A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[Mr.Right]

"And you have not provided evidence to prove that. Please, demonstrate."

Evidence? It is self evident.

So you don't know what you are talking about. Thanks.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. The liberals and gays and every other group who believe that morality is subjective are dragging this country into the gutter. And God will judge this country for it. Just as He has done in the past.

If that's what you believe then it is going to be difficult having a rational conversation with you.

Oh yes. Bring up the old "your a religious nut, so we can't have a rational discussion" argument.

Thinking god is going to judge the country? Yeah, you're a religious nut who can't have a rational discussion.

That's your opinion. Nothing more. Time will prove one of us right.

 

[Syriusly]

According to you, just because someone is a business owner, they lose their Constitutional right to follow their conscience.

Well then, don't open a freaking business. Life is full of times you must make sacrifices, even when you choose to make your living running a business. You know damn well that when you open one you agree to serve whomever walks through that door. It's not hard to understand. Unlike you, I've learned to separate myself from my own biases to respect and tolerate others. Why is that so hard for you?

No one has the right to force someone to do something that they believe is wrong. No one!

Nobody has the right to go back on agreements they made in good faith when they opened their business. I'm sorry.

Those perverts could have gone to another store. And I'll better there was a place that even advertised gay cakes.

Yes, they could have, and purposefully targeting someone in that manner is bush league, BUT, that was a business open to the public. Don't want to serve the public? Then don't bother yourself with opening a business which engages in public commerce.

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

I do. I know more about history than you realize. Let's use Rome as an example.

Roberto De Mattei, 63, the deputy head of the country's National Research Council, claimed that the empire was fatally weakened after conquering Carthage, which he described as "a paradise for homosexuals"... The fall of the Roman Empire was a result of "the effeminacy of a few in Carthage, a paradise for homosexuals, who infected the many. The abhorrent presence of a few gays infected a good part of the (Roman) people," Prof Mattei told Radio Maria, a Catholic radio station.

Fall of Roman Empire caused by contagion of homosexuality - Telegraph

Here's a little history for you (and a bit of math to go along with it):

Rome conquered Carthage in 146 BC, but as De Mattei claims, the Carthaginian Homosexuals were the cause of widespread disease throughout the empire, and as such were the downfall of Rome. Well, Rome was sacked by Barbarians in 410 AD, a whole 556 years after the conquest of Carthage. Interestingly enough, homosexuality was not the cause of the fall of Rome. The migration of Barbarian tribes from the East and the emergence of the Huns, plus the overexpansion of the Roman armies throughout the ancient world brought down the famed empire.

Don't lecture me about history. Really, don't.

No one ever claimed it was the only cause, but evidence shows that it was a contributing factor. Every nation that suffered from moral decay met an untimely end. This is a historical fact.

Every nation that no longer exists met an 'untimely end'- according to them.

Feel free to give us some of your fine examples- I want to mock your 'historical fact' more.

 

[Syriusly]

"And you have not provided evidence to prove that. Please, demonstrate."

Evidence? It is self evident.

so in other words- the only evidence you have is in your head.

 

[Syriusly]

Well, this thread has run its natural course and I will not be issuing any further replies. I have made myself clear for the past couple of days.

Later.

Good thread Templar

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

who gives a crap.

Nobody said you had to. I don't want your crap either, keep it in the toilet where it belongs.

its funny watching you "struggle" with things, because really this isnt that hard to come to terms with. Its not like you are coming out and announcing you are gay.

You are typically on the wrong side of the argument and really have a problem understanding the otherside. You also tend to flip flop based off emotion. I dont buy this change in you. Your opinion is only changing because the tide is turning and you would prefer not to be left behind.

 

[bluedog1]

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.

Oh my, another "conservative" catches the lavender flu and fully embraces the LGBT PC agenda. Brainwashing apparently works.

Oh my, another conservative calling me names. For people who champion the Constitution, you don't mind when laws are passed that don't jibe with it. Now, you are no different from a liberal. You can't tolerate a different opinion, nor can you tolerate when someone breaks from you on a certain issue.

Now I know how Jonathan Capehart felt.

I can tolerate different opinions and I didn't call you any names, I just find it amusing that some one can suddenly change their long held morality to suit the latest political correctness.

What's amusing is for someone to perceive settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence as 'political correctness.'

Indeed, there is no such thing as 'political correctness,' it's a myth contrived by the right; the Constitutional case law being used to invalidate state measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law has been consistently applied for well over 100 years to all manner of cases where the states have improperly sought to disadvantage a class of persons motivated solely be animus toward that class of persons.

All persons residing in the states are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law, including same-sex couples, having nothing to do with the myth of 'political correctness.'

The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with marriage or homosexual rights when it was written . It is only being interpreted that way by some now that the full weight of Political Correctness has been thrown behind the LGBT agenda.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

Stop blaming Christ and Christianity for your own fears and bigotry.

The Christian bible barely mentions homosexuality--almost an afterthought. Mistranslation and lack of historical context lead to most Christians complete ignorance on what the bible really does and does not say about many things. There's more scripture on owning slaves and segregating races and we moved past all that.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Two males orally copulating and then analy pleasing each other each isn't my misty eyed ideal of a healthy relationship that we need to reinforce and give prudence to and that needs ...anything near marriage.

Is that all you think marriage is about?

I feel very sorry for you.

Considering it's gays who think that marriage is incomplete without children, I'm surprised you don't see your own hypocrisy in taking that position.

 

[Syriusly]

Two males orally copulating and then analy pleasing each other each isn't my misty eyed ideal of a healthy relationship that we need to reinforce and give prudence to and that needs ...anything near marriage.

Is that all you think marriage is about?

I feel very sorry for you.

Considering it's gays who think that marriage is incomplete without children, I'm surprised you don't see your own hypocrisy in taking that position.

Considering you are just making crap up, you shouldn't be surprised when we recognize your BS.

Some homosexuals want to have children.
Some heterosexuals want to have children.
Some homosexuals want to get married.
Some heterosexuals want to get married.
And some couples- whether homosexual or heterosexual want to get married and want to have children.

And others don't.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Two males orally copulating and then analy pleasing each other each isn't my misty eyed ideal of a healthy relationship that we need to reinforce and give prudence to and that needs ...anything near marriage.

Is that all you think marriage is about?

I feel very sorry for you.

Considering it's gays who think that marriage is incomplete without children, I'm surprised you don't see your own hypocrisy in taking that position.

Considering you are just making crap up, you shouldn't be surprised when we recognize your BS.

Some homosexuals want to have children.
Some heterosexuals want to have children.
Some homosexuals want to get married.
Some heterosexuals want to get married.
And some couples- whether homosexual or heterosexual want to get married and want to have children.

And others don't.

And some homosexuals who are fertile forgo the natural method for siring children and create a domestic structure that makes having kids impossible yet want to find some way to cheat and suck an innocent child into their whacky world.

 

[Syriusly]

Two males orally copulating and then analy pleasing each other each isn't my misty eyed ideal of a healthy relationship that we need to reinforce and give prudence to and that needs ...anything near marriage.

Is that all you think marriage is about?

I feel very sorry for you.

Considering it's gays who think that marriage is incomplete without children, I'm surprised you don't see your own hypocrisy in taking that position.

Considering you are just making crap up, you shouldn't be surprised when we recognize your BS.

Some homosexuals want to have children.
Some heterosexuals want to have children.
Some homosexuals want to get married.
Some heterosexuals want to get married.
And some couples- whether homosexual or heterosexual want to get married and want to have children.

And others don't.

And some homosexuals who are fertile forgo the natural method for siring children and create a domestic structure that makes having kids impossible yet want to find some way to cheat and suck an innocent child into their whacky world.

'cheat'?

LOL.....how is using artificial insemination 'cheating'?

And all parents suck their innocent children into their whacky world- that is what parents do- normally though we just call it parenting.

Is that what your 'best friends' are doing- and is that why you despise your 'best friends' for being the 'lezbo dykes' because they use artificial insemination......

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Two males orally copulating and then analy pleasing each other each isn't my misty eyed ideal of a healthy relationship that we need to reinforce and give prudence to and that needs ...anything near marriage.

Is that all you think marriage is about?

I feel very sorry for you.

Considering it's gays who think that marriage is incomplete without children, I'm surprised you don't see your own hypocrisy in taking that position.

Considering you are just making crap up, you shouldn't be surprised when we recognize your BS.

Some homosexuals want to have children.
Some heterosexuals want to have children.
Some homosexuals want to get married.
Some heterosexuals want to get married.
And some couples- whether homosexual or heterosexual want to get married and want to have children.

And others don't.

And some homosexuals who are fertile forgo the natural method for siring children and create a domestic structure that makes having kids impossible yet want to find some way to cheat and suck an innocent child into their whacky world.

'cheat'?

LOL.....how is using artificial insemination 'cheating'?

And all parents suck their innocent children into their whacky world- that is what parents do- normally though we just call it parenting.

Is that what your 'best friends' are doing- and is that why you despise your 'best friends' for being the 'lezbo dykes' because they use artificial insemination......

They don't have kids but they're wonderful aunts to ours. I asked them one time about having kids. They laughed at that and said if they wanted their own kids they would have married men.

Exactly.

It's why I'm confident that Leftists like you don't represent gay people. They're not all like you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is that all you think marriage is about?

I feel very sorry for you.

Considering it's gays who think that marriage is incomplete without children, I'm surprised you don't see your own hypocrisy in taking that position.

Considering you are just making crap up, you shouldn't be surprised when we recognize your BS.

Some homosexuals want to have children.
Some heterosexuals want to have children.
Some homosexuals want to get married.
Some heterosexuals want to get married.
And some couples- whether homosexual or heterosexual want to get married and want to have children.

And others don't.

And some homosexuals who are fertile forgo the natural method for siring children and create a domestic structure that makes having kids impossible yet want to find some way to cheat and suck an innocent child into their whacky world.

'cheat'?

LOL.....how is using artificial insemination 'cheating'?

And all parents suck their innocent children into their whacky world- that is what parents do- normally though we just call it parenting.

Is that what your 'best friends' are doing- and is that why you despise your 'best friends' for being the 'lezbo dykes' because they use artificial insemination......

They don't have kids but they're wonderful aunts to ours. I asked them one time about having kids. They laughed at that and said if they wanted their own kids they would have married men.

Exactly.

It's why I'm confident that Leftists like you don't represent gay people. They're not all like you.

And we're confident all conservatives aren't like you – many on the right don't condone your stupidity and hate.

 

[FA_Q2]

I am late to the game here Templar but congratulations on recognizing what freedom really means. Welcome to the dark side where liberals call you a conservative nut job and conservatives call you a liberal nut job

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Considering it's gays who think that marriage is incomplete without children, I'm surprised you don't see your own hypocrisy in taking that position.

Considering you are just making crap up, you shouldn't be surprised when we recognize your BS.

Some homosexuals want to have children.
Some heterosexuals want to have children.
Some homosexuals want to get married.
Some heterosexuals want to get married.
And some couples- whether homosexual or heterosexual want to get married and want to have children.

And others don't.

And some homosexuals who are fertile forgo the natural method for siring children and create a domestic structure that makes having kids impossible yet want to find some way to cheat and suck an innocent child into their whacky world.

'cheat'?

LOL.....how is using artificial insemination 'cheating'?

And all parents suck their innocent children into their whacky world- that is what parents do- normally though we just call it parenting.

Is that what your 'best friends' are doing- and is that why you despise your 'best friends' for being the 'lezbo dykes' because they use artificial insemination......

They don't have kids but they're wonderful aunts to ours. I asked them one time about having kids. They laughed at that and said if they wanted their own kids they would have married men.

Exactly.

It's why I'm confident that Leftists like you don't represent gay people. They're not all like you.

And we're confident all conservatives aren't like you – many on the right don't condone your stupidity and hate.

Actually I find that the only points of disagreement I have with fellow conservatives has to do with social issues where my Catholic faith gives cause for dissent. I don't believe in capital punishment and I believe government programs play a vital role in social justice. Other than that, we're snug. But I do thank you for your observations, however woefully incorrect they may be.

 

[Syriusly]

Is that all you think marriage is about?

I feel very sorry for you.

Considering it's gays who think that marriage is incomplete without children, I'm surprised you don't see your own hypocrisy in taking that position.

Considering you are just making crap up, you shouldn't be surprised when we recognize your BS.

Some homosexuals want to have children.
Some heterosexuals want to have children.
Some homosexuals want to get married.
Some heterosexuals want to get married.
And some couples- whether homosexual or heterosexual want to get married and want to have children.

And others don't.

And some homosexuals who are fertile forgo the natural method for siring children and create a domestic structure that makes having kids impossible yet want to find some way to cheat and suck an innocent child into their whacky world.

'cheat'?

LOL.....how is using artificial insemination 'cheating'?

And all parents suck their innocent children into their whacky world- that is what parents do- normally though we just call it parenting.

Is that what your 'best friends' are doing- and is that why you despise your 'best friends' for being the 'lezbo dykes' because they use artificial insemination......

They don't have kids but they're wonderful aunts to ours. I asked them one time about having kids. They laughed at that and said if they wanted their own kids they would have married men.

Exactly.

It's why I'm confident that Leftists like you don't represent gay people. They're not all like you.

Of course not all gay people are the same- only bigots like yourself assume that.

That is why you assume that all lesbians are 'lezbo dykes who are angry and bitter'

'Leftists' like me- whatever the hell that means- because once again you presume that everyone is the same.

Me?

I think that people should be treated the same whether they are gay or straight- and that includes decisions on marriage and on having and raising children.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What if a human being simply rejects the theory that God exists?

Then they'd be rejecting their own existence... given that God created them and the universe they exist in

What if that same human being via his own ability to reason decides upon a perfectly acceptable set of moral values, based on reason

Then they'd be using the reason endowed to them by God.

... without any interference from any thoughts of a supernatural being,

Who believes in a super-natural being? What does that even mean?

My guess is that you're using the word 'super', as a means to define things of which you're ignorant, which would mean... that you're sub-natural.

... and as a result supports the advancement of a civilized society, with law and order, with morality little different than that of the religion based societies. With liberty and justice for all...

How do you condemn him?

I don't condemn him, I criticize his pretense that he came to observe natural law and that such is a consequence of something other than nature.

But only because such he's presenting an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, OKA: Delusion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I reject your demand that the argument be premised on an agreed to fact that marriage by definition can only be between one man and one woman.

So what? All you're rejecting is a law of nature and you're basing that upon the idiocy that your rejecting it somehow excludes you from the consequences of rejecting it.

Do you also feel that your rejection of gravity would provide an exclusion from that law too?

 

[Skylar]

What if a human being simply rejects the theory that God exists?

Then they'd be rejecting their own existence... given that God created them and the universe they exist in

Circular reasoning. As your evidence and your conclusion is the same thing.

Worse, your own logic doesn't support such an idea. As you've forwarded a 'first mover' argument. A first mover argument doesn't require a God. It requires a force that moved first. That's its sole and defining characteristic

All the other attributes of this first mover, from sentience, to talking to us, to being all powerful, to designer, to intentionality, to commandments, to personality, to being worthy of worship....none of that is supported by your first mover argument.

Thus, you have no logical or rational basis for your own claims, by your own standards.

What if that same human being via his own ability to reason decides upon a perfectly acceptable set of moral values, based on reason

Then they'd be using the reason endowed to them by God.

And who says that 'god' endowed anyone with anything? Your 'first mover argument doesn't say a thing about 'reason' or 'endowment'. Only that something moved first.

The rest, you made up.

But only because such he's presenting an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, OKA: Delusion.

The obvious problem being.....you can't demonstrate any characteristic of your 'god', nor factually verify anything you've said. You assume it all.

And refusing to accept a series of nested assumptions that you can't back factually isn't a 'mental disorder'. Its the application of fact-based empirical reasoning.

Even logically, your claims are ridiculously unlikely. As there are many, many different religious beliefs. And almost all religious beliefs are mutually exclusive. It can't be Jesus AND the Greek Pantheon of Gods. Nor does it have to be either. Which leads us to one of three probable conclusions:

1) There is no god

2) There is a god, but none of us know his will.

3) There is a god, and one of the thousands of mutually exclusive religions knows his will...which means that all others got it wrong.

The 1st and 2nd option render your entire perspective moot. So your best case scenario is option 3. And its still not a good one for you. If one religion got it right, that means that all the other religions are wrong and self deluded. And there are thousands upon thousands of different religions.

Thus its ridiculously unlikely that in all the world, of all religions, in the entire history of our planet.....that YOU happened to be the one to get it right.

Meaning....its orders and orders of magnitude MORE likely that you're among the incorrect and self deluded masses. Where almost all of the religious that ever lived would have to fall using your own standards.

Logically, your claims are crap.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What you said was that my opinion of the law does not influence the law... which if equality before the law is true, as you claim it... then that must mean that your opinion of the law does not influence the law.

Thus your opinion that the law supports your opinion, over mine... would be your belief that the law does not equally support my opinion.

Which is YOU... refuting YOU!.

Your re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

It does.

Nullius in verba

Your Re-re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.