A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you're demanding that not all sexual deviants be judged by the behavior of sexual deviants?

Would I judge all Republicans simply on the asinine reasoning you're using here today?

Well you could, but that would establish in you, an irrationally high expectation of all Republicans.

Not particularly. You're a one trick pony. You use the Appeal to Authority fallacy almost exclusively.

Shug... You should come to grips with the fact, that citing authority, is NOT appealing to authority. Meaning that where the cited authority, IS such, the argument is NOT fallacious.

But hey... In your defense, given the objective nature of that natural law and, your Relativist nature, there's NO WAY you could have known that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You claim to be a Christian, yet you support the so called right for gays to marry?

I am a baptized Christian of 20 years. I support equal treatment under the law, whether I agree with gay marriage or not is irrelevant. I can hold true to my faith without ever having to agree with the law or with what gay do. But like all law it must be enforced.

One has to wonder whether your faith is genuine.

That's cute. One has to wonder if your dedication to the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is genuine. Being the libertarian I am, the entire Constitution applies, not just parts of it you agree with. I see this behavior with both conservatives like you and liberals elsewhere on this forum.

Homosexual behavior is an abomination to God, yet you support it.

And where exactly did I say I 'support it?'

I can and do still think homosexuality is an abomination, I think it is sinful and wrong. But as it pertains to the law of the land, I am obligate to treat them equally.

Please read post #1 for further context.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Doesn't seem like he is handling it....seems like a bunch of bigots are handling it ... .

You should know that your supposition, has no actual bearing on God, or any other function of reality.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Shug... You should come to grips with the fact, that citing authority, is NOT appealing to authority. Meaning that where the cited authority, IS such, the argument is NOT fallacious.

Sweet, so citing the 14th Amendment is not appealing to authority it means it IS the authority. Equal protection. Equal rights, equality under the rule of law. I don't understand why it only applies to one type of person but not the other.

Simple.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You claim to be a Christian, yet you support the so called right for gays to marry?

I am a baptized Christian of 20 years. I support equal treatment under the law...

Congrats, then you should have no problem with Marriage Laws which defend the natural standard of Marriage requiring that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... and which are enforced equally, throughout the nation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You should know that your supposition, has no actual bearing on God, or any other function of reality.

Neither does yours.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Congrats, then you should have no problem with Marriage Laws which defend the natural standard of Marriage requiring that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman

From a legal context you would be wrong. If you make law, you must equally apply that law. I cite the 14th Amendment.

Your opinion of the law does not in fact influence the law, nor of any of the realities they entail.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't seem like he is handling it....seems like a bunch of bigots are handling it ... .

You should know that your supposition, has no actual bearing on God, or any other function of reality.

I'm afraid it does

God reads my posts

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Shug... You should come to grips with the fact, that citing authority, is NOT appealing to authority. Meaning that where the cited authority, IS such, the argument is NOT fallacious.

Sweet, so citing the 14th Amendment is not appealing to authority. Equal protection.

Not if the citation is speaking to the equal protection of racial minorities.

IF on the other hand you are citing that authority, as a means to demand that sexual deviancy be counter as normality... and that as a result gender is not relevant to matters of sexuality and marriage... then yeah... it's fallacious.

But only because the 14th amendment has no relevance in the matter, with the irrational claims to the contrary, notwithstanding.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So because we all fall short of the glory of God, we should therefore not recognize sin?

No, we should forgive it. There is a big difference between ignorance of sin and forgiveness of sin.

So if I get an extra quarter in my change and fail to alert the clerk, then I've no right to expect that someone should not break into my house?

Argumentum ad absurdum.

LOL! TK... Have you suffered a stroke?

I suffer from a bad case of... reality.

Have you a mirror?

Yeah, but it broke long ago because it couldn't bear looking at my ugly mug.

 

[Skylar]

There are no 'natural standards of marriage'...

So you're assuring the Reader, that Nature did not design humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders, wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted...

You're describing fucking. Not marriage.

There is no marriage in nature. We invented it. And it can be whatever we want it to be. You are insisting that marriage can only be what YOU want it to be.

And you're nobody.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your opinion of the law does not in fact influence the law, nor of any of the realities they entail.

ROFLMNAO!

SERIOUSLY?

So... you feel that your opinion of law does not influence the law, nor any of the realities relevant to such... but you didn't feel strongly enough about that, that ya were unable to prevent yourself from informing me of your opinion?

This based upon your previous notion that for law to be valid, it must be equally applied to everyone... .

Well, I gotta say... that is BRILLIANT!

Your concession to yourself, is duly noted and summarily accepted, in your behalf.

(Folks, you can NOT make this crap up!)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

So you're claiming that deceit is equal with truth?

Because the only thing that Homosexuals are crying about, in terms of inequality, is that people of reason do not accept sexual deviancy as sexual abnormality.

Meaning that the Homosexual claim is false and they demand that it be accepted as truth. And they claim that because of THAT, they're being denied RIGHTS.

This stems off into a plethora of subsequent issues, with their demand that the culture shoudl reject the natural standard of marriage based again: upon the deceit, that sexual deviancy is normal.

It's not normal, and marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

So... what are you 'accepting', if not a demonstrable falsity, as truth?

Gay Americans aren't being 'denied rights,' they in fact possess the same rights as all persons in the United States: the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where they are in fact being discriminated against when the state seeks to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference. To seek to deny same-sex couples access to that marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

That you and others might perceive homosexuals as 'abnormal' is subjective and irrelevant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not if the citation is speaking to the equal protection of racial minorities.

Interesting. Have you read the 14th Amendment lately?

Amendment XVI Section 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Where does it mention race? It speaks strictly of citizens. As such, the last time I checked, gays are American citizens too. Much to your dismay and bewilderment.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There are no 'natural standards of marriage'...

So you're assuring the Reader, that Nature did not design humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders, wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted...

You're describing fucking. ...

Well, aren't you the cutting edge of intellect?

Sadly, for your would-be argument... What I described was the nature of human civilization, which is intrinsic to human physiology and the perpetuation of the species... wherein the highest probability for such, is through the natural and wholly sustainable human physiological construct, wherein nature designed humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted... the consequences of which cause the female to become physically compromised, which is offset by the complimenting traits of the male to tend to her sustenance and security pre-natal and post-natal to assist the female in training the progeny as she nurtures them, until such time that the child matures, establishing them self as a productive member of society... so that they can REPEAT THE PROCESS.

OKA: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION.

These being the Incontrovertible Facts of Nature, which you previously assured the reader, that such did not exist. And which you now return to again DENY what is OKA: REALITY.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So... you feel that your opinion of law does not influence the law, nor any of the realities relevant to such... but you didn't feel strongly enough about that, that ya were unable to prevent yourself from informing me of your opinion?

Am I not allowed?

Now, the difference in my opinion and yours, is mine is supported by law, whereas yours is supported completely on supposition and emotion, argumentum ad passiones. You are unable to delineate between religious belief and the cold hard reality of the law.

Your concession to yourself, is duly noted and summarily accepted, in your behalf.

I notice how you do that when your argument runs into a wall. You keep repeating that same line. However, on my behalf, I will continue contention of said position until sufficiently proven otherwise, or when someone fails to effectively disprove said position. So far, all you have done is argue, but not from any factual standpoint.

I have cited the 14th Amendment, which allows for equal application of all laws voted on by the states or by their respective legislatures, and by the Congress of the United States.

Your concession is not required. However, your behavior when faced with a superior argument indicates when your argument has been successfully countered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys patently demonstrates the wisdom of our founders in creating an independent judiciary and the 1st Amendment in order to prevent fanatics from far left or far right from making social logic move too quickly or too slowly.

We are governed by the Constitution, not Keys' interpretation of natural law.

TK is to be commended for a truly libertarian and Christian stance IAW Mathew 7.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not if the citation is speaking to the equal protection of racial minorities.

Interesting. Have you read the 14th Amendment lately?

Amendment XVI Section 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Where does it mention race? It speaks strictly of citizens. As such, the last time I checked, gays are American citizens too. Much to your dismay and bewilderment.

Which of those words do you assume conveys the notion that deceit must be accepted as truth?

Yes... I've just re-read your citation just to be sure... and I find nothing in your citation which requires that equal treatment under the law, forces one citizen to accept demonstrable deceit, as truth.

FYI: I've got my own dictionary, so if you'll just cite the specific words which you feels convey such, I'll look them up for you to help you through this.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“That's cute. One has to wonder if your dedication to the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is genuine. Being the libertarian I am, the entire Constitution applies, not just parts of it you agree with. I see this behavior with both conservatives like you and liberals elsewhere on this forum.”

Disagree.

Liberals correctly understand that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, and that the Supreme Court is authorized by Articles III and VI to determine what the Constitution means; a fact most conservatives and libertarians refuse to accept.

Indeed, for the most part, conservatives and libertarians make the mistake of treating the Constitution like a 'cafeteria plan,' picking the case law they like and rejecting the case law they don't like – Commerce Clause jurisprudence being the prime example.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are no 'natural standards of marriage'...

So you're assuring the Reader, that Nature did not design humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders, wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted...

You're describing fucking. ...

Well, aren't you the cutting edge of intellect?

Sadly, for your would-be argument... What I described was the nature of human civilization, which is intrinsic to human physiology and the perpetuation of the species... wherein the highest probability for such, is through the natural and wholly sustainable human physiological construct, wherein nature designed humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; wherein the respective genders were specifically designed for coital union, as a function of the biological imperative to perpetuate the species, wherein the male sexual organs penetrate the female sexual organs... forming one body from two... through which conception is promoted... the consequences of which cause the female to become physically compromised, which is offset by the complimenting traits of the male to tend to her sustenance and security pre-natal and post-natal to assist the female in training the progeny as she nurtures them, until such time that the child matures, establishing them self as a productive member of society... so that they can REPEAT THE PROCESS.

OKA: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION.

These being the Incontrovertible Facts of Nature, which you previously assured the reader, that such did not exist. And which you now return to again DENY what is OKA: REALITY.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

How does allowing gays to exist as co-equals with heterosexuals threaten the perpetuation of the human species?