A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[Mr.Right]

And yet you are defending mans law over Gods law.

And just like the Pharisees, you insist on unfair application of the law, or complete ignorance of it. You hypocrite. Do "real" Christians insist on uneven application of the law and selective justice?

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Hold on there.

God is impartial in his judgement, why aren't you?

You didn't answer my question.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What if there was a law forbidding Christians to worship?

I would fight it with every fiber of my human being. But this has zero to do with the context of this discussion.

Should we support it, since it's the law? According to your argument, we should.

Oh, yes, just because there is law, doesn't mean all laws are just. In your case, it would be blatantly unconstitutional. See? The law should be applied equally between Christians and non Christians. Just as the law should be applied equally between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Nice try, friend. I rest my case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And yet you are defending mans law over Gods law.

And just like the Pharisees, you insist on unfair application of the law, or complete ignorance of it. You hypocrite. Do "real" Christians insist on uneven application of the law and selective justice?

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Hold on there.

God is impartial in his judgement, why aren't you?

You didn't answer my question.

That wasn't a question, it was a supposition!

See above post for the answer to the question you asked.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Homosexuality is a 180 degree deviation from human physiological normality. Such concludes that cravings for sexual gratification with those of their own gender, is reasonable, despite such being precisely contrary to the design of their SPECIES.

This presents 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.

 

[Mr.Right]

What if there was a law forbidding Christians to worship?

I would fight it with every fiber of my human being. But this has zero to do with the context of this discussion.

Should we support it, since it's the law? According to your argument, we should.

Oh, yes, just because there is law, doesn't mean all laws are just. In your case, it would be blatantly unconstitutional. See? The law should be applied equally between Christians and non Christians.

Nice try, friend.

We should obey God rather than man. It's people like you who are contributing to moral decay in America. You claim that we should support a law that is contrary to Gods law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

A fact.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Homosexuality is a 180 degree deviation from human physiological normality.

And in what reality are you allowed to dictate what is normal? Such sheer arrogance leaves me at a loss for words.

As far as human physiology is concerned, the physiology remains unchanged, it is the same as yours or mine.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What if there was a law forbidding Christians to worship?

I would fight it with every fiber of my human being. But this has zero to do with the context of this discussion.

Should we support it, since it's the law? According to your argument, we should.

Oh, yes, just because there is law, doesn't mean all laws are just. In your case, it would be blatantly unconstitutional. See? The law should be applied equally between Christians and non Christians.

Nice try, friend.

We should obey God rather than man. It's people like you who are contributing to moral decay in America. You claim that we should support a law that is contrary to Gods law.

Nothing but ad hominem. Are you going to argue me or insult me?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My observation is Scriptural. You support gay marriage, therefore, you cannot be a Christian.

So is mine, and based on legal precedent also.

What people on this thread seem not to understand is that from a religious standpoint, I cannot, nor will I ever condone gay marriage or homosexuality, I still think it is unnatural. But from a legal standpoint, I cannot expect the unequal application of our laws. Its that simple. I support equal protection under the law, not gay marriage itself.
.?'
And you are in no place to judge my relationship with God. Don't even presume to know what its like.

And yet you are defending mans law over Gods law. What if there was a law forbidding Christians to worship? Should we support it, since it's the law? According to your argument, we should.

A 'what if' in the freest country in the world'? The 1st Amendment protects against that. Otherwise, what would you do? Go on jihad?

 

[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.

A fact.

An unsupported supposition.

 

[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.

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

There are hundreds of expressions which recognize God.

But in fairness to you, given your intellectual limitations, there was no way you could hope to recognize that... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

A fact.

An unsupported supposition.

In truth Nature supports it, through the human physiological design.

It's not even a debatable point.

 

[Mr.Right]

Homosexuality is a 180 degree deviation from human physiological normality.

And in what reality are you allowed to dictate what is normal? Such sheer arrogance leaves me at a loss for words.

As far as human physiology is concerned, the physiology remains unchanged, it is the same as yours or mine.

Templar
I believe that God is the one who made the claim. You know, the one you claim to worship.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I warned you. I told you this position would be fought for with all deliberate fervor. Now you are reaping the results.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What if there was a law forbidding Christians to worship?

I would fight it with every fiber of my human being. But this has zero to do with the context of this discussion.

Should we support it, since it's the law? According to your argument, we should.

Oh, yes, just because there is law, doesn't mean all laws are just. In your case, it would be blatantly unconstitutional. See? The law should be applied equally between Christians and non Christians.

Nice try, friend.

We should obey God rather than man. It's people like you who are contributing to moral decay in America. You claim that we should support a law that is contrary to Gods law.

You would go on jihad, then.

You are no different than a crazy Muslim.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In truth Nature supports it, through the human physiological design.

Newsflash!

I know. But what it doesn't support is your contention that just because someone is homosexual means they are incapable of reproduction.

Moving along.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I believe that God is the one who made the claim.

Correct, which naturally excludes you from such a duty.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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]."

ROFLMNAO!!

So a jurist determines that human physiological norm is irrelevant to cultural mores, which is irrational... and you want to hold it up as what? Some form of authority?

Did the US Federal Judiciary have some part in the design of the human species?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In truth Nature supports it, through the human physiological design.

Newsflash!

I know. But what it doesn't support is your contention that just because someone is homosexual means they are incapable of reproduction.

Moving along.

So you feel that straw reasoning is a viable point to stand up?

On what are ya basing that train-wreck?

 

[Mr.Right]

My observation is Scriptural. You support gay marriage, therefore, you cannot be a Christian.

So is mine, and based on legal precedent also.

What people on this thread seem not to understand is that from a religious standpoint, I cannot, nor will I ever condone gay marriage or homosexuality, I still think it is unnatural. But from a legal standpoint, I cannot expect the unequal application of our laws. Its that simple. I support equal protection under the law, not gay marriage itself.
.?'
And you are in no place to judge my relationship with God. Don't even presume to know what its like.

And yet you are defending mans law over Gods law. What if there was a law forbidding Christians to worship? Should we support it, since it's the law? According to your argument, we should.

A 'what if' in the freest country in the world'? The 1st Amendment protects against that. Otherwise, what would you do? Go on jihad?

The Constitution says nothing about protecting sexual deviants.