A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[TemplarKormac]

So, once again, why would you use government to ban gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

I agree! That's the whole thing! I agree!

But if people really do value the Constitution, they need to remember it applies to every law that is voted on by the states and passed by the state, likewise with the federal government, that includes bans on gay marriage.

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

Once again, I agree. Can you not read?

Can you address my comment without repeating yourself?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Share the truth all you want.

But always remember our country is governed by the Constitution, not by a doctrine by a far right contentious Christian sect.

For instance, don't be a self loathing projector like the author of this: "But if you feel you must litter the thread with your own addled rationalizations, you're entitled to do so,"

Our country is governed by fallible people who sometimes misuse or ignore the Constitution.

The Universe is governed by God according to His perfect law.

Which is better to obey?

"1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."

Romans 13:1-2.

"Then Peter and the apostles answered and said, 'We ought to obey God rather than men.'" Acts 5:29

I can do that too.

Okay, so where in the Bible does it tell you to openly discriminate against someone? By all means find me an exact passage which tells you to treat people different than you.

"Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body. Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

Ephesians 4:25-32

You're jumping from one topic to another. The Bible gives God's law on homosexuality, transgenderism, and bestiality. And speaking of discrimination, those who practiced those things were stoned to death....quite a difference from just being told they can't utilize the social institution of marriage, isn't it? But I think you and I can agree that the Bible is not a blueprint for how governments are set up today. God gave specific instructions for how pre-state Israel was to govern itself, not standing orders that compel governments in every age, like you would see with Sh'ria law. So we don't stone homosexuals to death, but that doesn't change the fact that in God's eyes, certain lifestyles are wrong.

As far as discrimination goes, that's a constitutional question, not a Biblical one, and the Constitution does not in any way empower the federal government to interfere with the private affairs between individuals and businesses. Now state governments, that's another issue. If the federal government were to roll back its unconstitutional "civil rights" laws, states would immediately step up with laws of their own, so not much would change except that the decision of what constitutes unlawful discrimination would be made more locally and more subject to the will of the people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mr. Right is engaged in the classic victimize the victims.

That you can't stop marriage equality does not mean you are being persecuted.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

But there are two amendments that keep the federal government, INCLUDING FEDERAL COURTS, out of the issue of marriage.

So, why did states feel that they could use government to do just that? What are these "amendments" you speak of?

The 9th and 10th Amendments.

Of course.

Sorry. But States are also governed by the 14th. You cannot pass a law that discriminates against one group or the other. Surely you can see that? The 10th Amendment does not bestow unlimited power on the States, it simply allows them to take on power not relegated to the Government. Now, passing an unconstitutional law is not a power relegated to anyone.

As far as the 9th Amendment goes, it mentions how nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to deny or disparage the rights of the people (emphasis on the people). You cannot use the Constitution to stop someone from doing something that isn't harmful to you or to anyone else. You along with the States who passed gay marriage bans in fact are misconstruing the Constitution to deny a group of people their rights, which goes against the very spirit of the amendment.

Please, I have a very good knowledge of the functions of the Constitution.

I'm not arguing constitutional law with an idiot. No amendment set up unlimited protected classes as far as can be conjured by the human imagination. That did NOT happen.

....and here I am arguing constitutional law with an idiot.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Hey, I think I just became a classical liberal!

No, classical liberals don't draw rights out of thin air and they don't give the federal government powers not granted by the U.S. Constitution.

So, once again, why would you use government to ban gay marriage? You speak of government imposition, but you seem to ignore the fact that you are wanting government to insert itself into the love lives of other individuals. Quite ironic really. The whole idea is individual freedom, not government imposition, whether it agrees with you or not.

Not at all. I want every state to decide this issue for themselves and I'm fine with gays marrying in some states if those states choose to let them. Conservatism isn't about "less government", it's about the proper role of the federal government and assigning by default all other powers to the states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have to wonder why the Constitution grants the freedom to follow ones conscience, except for Christians. At least according to the gay community. Why is that? Christian persecution in this country is on the rise. People need to wake up. If our government can take away the rights of Christians, they can do it to anyone.

Who is stopping you from following your conscience?

You are allowed to marry whom you wish.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have to wonder why the Constitution grants the freedom to follow ones conscience, except for Christians.

Where exactly does it say that? When have I EVER said such a thing?

At least according to the gay community. Why is that? Christian persecution in this country is on the rise.

Really? I don't see any axe wielding gay people beating down my door yet. And when have you been persecuted lately? Oh brother, spare me the hyperbole.

eople need to wake up. If our government can take away the rights of Christians, they can do it to anyone.

I hate to break it to you but none of my religious rights have been taken from me. None have been taken from you. America is still the freest (if not by much) country in the world. You are not going to be singled out for your Christian faith by government agents and forced to convert to Islam. Your fear is irrational.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

[
No I'm not. But you and keys are both exuding enormous amounts of hatred. Eh, yeah.
.

Oops! I stopped right there. I don't engage in arguments founded on the notion of "hate truth".

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm not arguing constitutional law with an idiot. No amendment set up unlimited protected classes as far as can be conjured by the human imagination. That did NOT happen.....and here I am arguing constitutional law with an idiot.

which is yourself

TK has handed your whole silly brigade an ass thumping

 

[JakeStarkey]

[
No I'm not. But you and keys are both exuding enormous amounts of hatred. Eh, yeah.
.

Oops! I stopped right there. I don't engage in arguments founded on the notion of "hate truth".

That's exactly how you argue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Conservatism isn't about "less government", it's about the proper role of the federal government and assigning by default all other powers to the states.

I am a libertarian. Government intervention in regulating the individual freedom of anyone is too much. The role of government is excessive. Government has forced itself onto gays and Christians alike, and is wrong by all accounts. The proper role of government is to stop regulating the lives of law abiding citizens. That's it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[
No I'm not. But you and keys are both exuding enormous amounts of hatred. Eh, yeah.
.

Oops! I stopped right there. I don't engage in arguments founded on the notion of "hate truth".

Oops! That is a dodge. You stopped because you were afraid to address the rest of my point:

"Anyhow, my contention has and always was that you can't ban gay marriage, for one simple reason:

If such a law is to be passed, like any other law, it is subject to the Constitutional standard. Whether I care for gays or their practices are irrelevant. In a strictly legal sense, the laws do not pass muster. My entire argument was purely based on that contention.

Government has already outlawed incest, but what it isn't allowed to do is regulate marriage to the point where anyone and anything can marry. Marriage now has two distinct definitions according to them: Heterosexual and Homosexual. It says nothing about legalizing incest, nothing about men marrying goats, dogs marrying cats, or anything of the sort. Your argument is absurd. How you correlate homosexuality and incest is...beyond me."

I can repeat this until you do, that, or you can concede the point and/or ignore me, your choice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now given that nature also designed the Human Species... which is designed SPECIFICALLY with TWO DISTINCT AND COMPLIMENTING GENDERS... designed SPECIFICALLY FOR JOINING SEXUALLY... and GIVEN THAT NO WHERE IN THE US CONSTITUTION IS THERE A WORD WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THOSE WHO DEVIATE FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD SHOULD FORCE THE CULTURE TO ALTER THE STANDARDS THAT NATURE DESIGNED

Repeat after me:

There is no Amendment

(Repeat)

In the Constitution

(Repeat)

that governs marriage.

But there are two amendments that keep the federal government, INCLUDING FEDERAL COURTS, out of the issue of marriage.

This is meaningless gibberish.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all American citizens residing in the states equal protection of (equal access to) state laws, including marriage law.

Marriage contract law is no different than any other state law, such as laws governing the issuance of occupational licenses or applications for public assistance – and when the state seeks to deny a class of persons access to a given state law absent a rational basis and legitimate legislative end, that class of persons has the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief.

The Federal government is not 'involving' itself in the issue of marriage, and the states have only themselves to blame when a Federal court strikes down state measures repugnant to the Constitution, such as measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Indeed, if the states wanted to keep the Federal courts out of the issue of marriage, they should have followed 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the first place and allowed same-sex couples to marry.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not arguing constitutional law with an idiot.

Because you in fact have no understanding of Constitutional law, or otherwise you wouldn't be trying to use it to bash people over the head with. It isn't as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

No amendment set up unlimited protected classes as far as can be conjured by the human imagination.

And when have I advocated for gays to be a protected class? I love how people are trying to misattribute positions to me that I never made. I have asked you and keys similar questions, none of which you attempted to answer.

and here I am arguing constitutional law with an idiot.

And here I am arguing with someone who doesn't understand the Constitution.

 

[Mr.Right]

By persecution, I'm referring to cases such as the couple who refuse to bake a gay wedding cake. Liberals love to point to this as a case of discrimination. Did you know that the couple had actually conducted business with those perverts on several occasions prior to the incident with the cake? They did not refuse them because they were gay. They refused because they felt it would be wrong for them to participate in something they believed to be sinful. If someone is not free to follow their conscience, are they really free? And they lost their business because of those perverts. Is that justice? I think not. There are countless other cases where Christians have been forced to compromise their faith or face legal action. This is not the America I grew up in.

 

[Mr.Right]

Conservatism isn't about "less government", it's about the proper role of the federal government and assigning by default all other powers to the states.

I am a libertarian. Government intervention in regulating the individual freedom of anyone is too much. The role of government is excessive. Government has forced itself onto gays and Christians alike, and is wrong by all accounts. The proper role of government is to stop regulating the lives of law abiding citizens. That's it.

A government that governs least governs best.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Conservatism isn't about "less government", it's about the proper role of the federal government and assigning by default all other powers to the states.

I am a libertarian. Government intervention in regulating the individual freedom of anyone is too much. The role of government is excessive. Government has forced itself onto gays and Christians alike, and is wrong by all accounts. The proper role of government is to stop regulating the lives of law abiding citizens. That's it.

Libertarians stress a philosophy of government, which is different then "limited government" prescribed by the Constitution. Limited doesn't mean small, it means that there are 18 enumerated powers assigned to the federal government. For instance, the forming of alliances and the deploying of military forces is a function of federal government. That means that America could run an empire if it wanted to and many believe it does, because there are no restrictions on how Congress and the President can work together to shape foreign policy. So even under the strictures of the Constitution, we can have "big government". Libertarians propose government that confines itself far more than what's required by the Constitution, which isn't a bad idea. That means that even if, according to the 9th and 10 Amendments, states can ban pot, gay marriage, or in other ways infringe on the private lives of citizens and even raise taxes to draconian levels, that doesn't mean they should.

A lot of Libertarians confuse their philosophy with the Constitution, thinking they're more constitutional than conservatives who want a strong national defense with the strategic placement of overseas assets. They aren't. The Constitution allows for both a global military presence or a military that only defends against homeland attacks. So when I mention the Constitution and the restraints it places on federal courts, and you mention you're a libertarian, I am just observing that you are one who also makes the same mistake.

 

[TemplarKormac]

By persecution, I'm referring to cases such as the couple who refuse to bake a gay wedding cake.

They agreed to serve the public. If you agree to obey a rule, you cannot simply disregard that rule to suit your sensitivities. It just doesn't work that way.

Did you know that the couple had actually conducted business with those perverts on several occasions prior to the incident with the cake?

Uh yeah? I know all about it. What the gay couple did was a dick move. Don't get me wrong. But as I pointed out earlier, the word "public" isn't limited to someone you would prefer to serve and someone you don't want to. The law is the law.

They did not refuse them because they were gay. They refused because they felt it would be wrong for them to participate in something they believed to be sinful.

And as I said in my opening post, you can serve gays and do their cakes, or even take it to the site of their wedding without ever once setting aside your beliefs. Your beliefs don't suddenly go away because you serve someone or do something that you don't care for. Besides, the whole idea of being a business is to make money, not dictate morality to people.

If someone is not free to follow their conscience, are they really free?

Good question, though ironic you would lament about freedom but would deny others the freedom to execute commercial transactions where they please to.

Is that justice? I think not. There are. Countless other cases where Christians have been forced to compromise their faith or face legal action.

When you agree to obey the law, you cannot stop obeying it simply because your conscience suddenly says one day "this law is wrong!" Opening a business in the United States automatically confers on you the burden to serve anyone and everyone. No exceptions.

This is not the America I grew up in.

You're right, America is not the same America you lived in yesterday. America did not get where it was in your time by simply maintaining the status quo.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A government that governs least governs best.

Correct.

 

[Mr.Right]

By persecution, I'm referring to cases such as the couple who refuse to bake a gay wedding cake.

They agreed to serve the public. If you agree to obey a rule, you cannot simply disregard that rule to suit your sensitivities. It just doesn't work that way.

Did you know that the couple had actually conducted business with those perverts on several occasions prior to the incident with the cake?

Uh yeah? I know all about it. What the gay couple did was a dick move. Don't get me wrong. But as I pointed out earlier, the word "public" isn't limited to someone you would prefer to serve and someone you don't want to. The law is the law.

They did not refuse them because they were gay. They refused because they felt it would be wrong for them to participate in something they believed to be sinful.

And as I said in my opening post, you can serve gays and do their cakes, or even take it to the site of their wedding without ever once setting aside your beliefs. Your beliefs don't suddenly go away because you serve someone or do something that you don't care for. Besides, the whole idea of being a business is to make money, not dictate morality to people.

If someone is not free to follow their conscience, are they really free?

Good question, though ironic you would lament about freedom but would deny others the freedom to execute commercial transactions where they please to.

Is that justice? I think not. There are. Countless other cases where Christians have been forced to compromise their faith or face legal action.

When you agree to obey the law, you cannot stop obeying it simply because your conscience suddenly says one day "this law is wrong!" Opening a business in the United States automatically confers on you the burden to serve anyone and everyone. No exceptions.

This is not the America I grew up in.

You're right, America is not the same America you lived in yesterday. America did not get where it was in your time by simply maintaining the status quo.

If some KKK members went into a black owned bakery and asked them to bake a nazi wedding cake, do they have the right to refuse