A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[JakeStarkey]

Keys has always been dishonest.

And it's precious when he quotes himself as an authority on natural morality; it is a hoot.

 

[LoneLaugher]

My observation is Scriptural. You support gay marriage, therefore, you cannot be a Christian.

So is mine, and based on legal precedent also.

What people on this thread seem not to understand is that from a religious standpoint, I cannot, nor will I ever condone gay marriage or homosexuality, I still think it is unnatural. But from a legal standpoint, I cannot expect the unequal application of our laws. Its that simple. I support equal protection under the law, not gay marriage itself.
.?'
And you are in no place to judge my relationship with God. Don't even presume to know what its like.

And yet you are defending mans law over Gods law. What if there was a law forbidding Christians to worship? Should we support it, since it's the law? According to your argument, we should.

A 'what if' in the freest country in the world'? The 1st Amendment protects against that. Otherwise, what would you do? Go on jihad?

The Constitution says nothing about protecting sexual deviants.

The bible says nothing about persecuting homosexuals.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL!

Let's REVIEW:

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is based in deceit, which is held up as truth.

Nobody is asking to normalize anything.

Homosexuality is a 180 degree deviation from human physiological normality. (dot dot dot See Post #144)

And in what reality are you allowed to dictate what is normal?

(Reader... do you see how easy this is?)


If I didn't already have the best signature in the known universe... The Above would be my new signature.

CHECK AND MATE!​

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL!

Let's REVIEW:

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is based in deceit, which is held up as truth.

Nobody is asking to normalize anything.

Homosexuality is a 180 degree deviation from human physiological normality. (dot dot dot See Post #144)

And in what reality are you allowed to dictate what is normal?

(Reader... do you see how easy this is?)


If I didn't already have the best signature in the known universe... The Above would be my new signature.

CHECK AND MATE!​

And how are those two questions alike? Can you prove that? Such bravado covers for a failed argument.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's review. Keys insisted on what is "normal human physiology" without mentioning that being a homosexual does not affect the normity of the human form or function. It is like saying that if a car isn't white as opposed to black, that it will not run normally.

His entire argument is based on using the law to "normalize" and "enforce the natural standards of society." He uses his self imposed authority to instill the notion that gays are "deviants" and should be relegated to subhuman status. Deviant or not, the law still applies to them as they do to us.

I guess nobody taught him the aspect of human compassion, or equal application of properly litigated and legislated law. His argument in summation is like trying to play chess on a Chinese checkerboard. He lost all the marbles.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Notice how Keys proclaimed victory and ran off. Being the last one standing after this debate, I say victory is mine.

 

[mdk]

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.

I don't argee with you on some issue but I have to give you credit concerning this issue. Cheers to you!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey Where_r_my_Keys , where is your argument? And where are you?

 

[mdk]

Notice how Keys proclaimed victory and ran off. Being the last one standing after this debate, I say victory is mine.

You'll find that Keys has a habit of declaring victory and scampering off into the sunset.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL!

Let's REVIEW:

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is based in deceit, which is held up as truth.

Nobody is asking to normalize anything.

Homosexuality is a 180 degree deviation from human physiological normality. (dot dot dot See Post #144)

And in what reality are you allowed to dictate what is normal?

(Reader... do you see how easy this is?)


If I didn't already have the best signature in the known universe... The Above would be my new signature.

CHECK AND MATE!​

And how are those two questions alike? Can you prove that? Such bravado covers for a failed argument.

Golly... looks like the heats ON!

First, they weren't questions... the first was an emphatic assertion. The Second was a rationalization, posed as a question... and a means to imply that THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NORMAL... thus indicating that you need homosexuality to be normal... the presumed basis for your recent change of heart. (Son or Daughter?)


But let's get to the heart of the matter...

Here's how it went down scamp:


I noted the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

You then DEMANDED: "Nobody is asking to normalize anything."

I then offered up the natural facts regarding the perversion of human reasoning which induces cravings for sexual gratification with members of their own gender... as a means to encourage YOU TO PROVE THAT YOU NEED HOMOSEXUALITY TO BE NORMAL... TO ACCEPT IT, WHICH WOULD CAUSE YOU TO AT LEAST IMPLY THAT SUCH IS NORMAL... PROVING THAT YOU'RE NOT ONLY WRONG... BUT A RAGING HYPOCRITE WHO IS WRONG.


AT WHICH POINT YOU PROVED THAT YOU NEED HOMOSEXUALITY TO BE NORMAL... TO ACCEPT IT, CAUSING YOU TO IMPLY THAT SUCH IS NORMAL...

PROVING THAT YOU'RE NOT ONLY WRONG... BUT A RAGING HYPOCRITE

WHO IS WRONG.

Does that help connect 'em, for ya?

​

LOL! This is what it looked like:

Let's REVIEW:

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is based in deceit, which is held up as truth.

Nobody is asking to normalize anything.

Homosexuality is a 180 degree deviation from human physiological normality. (dot dot dot See Post #144)

And in what reality are you allowed to dictate what is normal?

(Reader... do you see how easy this is?)


If I didn't already have the best signature in the known universe... The Above would be my new signature.

CHECK AND MATE!​

 

[Syriusly]

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

'defend children of legitimate marriage'- so you don't want the children of what you consider 'illigetimate marriage defended?

Why don't you want the parents of children to be married- if the parents are gay?

And for your viewing pleasure-

Arkansas politician who gave away his two adopted daughters to rapist had an exorcism performed on the girls because he and his wife thought they were possessed

• Rep. Justin Harris adopted two girls in 2013 but gave them away to a colleague, Eric Francis, after six months, who then raped one of the girls
• Francis was convicted of sex crimes in 2014 and given 40-year sentence
• Harris's role in giving the girls to a rapist only emerged in an expose by the Arkansas Times last week

Arkansas politician who gave away his two adopted daughters to rapist had an exorcism performed on the girls because he and his wife thought they were possessed Daily Mail Online

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Second was a rationalization, posed as a question... and a means to imply that THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NORMAL

Er, you're missing the fact that I never said anything about normalizing homosexuality.

I noted the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

Actually, I advocated for equal treatment of homosexuals under the law, not normalization. You aren't winning by trying to misquote me.

I then offered up the natural facts

You offered your own self prevaricated facts, my friend.

AT WHICH POINT YOU PROVED THAT YOU NEED HOMOSEXUALITY TO BE NORMAL... TO ACCEPT IT, CAUSING YOU TO IMPLY THAT SUCH IS NORMAL...

What you have failed to do is cite any post of mine which makes such a suggestion. Now, start digging. I don't need homosexuality to be normalized. I demand that people who are homosexual be treated fairly under that law. Normalcy as it pertains to my argument is a red herring.

PROVING THAT YOU'RE NOT ONLY WRONG... BUT A RAGING HYPOCRITE

WHO IS WRONG.
​

Getting angry are we? That is the worst contention I've ever heard. "You are wrong because...you are wrong!"

Oh boy. Please. Even the strawmen are starting to abandon you.

 

[Syriusly]

WHO IS WRONG.​

That would be you.

Always delusional you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And keys, who says the law must always agree with you? Hmm?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey, I think I just became a classical liberal!

 

[Truth2Know]

Notice how Keys proclaimed victory and ran off. Being the last one standing after this debate, I say victory is mine.

Victory? That you "proved" it is good to support people's disobedience of God's commands, knowing that when they stand before Him they risk eternal condemnation?

Don't you think that sharing the truth with people in the hope that truth would set them free is more in-line with the victory Christ desires us to have?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Victory? That you "proved" it is good to support people's disobedience of God's commands, knowing that when they stand before Him they risk eternal condemnation?

Answer this question:

Is it Christlike to selectively apply the law? Hmm? Did Jesus not apply his commands equally?

"44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?"

Matthew 5:44-46

Don't you think that sharing the truth with people in the hope that truth would set them free is more in-line with the victory Christ desires us to have?

Spare me your piousity. How can you use the teachings of Christ to purposefully put others at a disadvantage?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

MR.RIGHT SAID:

“The Constitution says nothing about protecting sexual deviants.”

No one ever said it did.

It does, however, protect the right to due process and equal protection of the law, requiring the states to allow same-sex couples access to marriage.

 

[Truth2Know]

Victory? That you "proved" it is good to support people's disobedience of God's commands, knowing that when they stand before Him they risk eternal condemnation?

Answer this question:

Is it Christlike to selectively apply the law? Hmm? Did Jesus not apply his commands equally?

"44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?"

Matthew 5:44-46

Don't you think that sharing the truth with people in the hope that truth would set them free is more in-line with the victory Christ desires us to have?

Spare me your piousity. How can you use the teachings of Christ to purposefully put others at a disadvantage?

You are correct. God's law is applied equally to everyone. That's why it is our responsibility to help everyone know His laws.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Second was a rationalization, posed as a question... and a means to imply that THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NORMAL

Er, you're missing the fact t....

It's not a complex equation TK...

This is precisely what happened:

LOL!

Let's REVIEW:

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is based in deceit, which is held up as truth.

Nobody is asking to normalize anything.

Homosexuality is a 180 degree deviation from human physiological normality. (dot dot dot See Post #144)

And in what reality are you allowed to dictate what is normal?

You implied that Normalization was irrelevant, then ran to make Normality relevant.

That is pulled precisely from the record. Doesn't require all your recent hysteria.

You lost this debate the moment you clicked on the Post Thread icon.

But if you feel you must litter the thread with your own addled rationalizations, you're entitled to do so, unlike the those of mental disorder who feel that marriage will render them legitimate, because their mental disorder precludes objective reason, thus precludes their means to understand that the instant that marriage drops its exclusion of them, all legitimacy for which the former standard provided, will vaporize back into the ether.