Misconceptions (Homosexuality)

[Mechanical Bliss]

Since we do not live in a secular theocracy either,

There is no such thing as a secular theocracy!

If a governing body is not theocratic such that its laws are justified by certain religious beliefs, as in the case of the United States government as required by the Constitution, then the governing body is secular by definition.

Your "objection" is invalid and nonsensical.

your objections to the stance of my religion STILL fails to get same -sex couples married.

The point is that your religious stance is irrelvant to how United States laws are determined. They are not determined by what the Bible says or what you think it says. Case closed.

And as it stands, your marrying someone of the same -sex will continue to not be honored by those of this antique religion who still have influence in this dying world.

I don't care whether homosexual marriages are recognized by religious fundamentalists. I care whether homosexual marriages are recognized by the state because homosexuals deserve equal rights.

 

[Zaac]

Yeah this is going to be really fun, i would really like you to go back and try again, for two basic reasons, no warrant, and no reason to prefer but lets do the line by line anyway

1) No warrant
2) No reason to prefer
3) God tells me lots of things are sin, but that does not mean that i treat someone or my self any differnt because he/she makes that choice because i know i'm just able to slip and fall where they did, you assume that you are perfect which in turn is just as much of a sin as homosexuality

And you're being treated just like any person who wanted to marry someone of the same sex would be treated.

1) Not unique
2) NO warrant
3) no reason to prefer
4) my point is there is no need for a fromal will between to homosexuals much like there is no need for a will between to hetorsexuals if gay marriage with a reality not a myth
5) you increase the burren on the homosexual comunity by making jump throught these extra steps further feeding my non-equilty argument, thanks for making my job eaiser

Wrong again. There is no more burden placed upon you than there would be for straight unmarried couples in the same predicament.

1) no warrant
2) no reason to prefer
3) i did not say that i was going to type a bunch of unwarranted statements about you(that is name calling) i said i was going to prove you to be something that you are, which i don't have to even really do you keep doing a fine job your self
4) bigot=someone that descirmates aginast a class of people because of dislike of them, let see you are saying that they can't marry becuase you disagree with something they do or are thus

What you're proving is that you think I'm a bigot because I disagree with your viewpoint. And by your own definiton, I couldn't possibly be a bigot. You haven't seen me say anything about same-sex couples not being able to get married because I do not like them.

1) there is non-that is the violation of equliaty right there if you are too blind to see that maybe you just never will
2) no warrant
3) no reason to prefer
4) no example
5) no impact

What is with this attempt to present some sort of half-baked legal talk? How is that a violation of equal rights? If no same sex people, straight or homosexual can get married, where is someone being treated unequally?

1) no warrant
2) no reason to prefer
3) just your opinion no logic line
4) at least i'm saying something useing examples warrants and logic and just just saying that I'm right i'm right like a two year old

You actually haven't said much of anything.

1) no warrant
2) no reasont to prefer
3) no counter def of equality, mine stands as the only one in this conversation
4) no prof of bias
5) the defition is not unfiar of biased it is a pretty standard def of equality if you had wanted to provide you own you had a chance but you faile to again you just want to say i'm wrong and your right but never really one attempt to prove it or two tell me why your right its kind of like argureing with a two year old

I don't have to provide a definition of equality because ain't nobody been treated unequally.
Gay people can't marry the same sex, and neither can straight people.

repeative you never tell me anything new just the same thing

That's the way it is with truth. People argue and add to opinions.

1) no warrant
2)no reason to prefer
3) i'm not talking about sexual intercouse i'm talking about the right to have the same rights as the other sect of socity to be able marry the person you love you can't understand that why are you even commenting on this subject

If you're not talking about sexual intercourse then stop saying that they can sleep with whomever they want.

As I said, the other sector of society also cannot marry people of the same sex.

1) I think you need a redo on that one because you did nothing but say that you are right
2) there was no expantion on any ideas new or old you just say i win a lot, saying you win does not mean you win with a war of words you need to expalin why you win may show an example or to and explain why your logic(which you don't have a lot of) is better, you don't do any of thoes things
3) all you really did was show at least how closed minded you are and most of the people that share you point of view are as well, which just furthers my main point homosexuals don't have equal right becuase of closed minded views like yours and others
4) next time you wan to try to enter into an argument you might want try actually making an argument, not just being a closed minded two year old

Gosh, you thought I was attempting to argue? I don't argue about God's Word. As you said earlier , I was very repetitive, as I will always be when it comes to God's Word.

As far as being closed minded, you finally got something right because my mind is closed to everything that runs against God's Word and of this I am not in any manner ashamed.

 

[Zaac]

There is no such thing as a secular theocracy!

There has to be otherwise I could not have put the words on the screen.

If a governing body is not theocratic such that its laws are justified by certain religious beliefs, as in the case of the United States government as required by the Constitution, then the governing body is secular by definition.

Your "objection" is invalid and nonsensical.

Invalid and nonsensical? Now you stop being mean to me.

The point is that your religious stance is irrelvant to how United States laws are determined. They are not determined by what the Bible says or what you think it says. Case closed.

Apparently not cause the marriages are still being blocked and unrecognized.

I don't care whether homosexual marriages are recognized by religious fundamentalists. I care whether homosexual marriages are recognized by the state because homosexuals deserve equal rights.

Well unless you're planning on starting your own state, you better start to care.

 

[beechy]

Well unless you're planning on starting your own state, you better start to care.

Why, is the current state on the brink of shredding the Constitution in favor of a newly penned religious fundamentalist edict?

 

[seebs]

4. Sexuality and race are two completely different things. I most certainly am not a racist. Satan doesn't influence people to be black or white as he influences people to be gay, or murderous, or proud.

Friend, I must ask. Have you considered the possibility that human sexuality may be a primarily biological thing? What if being gay is like being born with any other difference from the biological norm, and the sin question comes, not in to whom we are physically attracted, but how we handle that attraction?

Satan did not make me physically attracted to people I'm not married to. It is my biological nature, as God designed me, that I am attracted to about half the people out there. The temptation to sin comes in the temptation to act on attractions I shouldn't act on.

[bible]Matthew 5:28[/bible]

Do we not all face the same temptations?

Our sins are no different from anyone else's.

[bible]Romans 2:1[/bible]

This is not a condemnation conditional on our hypocrisy; it is a clear statement that our hypocrisy is not conditional. We do do the same things we condemn, even if we do them differently.

And just for the record, we already do have perfectly equal rights. Gay people have just as much right as I do to marry someone of the opposite gender. No one is being oppressed here.

Back in the day, black people and white people both had the same right, to marry someone of their own race. I don't think the mere fact that a set of words that's the same for everyone exists makes a situation fair.

I think gay people are denied the right to marry a person they can be physically attracted to. There may be sound reasons for this, but to deny it is to start the conversation off with a disingenuous attempt to get away from the core of the matter, and I think it does us no good.

I urge you to read the court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which addresses many of the arguments we see in these threads. (This is my citation for the claims about the nature of restrictions on marriage, BTW.)

 

[Zaac]

Why, is the current state on the brink of shredding the Constitution in favor of a newly penned religious fundamentalist edict?

What Constitutional right have you been denied?

 

[jasperbound]

I do have to agree that homosexuals are being denied a right that monogamous and unrelated heterosexuals are given: the right to marry the one(s) they love. Sure, technically, they, along with polygamists and incestuous lovers, have the same right as monogamous and unrelated heterosexuals to marry, but practically they don't.
Do we, as Christians, have the right to tell two consenting adults who they can marry. I personally do not (although we definitely warn them of their sin). In fact, I'd say the same for not only the homosexuals, but also the polygamous, because if two consenting adults marrying is all right, then I do not see how three consenting adults marrying is pure evil that the government must stop. After all, as many of the gay marriage advocates would say, love and attraction are natural, and what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is nobody's business (which, logically, should apply even when there's more than two consenting adults), even if it disgusts us.

 

[CaDan]

Yeah this is going to be really fun, i would really like you to go back and try again, for two basic reasons, no warrant, and no reason to prefer but lets do the line by line anyway


1) No warrant
2) No reason to prefer
3) God tells me lots of things are sin, but that does not mean that i treat someone or my self any differnt because he/she makes that choice because i know i'm just able to slip and fall where they did, you assume that you are perfect which in turn is just as much of a sin as homosexuality





1) Not unique
2) NO warrant
3) no reason to prefer
4) my point is there is no need for a fromal will between to homosexuals much like there is no need for a will between to hetorsexuals if gay marriage with a reality not a myth
5) you increase the burren on the homosexual comunity by making jump throught these extra steps further feeding my non-equilty argument, thanks for making my job eaiser





1) no warrant
2) no reason to prefer
3) i did not say that i was going to type a bunch of unwarranted statements about you(that is name calling) i said i was going to prove you to be something that you are, which i don't have to even really do you keep doing a fine job your self
4) bigot=someone that descirmates aginast a class of people because of dislike of them, let see you are saying that they can't marry becuase you disagree with something they do or are thus





1) there is non-that is the violation of equliaty right there if you are too blind to see that maybe you just never will
2) no warrant
3) no reason to prefer
4) no example
5) no impact




1) no warrant
2) no reason to prefer
3) just your opinion no logic line
4) at least i'm saying something useing examples warrants and logic and just just saying that I'm right i'm right like a two year old





1) no warrant
2) no reasont to prefer
3) no counter def of equality, mine stands as the only one in this conversation
4) no prof of bias
5) the defition is not unfiar of biased it is a pretty standard def of equality if you had wanted to provide you own you had a chance but you faile to again you just want to say i'm wrong and your right but never really one attempt to prove it or two tell me why your right its kind of like argureing with a two year old





repeative you never tell me anything new just the same thing





1) no warrant
2)no reason to prefer
3) i'm not talking about sexual intercouse i'm talking about the right to have the same rights as the other sect of socity to be able marry the person you love you can't understand that why are you even commenting on this subject





1) I think you need a redo on that one because you did nothing but say that you are right
2) there was no expantion on any ideas new or old you just say i win a lot, saying you win does not mean you win with a war of words you need to expalin why you win may show an example or to and explain why your logic(which you don't have a lot of) is better, you don't do any of thoes things
3) all you really did was show at least how closed minded you are and most of the people that share you point of view are as well, which just furthers my main point homosexuals don't have equal right becuase of closed minded views like yours and others
4) next time you wan to try to enter into an argument you might want try actually making an argument, not just being a closed minded two year old

On the line by line (fear the line by line!)

Pull, pull, pull! I want no new responses in 2AR!

 

[Hadron]

I was living in homosexuality and God showed me a better way. I hated Christianity before, because I was condemned by it. I hated God for making me the way I was. When I got saved, I realized I had been so deceived by the world.

Keep on keeping on, Carri20.

 

[atoborch]

Overview
1) learn how to argue, there are books about it you might of had one your freshman year in enghlish class(thats in HS) i'm beging to wonder if you have graduated that yet even
2) aging no warrant, no reason to prefer
3) no clash, you never address my points you make off the wall statments that have little to nothing to do what i'm saying
4) closed mindness is a good sign of bigtory as a generall rule of thumb

And you're being treated just like any person who wanted to marry someone of the same sex would be treated.

1) no warrant
2) no reason to prefer, why is that status quo better than what i'm suggesting
3) no clash, this has nothing to do with the nature of homosexuality being a sin
4) feeds orginal point, that the status quo treatment of homosexuals is unfair an un-equatable

Wrong again. There is no more burden placed upon you than there would be for straight unmarried couples in the same predicament.

1)no reason to prefer
2) no clash
3) feed my unquiness argement and my link to in-equality, you prove the unfair burrend placed on the homosexual couple because you conside the fact that a hetrosexual couple can get married further more at the point where a homosexual couple can't you see the unfair burden placed on the homosexual couple

What you're proving is that you think I'm a bigot because I disagree with your viewpoint. And by your own definiton, I couldn't possibly be a bigot. You haven't seen me say anything about same-sex couples not being able to get married because I do not like them.

1) no warrant
2) you conside the fact you are closed minded i did not do that for you
3)you attmept to further the status quo which in and of its slef has a discrmatory stance toward the homosexual
4) if you did like them would you let them get married, the answer is obvisluly yes thus proving your dis-like at the very least

What is with this attempt to present some sort of half-baked legal talk? How is that a violation of equal rights? If no same sex people, straight or homosexual can get married, where is someone being treated unequally?

1) no warrant
2)no reason to perfer
3) its not legal talk when i can prove abuse and all you can do is say no, if you would like to negate the abuse or try to prove me wrong then please do, that was point less of me to say oh yeah, no clash
4) you never tell me what equally means so i have no idea where you are coming from on this one

You actually haven't said much of anything.

1) i know you haven't said much of anything, its really hard to say anything to you because all you do is say i'm right over and over again using deffer words
2) feeds all my no warrants
3) feeds all my no reasons to prefer
4) heck that really feeds everything i've been saying, becuase you have not expaned on the fact that you agree with Carri on number 4, you might have well of just cut and pasted the comment and just keep hitting control V

I don't have to provide a definition of equality because ain't nobody been treated unequally.
Gay people can't marry the same sex, and neither can straight people.

1)sure you don't have to proved a counter def, but then don't complain when i use my to referance back to
2) you never show the bias in my def, moreover you never show how my defination hurts any of your points(if you and some that would be good too) or how it hurts and ground that you think you have lost becuase of my def we need def to understand what we are talking about other wise people like you would acctually win arguments and that would be sad.

That's the way it is with truth. People argue and add to opinions.

1) what are you talking about, i don't even think you know, you don't even know how to construct an argument you just have your opinion and you think your right, you never tell me how you are right, why you are right, just that you are right, that does not work becuase i could say that the world is flat and think i'm right, well you know what i would not be, that is all you are doing, just with people civil right something far more important the the shape of the earth

If you're not talking about sexual intercourse then stop saying that they can sleep with whomever they want.

As I said, the other sector of society also cannot marry people of the same sex.

1) are you brain dead that is the abuse, that is what is unequal why do you keep help my argument and thinking that you are making a point for your self
2) no warrant
3) no reason to prefer the status quo
4) your above statments condradict each other, if i can sleep with a woman then marry her i should be able to do so with a man, i don't see why that is so hard to understand

Gosh, you thought I was attempting to argue? I don't argue about God's Word. As you said earlier , I was very repetitive, as I will always be when it comes to God's Word.

1) no warrant
2) no reason to perfer
3) you talk about God's word but yet you never show me any bible passage that would show me that a Goverment can't allow two people of the same sex to marry if you can do that then you can say you are talking about God's word
4) if you are going to be repetiave you will never win any arugment no matter how right you happen to be

As far as being closed minded, you finally got something right because my mind is closed to everything that runs against God's Word and of this I am not in any manner ashamed.

no wonder you have no idea:
1) that you are losing this argment with not just me but with about 3 other people
2) that you are just perpuating a cycle of hate on the homosexual comunity that is spured on by the religous right

 

[Zaac]

I do have to agree that homosexuals are being denied a right that monogamous and unrelated heterosexuals are given: the right to marry the one(s) they love.

I have to disagree because monogamous and unrelated heterosexuals aren't allowed to marry people of the same sex either.

Sure, technically, they, along with polygamists and incestuous lovers, have the same right as monogamous and unrelated heterosexuals to marry, but practically they don't.

No they don't. They have the same right to not be able to marry someone of the same sex as do heterosexuals who also cannot marry someone of the same sex.

Do we, as Christians, have the right to tell two consenting adults who they can marry.

We, as a Christians are bound by Jesus Christ to use His Word to teach, rebuke, correct and to train in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16.

We, as Christians, are bound by Jesus Christ to righteously judge all things. And part of those ALL THINGS is the righteous judgment of those who espouse doctrine that is contrary to His Word. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Romans 16:17

I personally do not (although we definitely warn them of their sin). In fact, I'd say the same for not only the homosexuals, but also the polygamous, because if two consenting adults marrying is all right, then I do not see how three consenting adults marrying is pure evil that the government must stop.

You should see it as wrong because God says it is.

After all, as many of the gay marriage advocates would say, love and attraction are natural, and what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is nobody's business (which, logically, should apply even when there's more than two consenting adults), even if it disgusts us.

And they continue to do what they want in their bedrooms without being married.

 

[Zaac]

I was living in homosexuality and God showed me a better way. I hated Christianity before, because I was condemned by it. I hated God for making me the way I was. When I got saved, I realized I had been so deceived by the world.

Keep on keeping on, Carri20.

Praise God for your deliverance. It is indeed a deceptive spirit.

 

[atoborch]

On the line by line (fear the line by line!)

Pull, pull, pull! I want no new responses in 2AR!

heck i just want some responses regardless of where they are

 

[CaDan]

heck i just want some responses regardless of where they are

*shnort*

/me digs around in the tubs a bit.

"Think we should run the "Works of the Law" kritik?"

 

[atoborch]

*shnort*

* CaDan digs around in the tubs a bit.

"Think we should run the "Works of the Law" kritik?"

along with Crictical Legal Studies K and maybe a huge ethocentric K and CP with Roles Theory of Justice

 

[Zaac]

Overview

1) learn how to argue, there are books about it you might of had one your freshman year in enghlish class(thats in HS) i'm beging to wonder if you have graduated that yet even

Youre' funny. Learn to recognize that truth doesn't warrant an argument.

2) aging no warrant, no reason to prefer
3) no clash, you never address my points you make off the wall statments that have little to nothing to do what i'm saying
4) closed mindness is a good sign of bigtory as a generall rule of thumb

Here's a general rule of thumb for ya. I rarely if ever respond to anyone who cannot present a cogent thought.

1) no warrant
2) no reason to prefer, why is that status quo better than what i'm suggesting
3) no clash, this has nothing to do with the nature of homosexuality being a sin
4) feeds orginal point, that the status quo treatment of homosexuals is unfair an un-equatable

You're talking like rainman. What are you some sort of 2L who is doing poorly in school?



1

)no reason to prefer
2) no clash
3) feed my unquiness argement and my link to in-equality, you prove the unfair burrend placed on the homosexual couple because you conside the fact that a hetrosexual couple can get married further more at the point where a homosexual couple can't you see the unfair burden placed on the homosexual couple

When straight heterosexuals start marrying people of the same sex, come talk to me about the additional burden against homosexuals.

1) no warrant
2) you conside the fact you are closed minded i did not do that for you
3)you attmept to further the status quo which in and of its slef has a discrmatory stance toward the homosexual
4) if you did like them would you let them get married, the answer is obvisluly yes thus proving your dis-like at the very least

I actually love homosexuals as they are my neighbors also. I have no love for any sin, theirs or mine.

1) no warrant
2)no reason to perfer
3) its not legal talk when i can prove abuse and all you can do is say no, if you would like to negate the abuse or try to prove me wrong then please do, that was point less of me to say oh yeah, no clash
4) you never tell me what equally means so i have no idea where you are coming from on this one

I'm coming right out of God's Word.

1) i know you haven't said much of anything, its really hard to say anything to you because all you do is say i'm right over and over again using deffer words
2) feeds all my no warrants
3) feeds all my no reasons to prefer
4) heck that really feeds everything i've been saying, becuase you have not expaned on the fact that you agree with Carri on number 4, you might have well of just cut and pasted the comment and just keep hitting control V

Are you having as much trouble reading as you are writing? Where did I say anything about me being right? God is right and all the legalise in the world ain't gonna change that.

1)sure you don't have to proved a counter def, but then don't complain when i use my to referance back to
2) you never show the bias in my def, moreover you never show how my defination hurts any of your points(if you and some that would be good too) or how it hurts and ground that you think you have lost becuase of my def we need def to understand what we are talking about other wise people like you would acctually win arguments and that would be sad.

Gosh. Quit patting yourself on the back like you've done something. You're a tad too impressed with your "arguing" abilities put up against someone who isn't arguing with ya.

1) what are you talking about, i don't even think you know, you don't even know how to construct an argument you just have your opinion and you think your right, you never tell me how you are right, why you are right, just that you are right, that does not work becuase i could say that the world is flat and think i'm right, well you know what i would not be, that is all you are doing, just with people civil right something far more important the the shape of the earth

And there you go again thinking I'm arguing with you. You're funny.

1) are you brain dead that is the abuse, that is what is unequal why do you keep help my argument and thinking that you are making a point for your self
2) no warrant
3) no reason to prefer the status quo
4) your above statments condradict each other, if i can sleep with a woman then marry her i should be able to do so with a man, i don't see why that is so hard to understand

Ungh ungh. Now you stop trying to be mean.

Why should you be able to marry a man? staright guys can't marry men so why should you as a gay guy be able to marry one?

1) no warrant
2) no reason to perfer
3) you talk about God's word but yet you never show me any bible passage that would show me that a Goverment can't allow two people of the same sex to marry if you can do that then you can say you are talking about God's word
4) if you are going to be repetiave you will never win any arugment no matter how right you happen to be

God's Word is His Word about what he allows. And He supersedes the government laws.

no wonder you have no idea:
1) that you are losing this argment with not just me but with about 3 other people
2) that you are just perpuating a cycle of hate on the homosexual comunity that is spured on by the religous right

You continue to be humerous.

 

[Spinrad]

GHelloo, Zaac? Did you ever answer me? I can't find the post if you did...

 

[atoborch]

"Here's a general rule of thumb for ya. I rarely if ever respond to anyone who cannot present a cogent thought."

you should take your own advice, you have lost, i'm not going to try to expalin anything more to you becuase you won't listen or engage in any productive dialog, thus completly negating the point of this type of communcation, and this topic as a whole

 

[CaDan]

You continue to be humerous.

I say we go with Rawls for this one.

Tell me, Zaac, if you were designing a society, but had no idea what role you would have in that society (that is, you had no idea if you would be rich or poor; black or white; straight or gay), what rules would you have for that society? Specifically, how would you set up the rules for marriage?

Obligatory support link: http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/johnrawl.htm

 

[beechy]

What Constitutional right have you been denied?

Are you asking for a Constitutional Law 101 discussion here? Con Law is extraordinarily complicated, and it would be difficult to pack an entire substantive due process/equal protection discussion into a single post (perhaps a good topic for another thread). However, I'll say this briefly and in sum:

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying individuals equal protection of the law (aka the Equal Protection (EP) clause). This means that people who are "similarly circumstanced" must be treated the same under the law. The concept of "similar circumstance" is important because the EP clause is not meant to require that everyone be treated exactly the same (the law can provide that only old people can get social security, for example).

So if a law (like a marriage law) is going to apply differently to different classes of people (like gays and straights), and if that classification is challeneged as an EP violation, it must pass one of three tests: the Rational Basis Test (the most lenient), the Intermediate Scrutiny test (rarely used), or the Strict Scrutiny test (a heightened level of scrutiny that is rarely met). Which test is used depends on the right involved or the classification at issue.

In the case of same-sex marriage, the argument is that the Strict Scrutiny Test should be applied, because the laws as they exist today improperly interfere with a fundamental right, that is, the right of gay people -- who are attracted only to those of the same gender -- to marry who they choose (marriage was recognized as a fundamental privacy right in Loving v. Virginia).

The Strict Scrutiny test requires the government to show that the classification at issue is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. In this case, the state would be required to show that limiting an individual's spousal choices to members of the opposite sex such that gay people, unlike straight people, are effectively denied the right to marry the person of their choice (in other words, creating a straight rather than gay set of spousal choices) is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. I don't think it is, and I can't imagine what a successful argument might be (again, strict scrutiny is almost never met).

The former dean of UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law breaks down the likely issues nicely: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/02/27_samesex.shtml.