Homosexual Columnist Blasts Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorplank, Nov 18, 2013.

  1. Lawdog88

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,325
    Likes Received:
    507
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,775

    I don't care - or know - how those that justify a perverted interpretation of scriptures, do it.

    I also don't care - or know - how churches justify a preverted interpretation of scriptures, to justify moral preversion.

    And I really don't care what a claimed "civil right" looks like if - IMO - it is founded on a moral perversion. That is what the homosexual thing really is, i.e., a moral perversion that is claiming to break out onto new ground as a civil right.

    I happily admit that I am guided in making moral discernments based on my Judeo-Christian teachings, upbringing, and the tenets of my faith, but they are confirmed - not by the Bible - but by my experience.

    So carry on with your push for homosexual perversion to be recognized as a civil right.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. gatorev12

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,572
    Likes Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,357
  3. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,587
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +578
    Law: You are welcome to consider homosexuality a moral perversion, but gays aren't doing anything illegal. So what gives you the right to deny others a right when they are doing nothing illegal based on religious reasons? Can a Jewish or Muslim community outlaw eating pork because they find it a perversion based on their respective religious tomes?

    And rev, the government allows separation with good reason. I'm waiting for why the government should separate gay unions and straight ones.
  4. gatorev12

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,572
    Likes Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,357
    You've been given plenty of examples...you just don't like them.

    And you also don't like the fact that, for several of the examples, there exists legal caselaw to support such a premise too.
  5. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,587
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +578
    Please list the examples and the caselaw support. Would like to see them all in one place. Thanks in advance.
  6. Lawdog88

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,325
    Likes Received:
    507
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,775

    Nobody is outlawing homosexual preversion or denying those who practice homosexual acts, from feasting on their inclination. But there is a difference in outlawing it, and recognizing it as a civil right as something that is (implicitly, in a hold-your-nose and pretend sense) . . . morally acceptable.

    All you want to do is to have everybody accept practicing homosexuals as morally OK. That is never going to happen, no matter how you color any alleged right to a civil union.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. gatorplank

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,177
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +392
    What is a right? And what makes gay marriage a right? Our Declaration of Independence says rights were endowed by the Creator, but if you don't believe in God, then who endows rights? The state?
  8. gatorplank

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,177
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +392
    A government exists to serve justice. A government cannot accomplish this task without some sort of moral foundation. The idea behind democracy is that people get to choose a government that reflects the moral foundations of that society. So, yes, if a society believes that it is immoral to eat pork, then a society could codify that moral axiom into a law outlawing the immoral behavior. Or do you not believe in democracy?

    Your claim that gay marriage is a right is a priori. You can repeat that as much as you'd like, but you still have not given a compelling argument that substantiates that claim. I'd start with defining what a right is, and then explain why gay marriage fits the definition of a right.

    As I see it there are only three ways to define a right:

    1. Rights are endowed by the Creator.

    2. Rights are endowed by the State.

    3. Rights are endowed by natural law.
  9. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,587
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +578
    The Loving decision already makes marriage a fundamental right in the US. I suggest you read up on the decision

    And while our rights in the US may have been endowed by a creator, those rights weren't a gift God left on the doorsteps of Freedom Hall our Founding Fathers could open and show to everyone. No, the rights listed, life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were extremely general, and it was always up to man to further define said rights, and fight and die for them if necessary. The Founding Fathers, as deists, also believed God had no hand in human affairs, and He was just the watchmaker. It was up to us to define our own fate, make our own laws, etc. It's also why Jefferson believed armed rebellion every generation was a good thing. And while we haven't had but one true Civil War, we have had civil unrest, protests, significant changes in law, etc.

    It's also why we have the 1st amendment that as Jefferson put it, creates a wall of separation between church and state. And why no community could deny a person from eating pork based on religious reasons alone. So while a society could ban the production and consumption of pork based on religious reasons only (as was tried in Israel), that wouldn't be constitutional here in the US.

    Last, Law, your argument again sounds very much like arguments made generations ago about miscegenation. Allowing inter-racial marriage wasn't about forcing those morally opposed to it to accept it. It was about granting civil rights to those who deserved to have said rights. Religious moral repugnance wasn't a good enough reason to keep miscegenation illegal. So why is similar religious moral repugnance good enough to keep gay marriage illegal? And frankly, I don't care about your religious moral repugnance. What I care about is equal rights under the government.
  10. gatorplank

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,177
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +392
    So you are saying rights are endowed by the state? If that is your position, then on what basis can you claim something is a right if the state does not endow it? The way I see it the state has not endowed gay marriage as a right. Therefore it can't be a right if rights are endowed by the state.
  11. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,587
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +578
    16 states plus Washington D.C. have endowed gays the right to marry already. And it comes down to this. [​IMG]

    The right to marry has already been deemed a fundamental right by the state (see Loving decision). The question then becomes what reason(s) does the state have to deny some couples the right to marry? Things like age is acceptable as 18 is the age of consent in the US for many good reasons. But why deny gender?

    Should be able to deny gay marriages based on lawdawg's reasoning that homosexuality is repugnant and against his religion? No, because his religion, nor anybody's religion has the right in the US to declare anyone a second-class citizen and deny anyone a right based on religious teachings. If homosexuals legally feast on their inclinations, pay taxes, and otherwise be upstanding members of society, they should be able to enjoy all the benefits of said society without religion demoting them to second-class.
  12. Lawdog88

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,325
    Likes Received:
    507
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,775

    We have examined your misplaced equivocation re: miegenation vs. homosexual behavior, multiple times in the past several years in "these kinds of threads," and I am not going to illustrate the illogical transference another time. In short, distinction based on color of skin does not equal distinction based on behavior.

    So, everything else you bring as a calculus, fails.
  13. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,587
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +578
    So your answer, along with a complete dismissal that your prejudice isn't anything like prejudices in the past is distinction based on skin color is different then behavior based distinctions. My question is the same one as before, why? And if behavior based distinctions are allowed, could we then rule interfaith marriages illegal on the basis that faith is a behavior based distinction and not a physical characteristic?

    And for the record, I qualified my statement and didn't say miscegenation completely equals gay marriage. I simply stated your arguments against gay marriage are verbatim the same arguments used against miscegenation, just switch out gays for blacks. It seems to me if you can make the same basic argument against two things, there is a lot of equivocation between them.
  14. gatorplank

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,177
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +392
    Azcat, my argument to you is that rights are endowed by the Creator. Our Declaration of Independence says that rights exist on the basis of society's beliefs about the Creator. Historically, the Creator that our society has understood rights to exist by is the Judeo-Christian God. The fact that our civilization has operated this way for hundreds of years does not mean that society has failed to maintain separation of church state. What it means is our society's morals are informed by the Judeo-Christian religion. There is nothing wrong with that and it is not unconstitutional for a nation to believe that rights only exist as endowed by the Judeo-Christian God. In light of the Creator that has historically informed our society of its moral standards and endowed rights, it is appropriate to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
  15. agigator

    agigator Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +75
    To be fair, I don't think it's just Azcat. Basically every time someone posts a "gay" thread, of whatever type, the same arguments are trotted out by both sides. I suppose it's worth posting, every now and then, just to be counted.

    I don't drink coffee because it's a foul substance. I don't drink sewage for the same reason. Using Azcat's reasoning, everyone who drinks coffee should also be drinking sewage.
  16. gatorev12

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,572
    Likes Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,357
    Given your inability to properly apply or cite Brown, what good would that do?

    But if you want to do the research yourself, look up Supreme Court rulings on public displays of the 10 Commandments and appellate opinions on using the Bible in the Oath of Office. Those are helpful primers about Court opinions upholding "tradition"--even in instances when it technically violated other Constitutional provisions.
  17. gatorplank

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,177
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +392
    There are people who have changed their sexual orientation, unlike people who are born with a certain skin color. That is the difference Azcat. Everyone has a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. And because everyone has that right everyone is equal under the law.

    Here is an example of a militant homosexual activist who was able to change by the power of God. He is now happily married and is attending Bible school in the state of Wyoming.

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/ex-homosexuals-marriage-slammed-by-activists/
  18. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,587
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +578
    The 10 Commandments are allowed in a historical sense only. Using the Bible for oaths is not a requirement. Other religious books or even just raising your hand is legal as well. So while these traditions are still allowed, they altered to make sure nobody's civil rights are violated.

    Slavery was a tradition too you know. The rights of slaves were obviously violated and slavery is no longer allowed.

    So the question then becomes why should we deny a right that is fundamental to a specified group? Tradition? Sorry, but tradition that denies rights need to be altered or ended, like we have done. Religious reasons? Sorry, but your religion should not have the power to make people second class citizens. Discrimination based on behavior? That depends on the behavior. Criminal behavior, sure, as it makes sense to do things like deny pedophiles access to children. But what compelling reason do we have to deny gays marriage, especially when being gay is criminal, and other than marriage, gays are allowed all other rights?
  19. fastsix

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,384
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,045
    So you understand homosexuality to be a perversion based on your experience?
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. lacuna

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8,914
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Ratings Received:
    +715
    I wish him all the best but studies find success in changing sexual orientation is next to nil.
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm

Share This Page