U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Homosexual Marriage Will Be Legalized Later This Year

[RickyZ]

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Homosexual Marriage Will Be Legalized Later This

I'm neither ignorant or a democrat. And I can see what that ruling is doing to the country. So I would counter by saying that those who support that ruling are blind. If GE were truly a person, he'd be in jail for a number of reasons, including treason and tax evasion.

I'll consider corporations people when they are held to the same standards - and punishments - as we humans are.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You're correct that homosexuality and the blasphemy of institutionalized homosexual marriage violates God's normative morality (which has benefited mankind greatly both temporally and eternally when implemented properly [e.g. holiness AND love]), scripture, and nature; however, you're incorrect that homosexual marriage didn't exist in antiquity. It did. Reread post #6: http://christianchat.com/christian-...ge-will-legalized-later-year.html#post1857068

And if the U.S. Supreme Court does legalize homosexual marriage, genuine Christians may face harsh persecution in the U.S. respite with imprisonment and bankruptcy (possibly in large numbers) unless legislation is passed to uphold our first amendment religious liberty under the Constitution and our human rights to a free moral conscience in line with God's normative morality under natural law. A modern state of persecution madness brought homosexuals, atheists, and liberals against moral Christians may ensue. Reread post #5: http://christianchat.com/christian-...ge-will-legalized-later-year.html#post1856961

It's not MY morality. It is the morality of all of human history, Scripture, and nature. There has never been a society prior to the 20th century, that recognized homosexual marriage. No religious text I am aware of advocates or allows it, and, by nature, if all were homosexual the species would die out.

If 2 people want to call themselves married, commit deviant acts with each other that is their business. My business is NEVER recognizing them in any way shape or form.

Now, how about answering your objection to 2 brothers marrying each other.

 

[Human]

It's not MY morality. It is the morality of all of human history, Scripture, and nature. There has never been a society prior to the 20th century, that recognized homosexual marriage. No religious text I am aware of advocates or allows it, and, by nature, if all were homosexual the species would die out.

If 2 people want to call themselves married, commit deviant acts with each other that is their business. My business is NEVER recognizing them in any way shape or form.

Now, how about answering your objection to 2 brothers marrying each other.

Hinduism predates Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and The Rig Vedas (the oldest Hindu scripts) refer to homosexuality as the 'third gender''or ''the third kind'', as a normal part of nature, thus it is not ''the morality of all human history'' nor ''the scripture of all human history''. Homosexuality has existed in humans for thousands of years, and it is also witnessed in many animals, so it is not ''the nature of all human history'' either.

It most definitely is YOUR morality, for if it was the morality of all human history, then people wouldn't disagree with you.

Two (adult) brothers marrying each other is illegal, but consensual incest, in various US states, isn't illegal; Ohio, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. As for two brothers marrying each other, the practice would be pointless; they are already related, and the secular function of marriage is to create legal familial ties that benefit the appropriated parties.

As for why it's morally unsound for two consenting male brothers to have a relationship, I can't think of any reason outside religion, law, or personl disgust for that. It's at present wrong because in the vast majority of people it produces revulsion (it does that in me, too) and of course because it's currently illegal in most places. But if there comes a time when most of humanity want to have incest (which there most likely won't, because we're biologically programmed to want to diversify our gene pools by finding partners outside our immediate family) then the social perception of incest will have changed.

Most of the time, what we find morally repulsive is subjective and a matter of consensus of opinion. A hundred years ago, a woman being a man's boss was probably pretty repulsive. People might have even considered it immoral, but there was no genuine basis for it being viewed that way other than that it broke tradition, custom and offended men.

Incest that does not lead to procreation, I can't really say is difinitively immoral, but certainly it is against our nature, our desire to seek partners outside family, and of course the idea of doing it revulses pretty much every human being.

 

[Sirk]

Hinduism predates Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and The Rig Vedas (the oldest Hindu scripts) refer to homosexuality as the 'third gender''or ''the third kind'', as a normal part of nature, thus it is not ''the morality of all human history'' nor ''the scripture of all human history''. Homosexuality has existed in humans for thousands of years, and it is also witnessed in many animals, so it is not ''the nature of all human history'' either.

It most definitely is YOUR morality, for if it was the morality of all human history, then people wouldn't disagree with you.

Two (adult) brothers marrying each other is illegal, but consensual incest, in various US states, isn't illegal; Ohio, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. As for two brothers marrying each other, the practice would be pointless; they are already related, and the secular function of marriage is to create legal familial ties that benefit the appropriated parties.

As for why it's morally unsound for two consenting male brothers to have a relationship, I can't think of any reason outside religion, law, or personl disgust for that. It's at present wrong because in the vast majority of people it produces revulsion (it does that in me, too) and of course because it's currently illegal in most places. But if there comes a time when most of humanity want to have incest (which there most likely won't, because we're biologically programmed to want to diversify our gene pools by finding partners outside our immediate family) then the social perception of incest will have changed.

Most of the time, what we find morally repulsive is subjective and a matter of consensus of opinion. A hundred years ago, a woman being a man's boss was probably pretty repulsive. People might have even considered it immoral, but there was no genuine basis for it being viewed that way other than that it broke tradition, custom and offended men.

Incest that does not lead to procreation, I can't really say is difinitively immoral, but certainly it is against our nature, our desire to seek partners outside family, and of course the idea of doing it revulses pretty much every human being.

Gay relationships are bad just in the fact that it is not pursuing the best for another human being.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Hinduism is a false religious system with a scientifically falsified cosmology (e.g. rapidly oscillating universe). God's eternal normative morality predates all religion and is the benchmark against which all human cultural morality is ultimately weighed and judged (including your own).

This is why sexual immorality is sinful. Not because some people said it was but because it is, in reality, sinful. Genetic reasons aside: that by itself is reason enough not to engage in it much less persecute everyone that doesn't facilitate it when you order them to do so.

Your spiritual blindness does not equate to you being morally correct. Just the opposite, in fact. By definition, your spiritual blindness prevents you from acknowledging God's normative morality and combined with your rebellion against God, your aligning with it.

And, of course, the existence of disagreement does not invalidate the existence of truth.

Hinduism predates Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and The Rig Vedas (the oldest Hindu scripts) refer to homosexuality as the 'third gender''or ''the third kind'', as a normal part of nature, thus it is not ''the morality of all human history'' nor ''the scripture of all human history''. Homosexuality has existed in humans for thousands of years, and it is also witnessed in many animals, so it is not ''the nature of all human history'' either.

It most definitely is YOUR morality, for if it was the morality of all human history, then people wouldn't disagree with you.

Two (adult) brothers marrying each other is illegal, but consensual incest, in various US states, isn't illegal; Ohio, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. As for two brothers marrying each other, the practice would be pointless; they are already related, and the secular function of marriage is to create legal familial ties that benefit the appropriated parties.

As for why it's morally unsound for two consenting male brothers to have a relationship, I can't think of any reason outside religion, law, or personl disgust for that. It's at present wrong because in the vast majority of people it produces revulsion (it does that in me, too) and of course because it's currently illegal in most places. But if there comes a time when most of humanity want to have incest (which there most likely won't, because we're biologically programmed to want to diversify our gene pools by finding partners outside our immediate family) then the social perception of incest will have changed.

Most of the time, what we find morally repulsive is subjective and a matter of consensus of opinion. A hundred years ago, a woman being a man's boss was probably pretty repulsive. People might have even considered it immoral, but there was no genuine basis for it being viewed that way other than that it broke tradition, custom and offended men.

Incest that does not lead to procreation, I can't really say is difinitively immoral, but certainly it is against our nature, our desire to seek partners outside family, and of course the idea of doing it revulses pretty much every human being.

 

[G4JC]

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Homosexual Marriage Will Be Legalized Later This

Well, it's time to start supporting your locally described (per strongly biased Southern Poverty Law Center) "hate group":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...n_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups#Anti-LGBT

 

[Human]

Hinduism is a false religious system with a scientifically falsified cosmology (e.g. rapidly oscillating universe). God's eternal normative morality predates all religion and is the benchmark against which all human cultural morality is ultimately weighed and judged (including your own).

This is why sexual immorality is sinful. Not because some people said it was but because it is, in reality, sinful. Genetic reasons aside: that by itself is reason enough not to engage in it much less persecute everyone that doesn't facilitate it when you order them to do so.

Your spiritual blindness does not equate to you being morally correct. Just the opposite, in fact. By definition, your spiritual blindness prevents you from acknowledging God's normative morality and combined with your rebellion against God, your aligning with it.

And, of course, the existence of disagreement does not invalidate the existence of truth.

Logically, I've got no more reason to assume your version of morality cosmically correct than I do to assume Hindu moral teachings are correct, or Islamic moral teachings, or the teachings of Quatzelcoatl or Shiva or Buddha.

I'm not forcing you to facilitate anything, I'm suggesting that allowing people to make consensual, adult relationship choices isn't part of your jurisdiction and everyone shouldn't be forced to follow your moral codes in those contexts. The fact that a country allows gay people to marry does not stop you from refusing to perform the service in a Christian church (as is your religious right) nor does it stop you speaking out against it, and certainly it doesn't mean you're facilitating it -- you don't have the authority.

Gay people care not one iota about your perceived responsibility in condoning or not condoning their consensual interpersonal relationships other than when you take their ability to do so away from them. Simple fact of the matter is you aren't so important as to have a say in whether a gay person can be gay, and soon you won't have a say in whether they'll be allowed secular marriage privileges either. That's just the way it has to be and whether or not it happens soon, it will happen.

It certainly should't beyour place to sit in a position where you're able to limit what consenting people can and can't do in their private lives, much less should these people have to feel like they need your approval for their own consensual sexual choices.

 

[Sirk]

Logically, I've got no more reason to assume your version of morality cosmically correct than I do to assume Hindu moral teachings are correct, or Islamic moral teachings, or the teachings of Quatzelcoatl or Shiva or Buddha.

I'm not forcing you to facilitate anything, I'm suggesting that allowing people to make consensual, adult relationship choices isn't part of your jurisdiction and everyone shouldn't be forced to follow your moral codes in those contexts. The fact that a country allows gay people to marry does not stop you from refusing to perform the service in a Christian church (as is your religious right) nor does it stop you speaking out against it, and certainly it doesn't mean you're facilitating it -- you don't have the authority.

Gay people care not one iota about your perceived responsibility in condoning or not condoning their consensual interpersonal relationships other than when you take their ability to do so away from them. Simple fact of the matter is you aren't so important as to have a say in whether a gay person can be gay, and soon you won't have a say in whether they'll be allowed secular marriage privileges either. That's just the way it has to be and whether or not it happens soon, it will happen.

It certainly should't beyour place to sit in a position where you're able to limit what consenting people can and can't do in their private lives, much less should these people have to feel like they need your approval for their own consensual sexual choices.

It's illegal to put drugs in your veins because it is bad for society. No different than sexually deviant lifestyles.

 

[Human]

It's illegal to put drugs in your veins because it is bad for society. No different than sexually deviant lifestyles.

Most rational people disagree with you.

 

[Sirk]

Most rational people disagree with you.

By whose standard of rationality.....yours? The studies on the problems that arise from homosexual deviancy do not.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Logically you have every reason to appropriate creator God's normative morality rather than continue to assert fallacious relativism or a false religious system's "morality" if it conflicts with creator God's normative morality.

Whether or not you specifically are, in fact, using your political power in the voting booth to persecute spiritually reborn members of God's kingdom during their time here in this material world; homosexuals, atheists, and progressives are.

Hence my statement that I believe they will pose a much greater threat to genuine orthodox Christians who do not condone nor facilitate what will be legalized sexually immoral blasphemy of the institution of marriage (e.g. homosexual marriage) when ordered to do so by first homosexuals (and their allies against these Christians) and subsequently the state unless legislative provision is made to uphold the human rights and religious liberties in natural law and also the first amendment of Christians that has always existed in this nation up until the present.

That's one of the two lines of thought I've been talking about in this discussion, along with the slide of modern Western Civilization back into the sweeping immorality of antiquity that preceded Christianity outside of Judaism, and it has zero to do with your rambling about the "moral right" of people to screw each other in their bungholes and engage in other sexually immoral activities which obviously isn't a moral right at all in reality but a choice some people (about 3.5% of the general population according to Gallup's most sweeping poll) make.

Logically, I've got no more reason to assume your version of morality cosmically correct than I do to assume Hindu moral teachings are correct, or Islamic moral teachings, or the teachings of Quatzelcoatl or Shiva or Buddha.

I'm not forcing you to facilitate anything, I'm suggesting that allowing people to make consensual, adult relationship choices isn't part of your jurisdiction and everyone shouldn't be forced to follow your moral codes in those contexts. The fact that a country allows gay people to marry does not stop you from refusing to perform the service in a Christian church (as is your religious right) nor does it stop you speaking out against it, and certainly it doesn't mean you're facilitating it -- you don't have the authority.

Gay people care not one iota about your perceived responsibility in condoning or not condoning their consensual interpersonal relationships other than when you take their ability to do so away from them. Simple fact of the matter is you aren't so important as to have a say in whether a gay person can be gay, and soon you won't have a say in whether they'll be allowed secular marriage privileges either. That's just the way it has to be and whether or not it happens soon, it will happen.

It certainly should't beyour place to sit in a position where you're able to limit what consenting people can and can't do in their private lives, much less should these people have to feel like they need your approval for their own consensual sexual choices.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Truth is objective and does not change what it is to conform to what's societally popular at a given moment in time.

It's a bad idea for a healthy person to choose the life of a heroin addict or crackhead for the simple fact that it actually is a bad idea. Likewise, it's a bad idea to immerse oneself so deeply in sexual immorality that it becomes one's very identity.

Just because most people, who are not retarded or mentally ill and therefore "rational", might disagree with the truth at a given moment in time does not change the truth. It just means rational people are not aligning with the truth at a given moment in time.

Rational people certainly are not immune to ignorance and deception. Historically, in fact, rational people have made all sorts of undesirable and immoral decisions, both individually and societally, that have resulted in negative consequences.

In logic, specifically argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

Most rational people disagree with you.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Indeed, the empirical evidence collected is clear that drug abuse and sexual immorality are undesirable and costly for both individuals and society as a whole.

But it's the lost potential that is rarely calculated in the reports. And how does one economically account for a single lost soul much more the magnitude hat are currently present?

It's illegal to put drugs in your veins because it is bad for society. No different than sexually deviant lifestyles.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

majority rule is mob rule. and you do not want that ...

You would be one who just has to get used to the fact that that is the way it is in the U.S.

just like people who scream that "x" needs banned right now... yeah ok ban it. but eventually the mob will say "a" needs banned but you however like "a" but mob rule wins thus "a" is now banned and you are a criminal.

You wouldn't be talking about a particular green leafy hallcinogen, would you? If so, start another thread, please. Of course, as a licensed addictions counselor, I'll be happy to bury you with the facts if you wish.

 

[Aerendyl]

It's not MY morality. It is the morality of all of human history, Scripture, and nature. There has never been a society prior to the 20th century, that recognized homosexual marriage. No religious text I am aware of advocates or allows it, and, by nature, if all were homosexual the species would die out.

Besides the Greek and Roman empire where homosexuality was very common, it's simply not true that it's somehow not a natural thing. I'm not arguing from a moral standpoint, so please don't respond with moral arguments, but there's a huge variety of animals showing homosexual behavior List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

On top of that there's a very good theory why it is benificial for communities to have some homosexual individuals (the claim that we would die out if all individuals would be homosexual is simply a strawman's argument). After all, in the very beginning of human history the men had to go out hunting but didn't want to leave the children and women all alone, nor would they want to leave them with brothers exploding from testosterone. So having a "gay uncle" (which is the name of this theory) is in my opinion why the existence of some homosexual individuals is actually a very natural and very beneficial thing for small communities.

 

[didymos]

Besides the Greek and Roman empire where homosexuality was very common,

Usually that wasn't homophilia but pedophilia.

it's simply not true that it's somehow not a natural thing.

Depends what you mean by 'natural,' biologically speaking you may be correct, but for a christian the term 'natural' refers to our natural state, how we were created in the beginning. God didn't create us as Adam and Steve etc, but when sin came into the world everything changed. (Rom 1:26)

I'm not arguing from a moral standpoint, so please don't respond with moralarguments,

Morality is never neutral but always determined by a certain worldview. Christian morality by definition builds on scriptural truth.

huge variety of animals showing homosexual behavior List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, thefree encyclopedia.

Again: a christian trying to determine what's 'normal' shouldn't look at nature (natural theology) but at scripture (revealed theology.)

On top of that there's a very good theory why it is benificial for communities to have some homosexual individuals

Apart from the fact that every 'civilized' society apparently needs cater waiters, hairdressers, ballet dancers etc I don't agree.

(the claim that we would die out if all individuals would behomosexual is simply a strawman's argument).

Not a 'strawman's argument' but simply not true. It wouldn't make procreation impossible, just very difficult. Because then all gays would have to look for suitable uteruses, and all the lesbians for suitable sperm donors. For some reason even gays want to start families.

After all,in the very beginning of human history the men had to go out hunting but didn'twant to leave the children and women all alone, nor would they want to leave them with brothers exploding from testosterone.

That's all conjecture, were you there? But if you want to pull the anthropological card, fine. In primitive societies the concept of the nuclear family doesn't really exist.Kids are seen as the children of the WHOLE extended family, clan, tribe etc and raised by ALL of the grown ups together (i.e. women). In such a situation you can't really determine who the biological father of kid is. Women usually have children with different dads, fathers who don't really care about raising their kids, and are always away hunting and stuff. Unlike your hypothetical stoneage scenario these findings are based on actual anthropological research in situ.

So having a "gay uncle" (which is the name of this theory) is in my opinion why the existence of some homosexual individuals is actually a very natural and very beneficial thing for small communities.

Sure, having a ‘gay uncle’ is great, until his ‘natural’ urges take over. (run kids, run)

 

[Sirk]

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Homosexual Marriage Will Be Legalized Later This

Maybe the cave dwelling gay uncle was used as a training method to help the youngsters run fast from saber tooth tigers.

 

[Mitspa]

Besides the Greek and Roman empire where homosexuality was very common, it's simply not true that it's somehow not a natural thing. I'm not arguing from a moral standpoint, so please don't respond with moral arguments, but there's a huge variety of animals showing homosexual behavior List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

On top of that there's a very good theory why it is benificial for communities to have some homosexual individuals (the claim that we would die out if all individuals would be homosexual is simply a strawman's argument). After all, in the very beginning of human history the men had to go out hunting but didn't want to leave the children and women all alone, nor would they want to leave them with brothers exploding from testosterone. So having a "gay uncle" (which is the name of this theory) is in my opinion why the existence of some homosexual individuals is actually a very natural and very beneficial thing for small communities.

The Greeks also threw imperfect babies over a cliff...and worshiped demon gods...They where ungodly heathens ....you want to take your moral principals from them, that's your choice. We "Christians" take our moral standards from the God of the bible and His standards of what is good for man.

 

[didymos]

Maybe the cave dwelling gay uncle was used as a training method to help the youngsters run fast from saber tooth tigers.

... and 'cry uncle!' had a completely different meaning.

 

[Sirk]

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Homosexual Marriage Will Be Legalized Later This

I guess maybe the matriarch of the clan had someone to paint her toenails.