A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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...

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys is merely desperate now.

TK has mortally punctured his arguments for good.

Keys is just precious in his scrambling.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We should obey God rather than man.

But do we? All of us are in some way guilty of not obeying God and succumbing to the whims and edicts of man. You shouldn't throw stones in a glass house.

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

Interesting...

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?

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

Have you a mirror? Ya might check that smile buddy. Odds are its gone crooked on ya. I'd suggest an aspirin, STAT!

What if a human being simply rejects the theory that God exists? What if that same human being via his own ability to reason decides upon a perfectly acceptable set of moral values, based on reason, without any interference from any thoughts of a supernatural being,

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?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

And, so does that mean we should treat gays differently? You have a bad habit of not wanting to answer my question.

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

And, much to your dismay, nature makes mistakes, which happens to be where homosexuals come in. There are genetic abnormalities in any species. Heterosexuality is the predominant trait of the species, but no genetic process is perfect, not even that of the human species. Go learn Mendelian Genetics before lecturing me.

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

And I will posit this:

Even though being homosexual, their reproductive capacity is not impaired. Though not capable of coital union with the same sex, they are STILL capable of coital union with the opposite sex. Their reproductive organs are in no way affected by their sexual orientation.

Your interpretation of human biology is flawed. Greatly.

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.

Ah yes, but as I said earlier, homosexuals are still capable of engaging in copulaitve activity with the opposite sex. Thus they are capable of 'repeating the process.'

Like I said, your concession isn't required. But your behavior suggests you lost a long while back.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

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

That you and other theists might perceive homosexuality as 'sin' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, it has no bearing whatsoever concerning the constitutionality of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, nor is the subjective and irrelevant concept of 'sin' justification for seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil rights.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've got my own dictionary

And that is your problem.

 

[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 *******. ...

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?

Any sexual deviant can marry any other sexual deviant, as long as they apply for marriage, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE... with a person of the distinct gender.

No discrimination in the laws of marriage, whatsoever.

You feel that such DOES discriminate because to men can't marry each other.

And that's because you refuse to recognize that MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

And that is because the marriage standard PRECLUDES MEN FROM MARRYING MEN, AND WOMEN MARRYING WOMAN, because (Pay close attention here) MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Now the law provides that two men, a goat and a 12 cats can join together incorporate... which provides them with the means to be recognized as ONE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED ENTITY.

Which is NOT MARRIAGE...

Marriage is the legitimate nucleus of civilization... but that is only because it precludes two men from joining together.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I've got my own dictionary

And that is your problem.

And your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Just what is this 'deceit?'

When you agree to obey the law, you must obey it. When you agree to serve the public, you must. Thus you cannot claim ignorance to the law when such obedience conflicts with your morality. Sorry.

 

[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 *******. ...

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?

Any sexual deviant can marry any other sexual deviant, as long as they apply for marriage, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE... with a person of the distinct gender.

No discrimination in the laws of marriage, whatsoever.

You feel that such DOES discriminate because to men can't marry each other.

And that's because you refuse to recognize that MARRIAGE: IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

And that is because the marriage standard PRECLUDES MEN FROM MARRYING MEN, AND WOMEN MARRYING WOMAN, because MARRIAGE IS THE JOING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

Now the law provides that two men, a goat and a 12 cats can join together incorporate... which provides them with the means to be recognized as ONE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED ENTITY.

Which is NOT MARRIAGE...

Marriage is the legitimate nucleus of civilization... but that is just because it precludes two men from joining together.

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.

You are demanding that we accept as fact something that is in fact the subject of the debate itself.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Neither does yours.

I never implied it did... I merely pointed out God's position, as God stated it in the scriptures. THAT being God's word is God, telling you what reality IS.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Any sexual deviant can marry any other sexual deviant, as long as they apply for marriage, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE... with a person of the distinct gender.

A non sequitur.

No discrimination in the laws of marriage, whatsoever.

Then why, might I ask, are you arguing for such discrimination?

You feel that such DOES discriminate because to men can't marry each other.

I feel that if there is a law governing any type of marriage, that it apply equally to the citizenry! Surprise!

And that is because the marriage standard PRECLUDES MEN FROM MARRYING MEN, AND WOMEN MARRYING WOMAN, because MARRIAGE IS THE JOING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

Now the law provides that two men, a goat and a 12 cats can join together incorporate... which provides them with the means to be recognized as ONE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED ENTITY.

Which is NOT MARRIAGE...

Marriage is the legitimate nucleus of civilization... but that is just because it precludes two men from joining together.

Marriage has nothing to do with my position, it is the laws governing it. If you make law, it must apply equally to anyone it governs, whether penal or beneficial. Perhaps you didn't read my OP after all. Perhaps you missed the part where I said "as a Christian I think homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong and patently sinful, thusly I don't condone either."

Misattributing my argument is a sign of defeat. Your concession is now required.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Presbyterians recently decided to approve same sex marriage in their constitution.

They are Christians. They 'redefined' marriage. Who among you has the authority to declare that they are no longer Christians?

Presbyterians approve gay marriage in constitution The Columbian

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys has no authority to interpret the word of God: none.

Keys lives in a secular democracy.

Keys can take solace in that he won't be forced to marry a man.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I merely pointed out God's position, as God stated it in the scriptures. THAT being God's word is God, telling you what reality IS.

Your version of reality and God's version of reality are two different things, my friend.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Neither does yours.

I never implied it did... I merely pointed out God's position, as God stated it in the scriptures. THAT being God's word is God, telling you what reality IS.

The scriptures are hearsay. We have no idea who really wrote the scriptures, nor do we even know that the God of the Bible is the one and only true God.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thus your opinion that the law supports your opinion, over mine

It does.

Nullius in verba

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Just what is this 'deceit?'

So you agree that your citation does not justify the accepting of deceit as truth?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Now, on what do you rest your demand that civilization be turned on its head to accommodate the deceit that sexual deviancy is perfectly normal, thus there is no mental disorder associated with sexual deviancy therefore there is no reason to preclude sexual deviants from marrying in mono-gender orientation?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We should obey God rather than man.

But do we? All of us are in some way guilty of not obeying God and succumbing to the whims and edicts of man. You shouldn't throw stones in a glass house.

You claim to be a Christian, yet you support the so called right for gays to marry? One has to wonder whether your faith is genuine. Homosexual behavior is an abomination to God, yet you support it.

And if you were to present this 'reasoning' to the Court during oral arguments, what do you think the justices' response might be.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You know, I can keep this up until the dawn. Can you?