bad parents. Don't assume Christians are hateful or bigoted. You don't really understand each other, which makes it very easy to lob attacks. This vicious cycle of hatred and bitterness by all sides will result in nothing good for all involved. Please, I am asking you to stop, step back, and really question and think about how you've been thinking about people. Challenge yourselves to point out your own assumptions and question them vigorously. Ask others to help you if you want. And, whatever you do, talk with people as if they are people. As if they're your neighbors. Don't treat them special, but give them mutual respect. I strongly believe we can talk about virtually anything without becoming consumed in the raging fires of anger and hatred. We are as capable of understanding, coming together, and maintaining peace as we are the reverse.


Though you may disagree, at least try to love and respect one another.

Assorted Brain Candy
The Aftermath of the Trial
Thoughts from a Simple Man
Your Taxes, Your Beliefs​

1) For this one, you nailed it. Can't really add much to this.

2) I agree. You can disagree without being a jerk. I could say the reverse is also very true for homosexuals out there as well. If you don't like the fact that someone disagrees with your lifestyle, find a civil way to discuss it. Being a jerk lends not only the ammo, but the justification to those Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. If you want people to understand your cause, represent it well.

3) Tolerance is a double edged sword. It can be used as a weapon, or applied peacefully. It can't be forced. You can't claim tolerance if you in one breath say "I am tolerant of you" but then turn around and berate them for disagreeing with you. That isn't tolerance. People are free to disagree, to dissent, hence the nature of free thought. It isn't okay to attempt to subvert the views of another to appease yours. That is the furthest thing from tolerance.

4) Yes, if using the dictionary of pedophile, you would be correct. It would also be disingenuous to say that there are no pedophiles who are also homosexual. While rare, I don't see many cases of them preying on children. They do have sensibilities; much to the dismay of some insanely far right folks around here.

5) As to the latter half of that statement, it leads one to question the merits of whether the claim that homosexual is born homosexual is indeed true. Strap-ons indicate a desire for a male. It also speaks to the anal sex gay men have, which is a depiction of vaginal sex with a woman. It leads me to believe homosexuality is a choice--a statement of rebellion or desperation, not something for which they are born with. I've yet to see any scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is genetic.

6) I have not once made such a "cruel assumption" and being highly intelligent, I would hope never to make such an assumption. I do agree that it's disruptive to the traditional family environment to have parents of the same sex, but it does not demerit those who are. So long as these parents let their children think for themselves, I see no problem with it.

7) As I've said earlier, disagreement is one key cog in the aspect of free thinking. To assume that simple disagreement with homosexuality somehow lends you other certain traits not inherent to you, is simply dishonest. Such an assertion is merely a political talking point used to sway voters. We are free to disagree, whilst at the same time being tolerant of homosexuals.

8) Indeed, science is a tool for knowledge, not a weapon to destroy the held views of your opponents. Just look what has happened in the global warming debate, (a topic for another thread entirely) when science is used to sensationalize one point of view, while demonstratively tearing down another.

9) This is indeed a tough subject. But it is also disingenuous to ignore one sin and assail others for the rest. However, as a Protestant/Baptist I believe all sins are equal in the eyes of God, save for the impartible sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is as I believe a one way ticket to hell. I see homosexuality as sinful, but I am in no place to dole out judgement or forgiveness for it. I can simply pray for them. That's it, that's all. I have a philosophy: those who damn others, damn themselves.

10) Bingo. Once again, disagreement and opinion are keys to free thought. You cannot simply tell someone how to think or that their way of thought is wrong purely on the notion that you disagree with them. That is both suppressive and tyrannical behavior. People are free to have whatever opinions they wish, without coming to fear retribution for such. In both of the instances you described, an effort to destroy the image of these respective entities ultimately backfired. Any time a gay couple attempts to ruin the livelihoods of Christian proprietors or business owners, it lends credence to the argument that homosexuals are indeed wholly intolerant, that homosexuality is wrong, and that they might have some preexisting motive for doing so. All you can simply do is an about face, and walk away. No need to cause a scene.

11) I am unsure how to address this... so I won't. I'm failing to see what relevance this has to the rest of your post.

12) Well, yet another touchy subject. While I agree the same love of country drives any manor woman to fight for his or her country, I couldn't help but notice something else. Something along the lines of Christians being suppressed in the military, while the antithesis (homosexuality) is being widely encouraged. Notice how one group isn't free to have an opinion, while the other can. Homosexuality, and those who participate in it, are being used as political pawns. I agree however, that no matter who you are, you have the same freedom to fight for your freedom, and for your country.

13) Excellent summation. But alas, the act of hostility is a but a trait of our humanity. It can be really hard to resist that urge to attack and snuff out what you don't agree with--or what you fear. Fear can provoke hostility, as can hatred. It takes a high minded individual to both disagree with one view, but be tolerant of others who share that view, while maintaining theirs without so much as an inkling of hostility.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to share with you some of my views regarding the topic of homosexuality. So, here goes.



You must be a hateful bigot. No. Just because I don't accept or agree with everything homosexuality doesn't make me a hateful bigot. That is intellectually lazy, not to mention very partisan. Since when does “I don't support gay marriage, agree with people being born gay, or think it's moral” the same as “I hate you for being gay.” There is so much difference there. Disagreeing isn't automatically hating. You may not believe it, but there are Christians out there who believe homosexuality is a sin and hate it, but don't hate the actual person.

I only consider bigots those that make hateful and insulting remarks about homosexuals, what other reason would there be.

I'm not going to address all of your positions...and I'm just giving my opinion, sometimes I agree with you, other times, not.

...it's OK to insult and mock homosexuals? Sure, you can do that, if you want to be a completely incredulous jerk. That's especially bad when in the same breath you're calling homosexuality a sin. You give homosexuals justified ammo to call you hateful when you deliberately insult and mock them. Do you think Christians should mock and insult people with vile slurs like “faggot”? No. Those who don't support homosexuality can certainly be civil and respectful in their disagreement.

It's never okay to insult and mock anyone, and especially for Christians. Jesus commanded that we "love" our neighbor and he didn't put specifics on it. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, then don't participate, but nowhere in the Bible are we told to mock and ridicule anyone. Adultery, greed, etc., are sins too, yet those sins are not denounced as the presumed sin of homosexuality.



Pedophiles exist among heterosexual people, too, so to make that claim is utterly ignorant.




Do you realize that some heterosexual participate in that same type of sexual behavior? I didn't realize how many people are "swingers", also "masochists", "pedophiles" and heavens know how many other types of sexual activities people participate in. I don't believe there is anything in the Bible that dictates that we need to investigate each and every sexual activity and then make it our life's mission to extinguish it.....



Considering how many heterosexuals abuse their children, even kill them, to make such a statement defies all logic.



That is a tactic used to anger someone into agreeing with one's own beliefs....usually doesn't work.

Don't you know people are born gay? According to who? How so, and why? Like I say to religious folk: show me your scientific evidence. In my opinion, people are born straight, because nature has it so that both man and woman have what they need to mate and procreate. I don't understand why homosexual people have their homosexual feelings/attractions. I may be wrong about everything; who knows? It could very well be due to a chemical imbalance in the brain. At the very least keep that possibility in your mind for the sake of unbiased, scientific research explanation. Instead of flying into a furor when some try to research and better understand the science behind homosexuality without a progressive slant, let everyone research the issue. Knowledge is power, and nothing should be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. I wonder what research would unearth if the intelligentsia weren't of an incredibly liberal---or conservative---slant.

You really have no proof that everyone is born straight. I honestly can't fathom anyone just wanting to be gay for whatever reason. Everyone knows they are persecuted, ridiculed, criticized and cheated out of some rights, so why on earth would anyone choose to be gay?
And, there is evidence that animals display homosexual tendencies, geez, wonder where they learned that?

Homosexuals are evil and deserve Hellfire. Boy, this one is tough. I was raised in an Apostolic-Pentecostal home. Now, I'm a nonreligious conservative. Do I believe the traditional Bibles consider it a sin in spite of what revisionist liberals say? Yes. Do I believe in the Bible? Currently, no. That's a whole 'nother discussion. Are homosexuals inherently evil? Absolutely not. All have sinned in the eyes of God... … ...assuming a god even exists, and the one in question at that. Some liberal Christians say we shouldn't judge homosexuals as sinning, but I could just as easily turn the tables by taking the dusty old book and ask them why they absolutely won't acknowledge homosexuality as a sin, unlike other sins they do. If homosexuality is sinful, OK. Now how about greed, lust, and any other conceivable sin out there the Bible mentions? I think it would be wise for liberal Christians to stop ignoring what the Bible mentions about homosexuality, say “alright,” and then point out every other sin that all people so casually do. And I do completely acknowledge how supremely hypocritical some religious people can be.

The only place in the Bible that alludes to homosexuality being a sin is the Old Testament. Christians don't go by the Old Testament, otherwise they would be stoning their children when they disobey, or killing their wives when they commit adultery. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but for those who feel it is a sin, so is the sin of judgement.
So, as Christians, we don't try to make everyone sinless, that is the job of Jesus, our job is just to show them that "following" Christ is the right thing to do and Christ never killed or mocked anyone, not even an adulteress and never a homosexual.

What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)

 

[LoneLaugher]

It ISN'T marriage as marriage has been defined for many millenia. The traditional marriage laws are/were currently 100% equitable and applied without to every single man, woman, and child in whatever state. And every single law related to marriage was to a) encourage traditional marriage and b) provide essential protection for any children resulting from such marriage. Obviously no children will be produced from a gay union and a gay union is not traditional marriage, so you cannot allow gays to 'marry' without changing the definition and purpose of the marriage laws.

At the same time, there are those, gay and straight, who for whatever reason cannot or do not want to enter into a traditional marriage, but who need some tax benefits, visitation and inheritance rights, etc. enjoyed by married people, and who need/want to form themselves into legally recognized family units for that purpose. I very much support laws to accommodate this. I just want it to be called something other than marriage.

Being the incredibly intelligent person that you are, I expect the sheer idiocy of your point of view here will not register.

You want the name of what they do to be called something else. As if not doing so will in some way effect anyone, anywhere.

What shall we call it? Got any suggestions? What should Bob ask Bill on one knee? Fill in the blank, please.

"Bill........will you _______________ me?

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.

Really, really strained logic. Congrats.

 

[LoneLaugher]

@Quantum Windbag

John Fugelsang: Why the New Testament doesn?t condemn gay people | americansforcommonsenseblog

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

(coff, coff) Ahem. The U.S. Constitution makes every individual the supreme authority on religion.

That is what freedom of religion means.

Regards from Rosie

You have no clue what you just said, do you? Perhaps you may have misread my statement?

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? Hmm? No, the Constitution does not give anyone the right to be an authority on anything, save their freedom and liberty. That's it. It gives people authority over their government, not the other way around.

I advocate equality for homosexuals, even against my better judgement as a man of faith, simply because the Bible says "judge not", and "love one another." Moreover, as a student of the law, it's a no brainer what the 14th Amendment says. Though, some actual homosexuals are just as bad about flaunting their lifestyle as those Christians (like GIMSYS) are with flaunting theirs. They could do without it.

Evidently you have no idea what the Bill of Rights is about.

The people have the right to suppress anything about any religion.

The Bill of Rights states what the GOVERNMENT may not do. The government may not forbid anyone to have any religion, and the government may not promote one religion over the others.

The states that are voting not to have gay marriage are voting to promote Christianity over all other religions.

NO state or local or federal entity may do that. It is forbidden by the U.S.Constitution, which has Supremacy (there is a Clause for that) over every and all state Constitutions.

That is why Federal Courts are overturning the bans on gay marriage and all such efforts by the states are doomed to fail.

Because governments are not allowed to do that. Absolutely not allowed. All of them.

Read the first ten amendments in light of the restrictions they put on governance. That is precisely what James Madison intended. Governments to be restricted.

Regards from Rosie

True, he has no idea what the Bill of Rights is about, or the Constitution and its case law.

As with most rightists he’s contrived this ignorant notion that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment somehow ‘violates’ the religious liberty of Christians hostile to gay Americans.

 

[TemplarKormac]

(coff, coff) Ahem. The U.S. Constitution makes every individual the supreme authority on religion.

That is what freedom of religion means.

Regards from Rosie

You have no clue what you just said, do you? Perhaps you may have misread my statement?

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? Hmm? No, the Constitution does not give anyone the right to be an authority on anything, save their freedom and liberty. That's it. It gives people authority over their government, not the other way around.

I advocate equality for homosexuals, even against my better judgement as a man of faith, simply because the Bible says "judge not", and "love one another." Moreover, as a student of the law, it's a no brainer what the 14th Amendment says. Though, some actual homosexuals are just as bad about flaunting their lifestyle as those Christians (like GIMSYS) are with flaunting theirs. They could do without it.

Evidently you have no idea what the Bill of Rights is about.

The people have the right to suppress anything about any religion.

The Bill of Rights states what the GOVERNMENT may not do. The government may not forbid anyone to have any religion, and the government may not promote one religion over the others.

The states that are voting not to have gay marriage are voting to promote Christianity over all other religions.

NO state or local or federal entity may do that. It is forbidden by the U.S.Constitution, which has Supremacy (there is a Clause for that) over every and all state Constitutions.

That is why Federal Courts are overturning the bans on gay marriage and all such efforts by the states are doomed to fail.

Because governments are not allowed to do that. Absolutely not allowed. All of them.

Read the first ten amendments in light of the restrictions they put on governance. That is precisely what James Madison intended. Governments to be restricted.

Regards from Rosie

What are you talking about?

 

[TemplarKormac]

@Quantum Windbag

John Fugelsang: Why the New Testament doesn?t condemn gay people | americansforcommonsenseblog

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.

"expert"

Tell me, I suppose Obama being a constitutional scholar makes him an "expert" on the constitution?

Such discombobulated logic.

 

[Borillar]

God makes the rules, sure. The Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman" is not one of those Commandments.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Why did he destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Were they excessively greedy?

The story is the fruits of those who are not hospitable toward others.

Like hetero-fascists towards homosexuals.

But that is man writing, not God.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You have no clue what you just said, do you? Perhaps you may have misread my statement?

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? Hmm? No, the Constitution does not give anyone the right to be an authority on anything, save their freedom and liberty. That's it. It gives people authority over their government, not the other way around.

I advocate equality for homosexuals, even against my better judgement as a man of faith, simply because the Bible says "judge not", and "love one another." Moreover, as a student of the law, it's a no brainer what the 14th Amendment says. Though, some actual homosexuals are just as bad about flaunting their lifestyle as those Christians (like GIMSYS) are with flaunting theirs. They could do without it.

Evidently you have no idea what the Bill of Rights is about.

The people have the right to suppress anything about any religion.

The Bill of Rights states what the GOVERNMENT may not do. The government may not forbid anyone to have any religion, and the government may not promote one religion over the others.

The states that are voting not to have gay marriage are voting to promote Christianity over all other religions.

NO state or local or federal entity may do that. It is forbidden by the U.S.Constitution, which has Supremacy (there is a Clause for that) over every and all state Constitutions.

That is why Federal Courts are overturning the bans on gay marriage and all such efforts by the states are doomed to fail.

Because governments are not allowed to do that. Absolutely not allowed. All of them.

Read the first ten amendments in light of the restrictions they put on governance. That is precisely what James Madison intended. Governments to be restricted.

Regards from Rosie

True, he has no idea what the Bill of Rights is about, or the Constitution and its case law.

As with most rightists he’s contrived this ignorant notion that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment somehow ‘violates’ the religious liberty of Christians hostile to gay Americans.

Perhaps you didn't read this part, Clayton. You can't claim to know anything about the Constitution when you can't even so much as read the entirety of my post. This leads me to believe you only selectively apply the constitution. No wonder you liberals have such a problem with freedom and equality. You don't read.

I advocate equality for homosexuals, even against my better judgement as a man of faith, simply because the Bible says "judge not", and "love one another." Moreover, as a student of the law, it's a no brainer what the 14th Amendment says. Though, some actual homosexuals are just as bad about flaunting their lifestyle as those Christians (like GIMSYS) are with flaunting theirs. They could do without it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

"expert"

Tell me, I suppose Obama being a constitutional scholar makes him an "expert" on the constitution?

Such discombobulated logic.

Your reverse logic, my friends, boggles the brain.

If you disagree with him, you have to (to have any cred) is meet his arguments with those of your own based on the document and subsequent case law and SCOTUS opinions.

He is a "liberal" has no weight on his scholarly expertise than you are a "reactionary" libertarian.

We can use those terms and others (RINO, mainstream, dimocrap, repitards, liberartards) when ad homming each other.

But as acceptable opposition to a poltical or philosophical argument, never.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It seems that, if it were actually genetic, I wouldn't be able to find incontrovertible evidence that it isn't.

Not to worry, you haven't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

@Quantum Windbag

John Fugelsang: Why the New Testament doesn?t condemn gay people | americansforcommonsenseblog

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.

Expert? What, other than the fact that he has an opinion that you agree with, makes him an expert? There is nothing about his education at the site, and the only John Fugelsang I can find on Google is an actor.

I, on the other hand, have an actual degree in theology.

 

[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.

"expert"

Tell me, I suppose Obama being a constitutional scholar makes him an "expert" on the constitution?

Such discombobulated logic.

The guy is an actor, that makes him an expert on everything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

like GISMYS is being told by the church of LGBT to keep up the good work and divert the topic.

The so-called "church" exists in the minds of the substantially mentally impaired. Since the statement is true, no ad hom exists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why did he destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Were they excessively greedy?

The story is the fruits of those who are not hospitable toward others.

Like hetero-fascists towards homosexuals.

But that is man writing, not God.

Is it really?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It ISN'T marriage as marriage has been defined for many millenia. The traditional marriage laws are/were currently 100% equitable and applied without to every single man, woman, and child in whatever state. And every single law related to marriage was to a) encourage traditional marriage and b) provide essential protection for any children resulting from such marriage. Obviously no children will be produced from a gay union and a gay union is not traditional marriage, so you cannot allow gays to 'marry' without changing the definition and purpose of the marriage laws.

At the same time, there are those, gay and straight, who for whatever reason cannot or do not want to enter into a traditional marriage, but who need some tax benefits, visitation and inheritance rights, etc. enjoyed by married people, and who need/want to form themselves into legally recognized family units for that purpose. I very much support laws to accommodate this. I just want it to be called something other than marriage.

Being the incredibly intelligent person that you are, I expect the sheer idiocy of your point of view here will not register.

You want the name of what they do to be called something else. As if not doing so will in some way effect anyone, anywhere.

What shall we call it? Got any suggestions? What should Bob ask Bill on one knee? Fill in the blank, please.

"Bill........will you _______________ me?

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.