A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[TemplarKormac]

Therefore, there is no such thing as "Horse/Man" Marriage, "Duck/Cat" Marriage, or Man/Man Marriage.

Then by that right, I am not advocating for equal treatment of incest, then. You are making the same ludicrous conflation that Homosexuals are incestuous.

My contention is that you cannot pass a law which defies the constitution and works to disparage the individual liberties of others.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let me ask you a simple question, Mr. Right:

What if we treated the 10 Commandments in the same manner, and we told God

"I cant follow that commandment because if conflicts with my conscience!?"

Just how do you think God would react?

This ranks as one of the top ten dumbest questions I've ever heard.

Or is this because you are afraid to answer it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So whenever and wherever someone refers to marriage in terms which redefine what marriage is, the correct and principled response is to inform them of what Marriage >IS<.

I'm not trying to redefine marriage. And for the quintillionth time, you cannot pass a law which doesn't follow in line with the Constitution. The states are governed by the same Constitution the government is, and therefore trying to pass a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. My contention has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.

It would work the same way if suddenly the states started banning straight marriage.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nothing complex about it, TK.

The prolixity of your argument would suggest otherwise.

 

[MaryL]

Follow your conscience. Mine tells me that homosexuality is a psychosexual dysfunction, and a minority at that. Why all the fuss? Because SOMEBODY can buy out enough lawyers to make this an ISSUE, that is why. And change laws of adoption and artificial insemination, then use that as a way to leverage the issue of Homosexual marriage as a valid option when it's all about legal games. Games, Games GAMES.Not buying Homosexuals as anyone more than a tiny minority that has all the rights it needs already.

 

[Don_Coyote]

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.

IMO, this is pretty basic. Its the position, opinion we all come to as we grow into adulthood.

None of us has the right to tell others how to live. We may not agree or understand the choices others make but to me, most important is if its between consenting adults.

Another way I look at it is that I don't want somebody telling me what I can do in my own bedroom. If we tell one group how they must live, how long before they think they should control everybody?

I mind my own business and think if the meddling busybodies would do the same, our world would be a lot better off.

We're not discussing what people do in their bedroom... we're discussing public policy, the advocacy of which rests upon abject deceit.

And THAT is the front and center concern of EVERY ADULT... It's not fun, it's not something that one does lightly, it is something one does because IT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE VIABILITY OF ONE'S CULTURE.

The failure to do so, will bring consequences FAR greater (MUCH WORSE) than the last time we allowed the SAME PEOPLE alter public policy based upon deceit... and all that did was crash the entire international financial markets, sending the planet into economic depression.

I was answering the OP.

If gays were a danger to our society, it would have happened a long time ago. Homosexuality dates back to the beginning of humankind. They did not "crash the entire international financial markets, sending the planet into economic depression". That was the Bush/Cheney admin.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

I happen to know the answer to that, and I am sure you don't.

But your question is a false derivative comparison and fails.

It requires no answer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one on this Board has ever shown an injury from being subjected to marriage equality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This is meaningless gibberish.

IRONY ALERT:

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.

And all citizens are provided equal access to marriage, without exception.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Defined as such by the nature of the human being... rendering marriage as the NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION.

What you're claiming is that the 14th amendment requires that the culture be stripped of ALL SENSE OF ANY STANDARD.

Thus we can know that your reasoning is specious... beyond any sense of sanity.

The NFL is an organization which precludes participation by 99.999999999999999999999999999~ of the population.

By your reasoning the NFL is operating outside of the law.

That means that you're an idiot.

 

[Don_Coyote]

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

Somewhat related was a news story a while back of a black landlord renting to a white supremacist group.

Good on him. If we all wait to do business with those who match our own beliefs, we'll all go broke.

 

[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.

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

Somewhat related was a news story a while back of a black landlord renting to a white supremacist group.

Good on him. If we all wait to do business with those who match our own beliefs, we'll all go broke.

Bingo.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don_Coyote wrote, "Somewhat related was a news story a while back of a black landlord renting to a white supremacist group. // Good on him. If we all wait to do business with those who match our own beliefs, we'll all go broke."

That's good. We don't practice discrimination in our rental properties. Tenants can fly or show certain insignia on the properties, but they certainly can maintain whatever beliefs they wish to follow.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That was the Bush/Cheney admin

And you were doing so well.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Libertarians stress a philosophy of government

Stop.

I am a libertarian. A "little l" libertarian, and I espouse to the maximization of individual liberty.

ROFLMNAO!

Absolute NONSENSE.

Your advocacy here is tyrannical to the BONE. Wherein you demand that a tiny and otherwise insignificant minority to turn undermine the viability of civilization... by axiomatic abuse of any sense of viable governance.

There is NOTHING which serves liberty in that... and your having stumbled over some pedantic variant of libertarianism, in search of ideological purity is a JOKE.

For a right to exist, there MUST be a correlating responsibility that sustains that right... demanding that society accept my kink "or ELSE!", does not require I do a dam' thing to sustain my right to **** you over by forcing you to accept my kink as normal, so that I can 'feel better about myself'.

You're a joke TK... and a pitiful example of such.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not buying Homosexuals as anyone more than a tiny minority that has all the rights it needs already.

You don't have to buy anything they believe. But if you open your business to the public, you agree to let them buy anything you sell. It's that simple.

 

[Mr.Right]

Let me ask you a simple question, Mr. Right:

What if we treated the 10 Commandments in the same manner, and we told God

"I cant follow that commandment because if conflicts with my conscience!?"

Just how do you think God would react?

This ranks as one of the top ten dumbest questions I've ever heard.

Or is this because you are afraid to answer it?

I'm done with you. You just don't get it. According to you, just because someone is a business owner, they lose their Constitutional right to follow their conscience. No one has the right to force someone to do something that they believe is wrong. No one! Those perverts could have gone to another store. And I'll better there was a place that even advertised gay cakes.

No one on this Board has ever shown an injury from being subjected to marriage equality.

openly embracing homosexual behavior has led to the downfall of many nations. Read some history, why don't you?

 

[Don_Coyote]

That was the Bush/Cheney admin

And you were doing so well.

I don't trust when someone quotes only part of a post.

What I said is true.

 

[Mr.Right]

Not buying Homosexuals as anyone more than a tiny minority that has all the rights it needs already.

You don't have to buy anything they believe. But if you open your business to the public, you agree to let them buy anything you sell. It's that simple.

Guess what TK? Those bake shop owners didn't sell GAY wedding cakes!

 

[Don_Coyote]

Don_Coyote wrote, "Somewhat related was a news story a while back of a black landlord renting to a white supremacist group. // Good on him. If we all wait to do business with those who match our own beliefs, we'll all go broke."

That's good. We don't practice discrimination in our rental properties. Tenants can fly or show certain insignia on the properties, but they certainly can maintain whatever beliefs they wish to follow.[/QUOTE

I have rental properties and I have to admit I would not want a tenant who puts up a confederate flag. Guess I'm not as evolved as that black landlord.

 

[Don_Coyote]

Let me ask you a simple question, Mr. Right:

What if we treated the 10 Commandments in the same manner, and we told God

"I cant follow that commandment because if conflicts with my conscience!?"

Just how do you think God would react?

This ranks as one of the top ten dumbest questions I've ever heard.

Or is this because you are afraid to answer it?

I'm done with you. You just don't get it. According to you, just because someone is a business owner, they lose their Constitutional right to follow their conscience. No one has the right to force someone to do something that they believe is wrong. No one! Those perverts could have gone to another store. And I'll better there was a place that even advertised gay cakes.

No one on this Board has ever shown an injury from being subjected to marriage equality.

openly embracing homosexual behavior has led to the downfall of many nations. Read some history, why don't you?

No it hasn't.