A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Outright and sustained laughter followed by an order to the bailiff to "turn his silly ass out into the alley."

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a democratic society, sexual behavior cannot be legally treated as unacceptable unless it has been decided, democratically, that such behavior is sufficiently detrimental to the overall well being of society that it is justifiable to deny or otherwise restrict the practice of such sexual activity.

 

[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.

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.

So you're saying you have no idea who wrote such, but you're positive God did not inspire such?

Fascinatin'... thanks for sharing. If that had ANY relevance to the discussion, that would be ... relevant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

That's what she said.

 

[MACAULAY]

If a ****** isn't free to pack fudge.

Are any of us really free?? .....

________________________________________________

Sunni Man. This took guts. Are you scared of getting your head cut off, or maybe your nuts?

Aren't apostates treated with particular cruelty.

 

[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.

So you're saying you have no idea who wrote such, but you're positive God did not inspire such?

Fascinatin'... thanks for sharing. If that had ANY relevance to the discussion, that would be ... relevant.

I don't have to be positive. There are hundreds of gods in hundreds of religions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

My citation concurs with my opinion, it is a irrefutable factual citation. It does not comply with purposeful misinterpretations of such a citation such as yours.

Nullius in verba.

I have also noticed how you have deviated from your original argument. 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

And where did I say it was "normal?" Please, show me.

And as far as American society is concerned, the Constitution dictates how people are treated under the law. I couldn't give a damn who marries who, the law must be applied fairly! Understand?

 

[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.

So you're saying you have no idea who wrote such, but you're positive God did not inspire such?

Fascinatin'... thanks for sharing. If that had ANY relevance to the discussion, that would be ... relevant.

How do you know the Muslims aren't right? How do you know the Scientologists aren't right? How do you know the Mormons, before they flip flopped, weren't right about polygamy?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In a democratic society, sexual behavior cannot be legally treated as unacceptable...

Guess again. I submit the 230 years of precedent which says otherwise in JUST THE US ALONE... and the 99.99999~% of human history, where sexual deviancy has been 'unacceptable'.

What you're desperately wanting to establish is that deviancy is only considered such because of antiquated societal constructs... and that if a majority of 'das peoples' 'BELIEVE' that deviancy is normal... then deviancy MAGICALLY becomes normal.

Sadly... Majority opinion does not determine normality. And there's no such thing as MAGIC... What you're wishful of, is what is known as ILLUSION... which where such becomes BELIEVED DESPITE THE EVIDENCE BORN IN REALITY: Such turns to DELUSION.

And again, quite sadly, is what you and your cult are saddled with.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

My citation concurs with my opinion...

Color me SHOCKED!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, and then there is the SCOTUS case

Reed v. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971)

In the opinion of Justice Berger, of the Majority:

"To give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and whatever may be said as to the positive values of avoiding intrafamily controversy, the choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex[ual orientation]."

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

My citation concurs with my opinion...

Color me SHOCKED!

Selective quotation!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I submit the 230 years of precedent

Of which the 14th Amendment consists. It was ratified on July 9, 1868. I cite constitutional precedent, which trumps your contention of traditional precedent.

 

[Mr.Right]

I submit the 230 years of precedent

Of which the 14th Amendment consists. It was ratified on July 9, 1868. I cite constitutional precedent, which trumps your contention of traditional precedent.

And I submit that you do not know God, and the truth is not in you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a democratic society, sexual behavior cannot be legally treated as unacceptable...

Guess again. I submit the 230 years of precedent which says otherwise in JUST THE US ALONE... and the 99.99999~% of human history, where sexual deviancy has been 'unacceptable'.

What you're desperately wanting to establish is that deviancy is only considered such because of antiquated societal constructs... and that if a majority of 'das peoples' 'BELIEVE' that deviancy is normal... then deviancy MAGICALLY becomes normal.

Sadly... Majority opinion does not determine normality. And there's no such thing as MAGIC... What you're wishful of, is what is known as ILLUSION... which where such becomes BELIEVED DESPITE THE EVIDENCE BORN IN REALITY: Such turns to DELUSION.

And again, quite sadly, is what you and your cult are saddled with.

There were thousands of year of 'precedent' to support the acceptability of slavery.

 

[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.

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.

So you're saying you have no idea who wrote such, but you're positive God did not inspire such?

Fascinatin'... thanks for sharing. If that had ANY relevance to the discussion, that would be ... relevant.

How do you know the Muslims aren't right?

The list is endless... but I'll go with 1400 years of irrational brutality... which is in totally alignment with evil.
OKA: UN-God. If it helps, that is also how I KNOW that Islam is the Religious arm of the Ideological Left.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And I submit that you do not know God, and the truth is not in you.

Judge not, lest you be judged.

A classic no true Scotsman argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I submit the 230 years of precedent

Of which the 14th Amendment consists. It was ratified on July 9, 1868. I cite constitutional precedent, which trumps your contention of traditional precedent.

And I submit that you do not know God, and the truth is not in you.

God by the very nature of the concept cannot be known.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The list is endless... but I'll go with 1400 years of irrational brutality... which is in totally alignment with evil.
OKA: UN-God. If it helps, that is also how I KNOW that Islam is the Religious arm of the Ideological Left.

This is getting ridiculous. I said nothing of Islam, or of 1400 years of irrational brutality or of the Ideological Left. I am speaking strictly based on the law of this land, the United States of America. Spare me your history lessons.

 

[Mr.Right]

And I submit that you do not know God, and the truth is not in you.

Judge not, lest you be judged.

A classic no true Scotsman argument.

I'm not judging anyone. Just making an observation.