A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[TemplarKormac]

The fact is that Nature is the authority that defined the human species

Sorry, in American society, the Constitution trumps "natural authority," and therefore is the governing authority which we are all protected by.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So if you've got a problem with the laws of nature... you should take it up with Nature.

So, if you have a problem with the Constitution, perhaps you should read it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And we don't pretend that treating the mentally ill differently than we treat the mentally sound is inequity before the law.

Yet the sane and insane are all governed under the same laws, are they not?

Yes, they are... thus the equality before the law thing.

What ya don't realize is that there are laws which preclude the mentally ill from participating in certain activities... and the blind, the short, the tall, the fat and aged.

And those laws do not usurp their rights... because there is no right to injure others.

A libertarian would know that. SOOooooo... Why are you having such trouble with it?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The fact is that Nature is the authority that defined the human species

Sorry, in American society, the Constitution trumps "natural authority," and therefore is the governing authority which we are all protected by.

The Constitution is based entirely upon Natural Authority. See: The Bill of Rights.

Again... a Libertarian would know that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Constitution is based entirely upon Natural Authority. See: The Bill of Rights.

That same bill of rights applies to gay people, too. In June, the Supreme Court will reaffirm that position.

Again... a Libertarian would know that.

A (L)ibertarian and a (l)ibertarian are two different things. I am the latter.

Moreover, I advocate the right of people to marry who they want to marry, and leave each other the hell alone. Simple.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The honor in abiding by the laws of nature, which govern human behavior

Oh brother. In America, the law governs human behavior. Therefore obeying the law is the honorable thing to do in this circumstance.

Huh... so you're saying then, that homosexuals are dishonorable?

And you issued that as a contest?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Constitution is based entirely upon Natural Authority. See: The Bill of Rights.

That same bill of rights applies to gay people, too. In June, the Supreme Court will reaffirm that position.

No one that I know has suggested otherwise.

Which means that you're claiming now that the SCOTUS is Reaffirming something that has not been asserted?

Are you sure?

Who are these people claiming that sexual deviants don't enjoy protections of the rights endowed to them by their Creator?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, they are... thus the equality before the law thing.

So why does that not apply to gay people? Hmm? Thus the crux of your argument is destroyed.

What ya don't realize is that there are laws which preclude the mentally ill from participating in certain activities...

But gay people aren't "mentally ill" in the respect they they can delineate between reality and fantasy, all while obeying the law like the rest of us just how does being gay affect their sanity?

What is it you are suggesting here? That we round them all up and exclude them from the rest of society? Geez dude, that's harsh.

And those laws do not usurp their rights... because there is no right to injure others.

Then why do you wish to usurp the rights of other citizens of whom's lifestyle you contend violates "natural law?"

A libertarian would know that. SOOooooo... Why are you having such trouble with it?

Another "no true scotsman" argument.

Frankly I doubt you even know what being a libertarian is like. Don't even try, it would blow your mind. So, why are you having so much trouble with equal treatment under the law? Hmm?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Huh... so you're saying then, that homosexuals are dishonorable?

Where did you get that idea?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one that I know has suggested otherwise.

You did.

Which means that you're claiming now that the SCOTUS is Reaffirming something that has not been asserted?

You're the one who evoked the Bill of Rights, not me. Your whole argument is based on the fact that gays do not comply with natural law, when in fact here, the only law that matters is the Constitution. Thus my assertion.

Who are these people claiming that sexual deviants don't enjoy protections of the rights endowed to them by their Creator?

As far as the law goes, the only thing they are not allowed to do is marry. That's it. With all the other laws, you would be correct. What I am suggesting is that any law which deals with marriage is correctly governed by the Constitution, and subsequently the 14th Amendment. I have said a million times before, I don't have to agree with what they do, but what they do deserves equal protection under the law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, they are... thus the equality before the law thing.

So why does that not apply to gay people?

It does... sexual deviants are not treated inequitably before the law. Just more often... . (Deviancy presents poor judgment)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No one that I know has suggested otherwise.

You did.

False.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Constitution is based entirely upon Natural Authority. See: The Bill of Rights.

That same bill of rights applies to gay people, too. In June, the Supreme Court will reaffirm that position.

Again... a Libertarian would know that.

I advocate the right of people to marry who they want to marry, and leave each other the hell alone. Simple.

So you're advocating for an adult to marry their minor child?

Now you'll claim that its not legal to marry a minor child...

So you're then not advocating as you initially claimed... thus have changed your position.

So, you'll need to contest those among the sexually abnormal who pursue sexual gratification with minor children.

Why then do you contest the pedophiles RIGHTS... Now... square that with your twisted notion of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!

GO!

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you're advocating for an adult to marry their minor child?

Argument ad absurdum. That is incest, and incest is already illegal, and rightly so.

Now you'll claim that its not legal to marry a minor child...

Just where are you getting these ideas?

So, you'll need to contest those among the sexually abnormal who pursue sexual gratification with minor children.

Why then do you contest the pedophiles RIGHTS... Now... square that with your twisted notion of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!

I don't need to contest anything. This entire challenge of yours is a non sequitur. You are misattributing positions to me I never made. And why do you think all gays are pedophiles?

You are a sad, cynical little man.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one that I know has suggested otherwise.

You did.

False.

Prove otherwise.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Huh... so you're saying then, that homosexuals are dishonorable?

Where did you get that idea?

Here:

The honor in abiding by the laws of nature, which govern human behavior

Oh brother. In America, the law governs human behavior. Therefore obeying the law is the honorable thing to do in this circumstance.

The Law says that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... Homosexuals reject that law... therefore, according to YOU: "obeying the law is the honorable thing to do"; ergo: Homosexuals are dishonorable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Law says that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Repeat after me:

There is no amendment

(Repeat)

in the Constitution

(Repeat)

that governs

(Repeat)

marriage.

 

[TemplarKormac]

according to YOU: "obeying the law is the honorable thing to do"; ergo: Homosexuals are dishonorable.

That's not at all what I said! What on earth is wrong with you?

If a law is passed, or if a ruling is issued, you and I are obligated to obey it. Doing otherwise is dishonorable. Laws that are struck down are laws we are no longer obligated to obey.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you're advocating for an adult to marry their minor child?

Argument ad absurdum. That is incest, and incest is already illegal, and rightly so.

LOL!

Golly, that looks WAY different from this posted 10 minutes ago:

I advocate the right of people to marry who they want to marry, and leave each other the hell alone. Simple.

So, tell me, how come the incestuous don't get equal protection under the law. "EVER HEARD OF THE 14th AMENDMENT PAL?" <(that was you all night, until just now. What happened?)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Law says that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Repeat after me:

There is no amendment

(Repeat)

in the Constitution

(Repeat)

that governs

(Repeat)

marriage.

Did the Constitution design the human species?

Ya know... now that ya mention it, I don't think it did.

And for what its worth, if ya took this position in the presence of the founders, they'd have executed you. But only because they wouldn't allow you to spread that crap around the asylum.