Advocates seek to expand gay rights

You don't know that an opinion is not a strawman.

People are being forced to sin by law.

No crap. The Supreme Court is nullifying the law.

 

The problem has all been caused by the recent redefinition of marriage that more than half of the people do not agree with.

That court decision is being used to force people to commit sins that they have never been asked to do before.

If homosexual marriage is the law of the land, why do people who are for it have to force people who are against it to participate in it?

 

Of course I know that. It's your argument that is.

How? Who is forced to have gay sex?

The Supreme Court was forced to overturn the bans, because the constitution requires them to. 14th amendment.

 

"The victims of leftist bigotry are portrayed as the perpetrators of bigotry, the laws protecting freedom are being used to deny freedom and a form of dictatorship is slowly creeping into power and eating away at the civil society." Is my opinion, not a strawman argument.

Now that's a strawman argument!

It required them to do it in 2015 but not in 1868? That argument is so stupid that it should be ridiculed and mocked until people's eyes bleed.

The 14th Amendment was one of three amendments known as the Civil War Amendments. The Civil War was fought over slavery, not homosexual marriage.

 

I was forced to do things against my beliefs. It is my belief that I should be married to my spouse. The state I lived in believed they had every right to restrict my religious expression. They violated the first amendment.

From my perspective the constitution finally applies to me.

There is room for both your and my religion. If there is not because you believe the state has the right to interfere with mine your religion is lesser and if you need government to (*)(*)(*)(*) on my religion because of yours, yours must be stomped out. If you can't coexist, you are the problem.

I can. I don't think the state should recognize my religious rules and ban you from being married. But many times you carried on about how homosexuality is a sin and my marriage and religious rights must be stomped out. For no other reason than you felt that it was sinful.

Your religion isn't being compelled to do anything. You are no longer allowed to compel me to adhere to your incorrect religion. You have simply been made equal.

 

So your right to practice your religion means that secular laws ought to be subject to that religion???

 

What a load of nonsense and poppycock. Just like if you can redefine words they have no meaning. If you can pick and choose what is or isn't moral, then nothing is moral. If you can interpret a law to mean anything then the law means nothing.

 

What a pathetic statement.

Utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Words are redefined all the time. The first language on the planet was not modern English but yet we understand each other. So that is an incredibly ignorant point to make.

Yet another profoundly ignorant statement. The very fact that we pick and choose what is moral creates morality. Our morality is vastly different from say Kenya's morality a thousand years ago precisely because we pick and choose what is moral.

My goodness I weep for America if this is what passes for thought among so called conservatives. Laws mean what we decide they mean. This nation is a representative republic. You vote for people that will interpret laws the way you feel they should be.

Now that I addressed your silly little temper tantrum what in the hell did it have to do with my post?

 

No, he is angrywith the first amendment. See post number 732 just above. He clearly thinks only people that agree with him deserve first amendment rights. I caught him in his dishonesty. He didn't like it so he sputtered out silly little protest chants because he thinks that will throw me off.

I caught him. Here is the gist of my post he responded to in post 732

"It is against my religion not to be married to my same sex spouse, thus all this time the state violated my first amendment rights by interfering with free exercise of my religion."

Clearly he believes some people are "more equal" than others.

 

Nope. It's a strawman.

Nope. It would be the only way you could "sin" regarding same sex issues.

It's no different than interracial marriage bans, which also took 100 years to adjudicate.

Nope. No mention of civil war or slavery anywhere in the 14th amendment.

 

The First Amendment is secular law.

 

Are you really interested in my opinions? You seem to thing everything I say is ignorant.

I don't see how anyone had imposed upon homosexuals prior to marriage being defined as one man and one woman.

There is no purpose for a man to marry a man. It accomplishes nothing.

You keep insisting that this doesn't violate people's right to religious freedom in spite of all the evidence against it.

 

And you don't understand what the 1st amendment does.

- - - Updated - - -

The purpose and meaning is the same as for opposite sex couples.

your religious freedom is not affected in any way what so ever, as you've repeatedly been shown.

 

That's just funny 'cause y'all make (*)(*)(*)(*) up and call it religion. That must be a new religion because it wasn't around not very long ago.

Still, you completely ignore the fact that you are imposing that preposterous idea upon the rest of society and actually believe they must accept it in spite of the fact that you know that it is against their religion.

 

Oh please. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" do you not understand?

No, not really. They can't have sex, they can't have children, they can't be husband and wife, and the can't have an intact family with a mother and a father.

How much in denial are you? What the heck do you think people are arguing about?

 

I understand it perfectly. Why do you think I have to keep educating you?

Yes, really. They can and do have sex, they can and do have children, husband and wife not relevant, and they have perfectly intact 2 parent families.

You are whining about not being able to break the law. You were never able to break the law, which is why this is so funny.

 

You don't know what a strawman is. It's only a strawman if I present it as your opinion. I specifically stated my opinion.

Oh, you're still talking about forcing straights to have gay sex. Yes, that is the strawman argument I was talking about.

And no, that is not the only way to force people to sin. You can sin by accommodating, facilitating or participating in the sin even by simply going to a wedding. That is considered condoning sin. I understand that you won't agree with that, but fortunately, you don't get to determine what other people are allowed to believe with regard to their religious beliefs.

Show me where this has been in the courts for 100 years. That is just an easily provable lie.

And no mention of...

wait for it...

HoMoSeXuAl MaRrIaGe!!!

I really need a meme for gay ≠ black.

 

That's mighty presumptuous. Let me teach you something, those words are where we get our freedom of religion.

No, they cannot have sex as a man and a woman because one is not a man or a woman. You have to have one of each in order to have intercourse which is how babies are made. Having a mom and a dad, a husband and a wife was very important to me growing up. I can't imagine life without one or the other. Why anyone would want to deprive a child of that intentionally is cruel and unusual. A family consists of a mother, a father and children. If you are missing one, it is not an intact family.

When did I say I wanted to break the law?

 

You are making a statement about what people are "doing to you".

That isn't a strawman. It is the ONLY way you would be sinning.

Nope. And you can't find any biblical refernce which suggests any such thing.

I'm not determining anything. I'm pointing out it isn't a sin, and that you are a raging hypocrite since you have no problem "condoning" every other sin you participate in. It's just the gays that really scare you.

Show me where I said it was.

"All persons" and "equal protection".

why? Nobody said it was.

 

True. But you don't get to break the law because of your religion.

Homosexuals can and do have sex on a regular basis.

Sex isn't just vaginal penetration.

Good for you. That is only one of many types of family.

Children raised by same sex parents do just as well as children raised by opposite sex parents.

That is only one type of family. There are many others.

You as in a general you. As in you religious folk. Like the county clerk who is breaking the law and will be going to jail if she doesn't comply.

 

Yeah, so? I didn't frame it as if it were something that you would argue.

Hello? It is a strawman because nobody is complaining that they would be forced to get gay married or have gay sex. You know what the religious objections are so I don't have to repeat them only for you to obfuscate or deny.

Romans 16:17
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

QUOTE=rahl;1065197006]I'm not determining anything. I'm pointing out it isn't a sin, and that you are a raging hypocrite since you have no problem "condoning" every other sin you participate in. It's just the gays that really scare you. [/QUOTE]
When do I condone every other sin? That is a strawman argument.

Here:

By the way, did I mention that gay ≠ black? That is racist to make that comparison. I don't know why liberals who are supposed to be so race sensitive can make such racist analogies and not expect to get called on it.

Which does not equate to "homosexual marriage" any more than it equates to "free lunch".

You just did.

 

I don't want to break the law. I want the law to uphold my right to religious freedom.

They're not doing it right.

If that were true, I'm not doing it right.

Yeah, well I guess the Manson family is a type of family.

Oh, now, assumes facts not in evidence. How can depriving a child of a mother or a father not be harmful. You know it is. You know that two fathers or two mothers can be detrimental to the psyche of a young child and confuse them sexually for life. Even children of gay couples have come out against gay parenting for that reason.

Yeah, there are many types of dysfunctional families.

Oh, that is not breaking the law. The law is freedom of religion which trumps what any judge says.

 

Wonderful! Then you agree nothing is forced on you and you aren't forced to sin.

Yes I know what you claim the objections are. I constantly correct you about them.

Awesome. Now show me where it says homosexuality is a sin, or where baking a cake for them is.

Are you railing against adulterers? Liars? Are you starting thread after thread about people being forced to issue them marriage licenses?

Ok? Now show me where I said it was in the courts for 100 years like you claimed.

I know. Nobody said it did.

Lol, no it isn't. But I didn't compare melanin content to orientation.

It isn't racist nor did I make the analogy. You've been corrected on that enough times that you are no intentionally lying. That is a sin.

Well, marriage is a right. The 14th amendment governs all rights. Lunch is t a right so that's a really stupid analogy.

not once in almost 30,000 posts on this website have I ever done any such thing.

That is a lie, and a sin.

 

It is upheld. You're free to believe anything you want.

Of course they are.

Knowing that you are an extremely far right religious male, you probably aren't doing it right.

Study after study shows children do just as well with same sex parents as opposite sex parents.

The science says otherwise.

What? Kids mad at their parents? The hell you say!!!!
Would you like a list of all the opposite sex parents children have come out against?

True enough. But also many happy functional types as well.

Course it is. Both federal and state law. That's why she will be going to jail.

nope

 

Your options on how law and language work? No, that is like your opinion on how a plane stays in the air.

Than you're blind.

It has to make sense to you for people to do it? From my perspective there is a purpose for it. Why should your perspective be law?

what evidence?