Homosexuals Push for Same-Sex Marriage After Sodomy Ruling

CNSNews.com ^ | 6/27/03 | Robert B. Bluey

[elfman2]

"There is no significant difference between homosexual relations, and those with a sibling or an animal. While all could be temporarily pleasant, all lead to spiritual death. They are unnatural and perverse. Six unrighteous judges need to be impeached and removed from office."

I remember you now. You're the guy who in his attempt to disassociate the Christian Identity Movement from its Christian inspiration was reduced to claiming that Muslims acting in the best interest of Christians (by making them Muslims) were acting in the best interest of Christianity. At least your thinking is consistent.

I explained the reason that bestiality was different in #110. You acted as if you couldn't process it and repeated your comparison a couple of days ago. I pointed you back to #110, and here you are again, repeating yourself without addressing the logical defeated that claim. I also logically defeated your incest comparison due to health issues with the offspring, and you had no reply to that.

Additionally, unlike like homosexuality, there are not millions of citizens who can only find love and intimacy only in sex with relatives and animals. Just people pushing past boundaries for whatever reason.

Also, unlike homosexuality, there's no evidence of a genetic predisposition to bestiality or incest. No one knows the combination of factors creating homosexuality. All studies to date seem to suffer from sampling problems. Frankly I struggle even to follow the reasoning of those attempting a meticulous analysis of the data that exists. One is at Colombia & Yale and another at Cambridge. One concludes that, "…it seems reasonable to conclude that male homosexuality, or, at least, some 'types' of male homosexuality, are under some degree of genetic control, although various problems with this data prevent more precise conclusions from being drawn.

The other goes a step or two further toward environment and says that the data is inconstant with a simple genetic influence model", that "there's substantial support for the role of social influences ", and that"its consistent with a general model that allows for genetic expression of same-sex attraction under specific, highly circumscribed, social conditions.""

Whatever the reality, it's not in the same league as bestiality and incest. There's nothing indicating that people are ever born into those.

Also, if your think America is close to impeaching these judges, you're seriously out of touch.

[af_vet_1981]

I remember you now. You're the guy who in his attempt to disassociate the Christian Identity Movement from its Christian inspiration was reduced to claiming that Muslims acting in the best interest of Christians (by making them Muslims) were acting in the best interest of Christianity. At least your thinking is consistent.

Huh ?

What are you babbling about ?

[af_vet_1981]

You claim a "logical outcome" of the supremes ruling to be that they must abolish animal sex/rape and child sex/rape laws. But Child rights are constitutionally protected, so your child rape analogy is non-sense. Animal husbandry (no pun intended) contributes to public welfare and would be a significant blow to the liberty if outlawed so states are not free to so so. But torturing animals (by making one your "husband") has no contribution to public welfare, and states are free to outlaw it. Homosexual sex also has no benefit to society, but it's exceptionally important to the liberty of homosexuals, so the states are not free to outlaw it. The "logical outcome" of the issues you present support the supremes' decision.

I explained the reason that bestiality was different in #110. You acted as if you couldn't process it and repeated your comparison a couple of days ago. I pointed you back to #110, and here you are again, repeating yourself without addressing the logical defeated that claim. I also logically defeated your incest comparison due to health issues with the offspring, and you had no reply to that.

You have rejected the Bible as your moral foundation for law. You did not explain how bestiality was torture and more painful for the animal than killing it and eating it. You simply regress to claiming it is more beneficial for society to kill and eat animals than to use them for sexual pleasure. Incest is not a problem when combined with birth control and abortion, which you already preach. I reassert that all three are equally decadent and evil. There is no significant moral difference between incest, bestiality, and homosexuality. The are equally loving as you call it, and equally to be condemned as God calls it.

Additionally, unlike like homosexuality, there are not millions of citizens who can only find love and intimacy only in sex with relatives and animals. Just people pushing past boundaries for whatever reason.

I assert all those millions of citizens can find love and intimacy without resorting to sex with their own gender, their immediate family relatives, or animals. They are "pushing past boundaries for whatever reason." Just like in Sodom and Gommorah, they will not stop until some external force stops them.

Also, unlike homosexuality, there's no evidence of a genetic predisposition to bestiality or incest.

There is no evidence of genetic homosexuality.

No one knows the combination of factors creating homosexuality.

Lust and rebellion

All studies to date seem to suffer from sampling problems. Frankly I struggle even to follow the reasoning of those attempting a meticulous analysis of the data that exists. One is at Colombia & Yale and another at Cambridge. One concludes that, "…it seems reasonable to conclude that male homosexuality, or, at least, some 'types' of male homosexuality, are under some degree of genetic control, although various problems with this data prevent more precise conclusions from being drawn.

Homosexuals themselves, and their compromised allies, search in vain for a way to lie about the obvious. Their behavior is deviant.

The other goes a step or two further toward environment and says that the data is inconstant with a simple genetic influence model", that "there's substantial support for the role of social influences ", and that"its consistent with a general model that allows for genetic expression of same-sex attraction under specific, highly circumscribed, social conditions."" Whatever the reality, it's not in the same league as bestiality and incest. There's nothing indicating that people are ever born into those.

The social taboos against incest and bestiality are stronger. Once they get their student clubs in the high schools, the kids will think it is as cool as being gay.

Also, if your think America is close to impeaching these judges, you're seriously out of touch.

It is the best constitutional remedy. It would strike fear and awe in the hearts of those who usurp our Constitution and make a mockery of our nation.

[elfman2]

"Huh ? What are you babbling about ?"

There you go genius. Try laying off the booze until bed time.

[elfman2]

"You simply regress to claiming it is more beneficial for society to kill and eat animals than to use them for sexual pleasure. "

I said that it's more of a violation of liberty to outlaw eating meat. (Therefore, It doesn't matter if it's equally traumatic to animal rape.) The Constitution protects people, not animals.

"Incest is not a problem when combined with birth control and abortion"

Birth control fails. If two siblings want to get themselves fixed and have sex, (must be at least a one in a million incident), I don't care.

"There is no evidence of genetic homosexuality. Lust and rebellion [creates homosexuality]. "

The twin data in the above referenced studies (including separated at birth twins) tends to contradict you. But I guess the twins were in on the conspiracy as well… [snicker]. I suggest you visit this site . I'm sure you'll find comfort in it.

[irish_links]

"...Lawrence v. Texas? [snicker]. If you can find anything in any conversation that I've said referencing Lawrence v. Texas, I'll believe that you didn't just invent that to hide the fact that you've painted yourself into a corner 2-3 times on this thread alone..."

I offer further apologies. As the thread topic was "Homosexuals Push for Same-Sex Marriage After Sodomy Ruling" I errantly assumed that the posts on the thread related to said topic. A review of the entire canon of your postings suggested nothing to the contrary. I now see that your comments were merely a side-bar relating to the self-evident age at which consent is possible.

I fail to see what corner or corners I've painted myself in. For the record, I have no opinion about the appropriate age of consent. I think each state should work that out through the political process. I have the same opinion about laws prohibiting sodomy of the same-sex type or otherwise.

What concerns me about Lawrence v. Texas is the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the SCOTUS disregarded earlier precedent, the IXth and Xth Amendments and the concept of federalism. The court's willingness to engage in brazen legislation from the bench without so much as mounting a reasonable legal argument to do so is, IMHO, a dagger aimed directly at the heart of our democratic republic.

[Stone Mountain]

Well, as the Archbishop of Canterbury put it, once one accepts contraception and reproduction is no longer part of marriage, then of course, homosexuality becomes acceptable.

Does this mean that couples with no intentions of having children shouldn't get married?

[RobbyS]

Does this mean that couples with no intentions of having children shouldn't get married? That means that the intention not to have children is an impediment to marriage. It is a grounds for annulment.

[Stone Mountain]

Does this mean that couples with no intentions of having children shouldn't get married? That means that the intention not to have children is an impediment to marriage. It is a grounds for annulment.

That's interesting, but not exactly an answer to my question. I know of at least two couples who are married and do not intend, nor have they ever intended to have children. Was it wrong for them to get married?

[RobbyS]

Should one of them decide to get an annulment, the admission that one of them never intended to have children MIGHT be sufficient grounds for saying a marriage never took place. It probably would be more practical for them to get a divorce, however. I can see what a homosexual couple looking at this situation would think of this as a mock marriage.

[Stone Mountain]

So if neither of them decides to get an annulment, was it wrong for them to make the decision to get married? I'm not sure I understand what grounds for possible annulment has to do with my original question of whether it is wrong for a couple to get married if they have no intention of having children...

[af_vet_1981]

Try laying off the booze until bed time.

Will you give up your support for homosexuality ?
Do it for the children.

You lose points for bringing an unrelated thread into this one. I will try to make your link and comments germane to this thread.

"The terrorists believe they have a divine mandate to cleanse the land of Jews and that they are acting in the best interests of both Jews and Christians because they alone have the truth."

True statement

You're telling me that acting to further the interests of Christians (in making them Muslim) is the same as acting in the interest of Christianity?

No, you are using your own words to confuse yourself.

I'm making the point that neither the Unchristian Identity movement nor the the Islamic terrorists are acting in the interests of Christianity.
But then neither are homosexuals or their clerical enablers.

And to be more precise, Christian Identity terrorists are "motivated" by the furthering the interests of Christianity as they understand it.

So are homosexuals who infiltrate various groups to push their new religion, homosexuality. They are fchurches, but they are heretics.

"With particular virulence Nazi theology has attempted to create a Christianity divorced from its Jewish roots. They were acting in furtherance of Christianity as they understand it."

I don't think so. Your link describes Nazism as having pagan roots. It's someone else's opinion that it was "attempting to create a new "Christianity". As far as I know, they make no claim to doing so themselves, much less Christianity being their motivation.

Yes, it was a Catholic cleric's opinion that it was "attempting to create a new Christianity." You don't agree. You also support homosexual movement which is "attempting to create a new "Christianity". They also attempt to create a new marriage.

Typique

[Pan_Yans Wife]

The title makes it sound like homosexuals have had sex first, and then decided to get married.

I wonder if there are any statistics about homosexuals being virgins when they marry?

[af_vet_1981]

I said that it's more of a violation of liberty to outlaw eating meat. (Therefore, It doesn't matter if it's equally traumatic to animal rape.) The Constitution protects people, not animals.

The Constitution protects whoever the six unrighteous judges say it protects. They can do whatever they please as long as they can sell it to the compromised and unwashed masses.

"Incest is not a problem when combined with birth control and abortion"
Birth control fails. If two siblings want to get themselves fixed and have sex, (must be at least a one in a million incident), I don't care.

Of course you don't care. There is no moral difference between homosexuality and incest. You approve the former so you can't consistently condemn the latter.

"There is no evidence of genetic homosexuality. Lust and rebellion [creates homosexuality]. "
The twin data in the above referenced studies (including separated at birth twins) tends to contradict you. But I guess the twins were in on the conspiracy as well… [snicker]. I suggest you visit this site . I'm sure you'll find comfort in it.

Were there a homosexual gene, then anyone could have their fetus tested for the homosexual gene and terminate the pregnancy for cause. There is no homosexual gene. I suggest you raise your son not to be a homosexual.

[Republican Wildcat]

Would you care to explain how two people of the same-sex can join as husband and wife?

They are trying to intrude on an institution by which they have no basis in which to join. They claim to want to be "left alone", yet want to nose their way into that institution and change its very definition.

I'm not sure what you mean by "care"--whether you meant what we think the law should be, or a general concern for fellow human beings.

[tortoise]

They are trying to intrude on an institution by which they have no basis in which to join.

More importantly they are intruding on an institution that the Federal government has no right to define. A better solution to this mess is to get the government out of marriage and return it to the social and religious institution it originally was.

[logic101.net]

Excuse me, but what is duelting? Sorry, but I don't have a clue on that one. It seems that Webster doesn't either.

If you are refering to two people who decide to have a contest to the death, you know what? I don't have a problem with that! Let them do it.

Nor do I have a problem with law abiding citizens killing criminals in the act of commiting a crime against them. If both these were totally legal we would have a much more polite society, and a safer one.

I still say that what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom (or bathhouse, or queer bar bathroom) should not be legislated against.

However, I have modified my view since I made the inital post. The ruling in question here has no business on the fedral level. The feds do not have constitutional authority to deal with the issue in any way. I was not being consitent with my view of a literal interpetation of the Constitution. I appoligize for this. I should have viewed this the exact same way I view Rowe vs Wade - none of the Fed's business; it is a state issue!

My only defence here is that we just moved and am now trying to get 2 (well, 2 1/2) homes in order, as well as work 60 hrs/week. I really should have dumped the duplex we used to live in. Oh well; hind sight! Basically, I posted before I fully thought out the issue.

However, I do still view state laws against consentual activity between adults as wrong. But this is being delt with on the wrong level. It is not a Fed issue.

What is really scary is what this ruling will probably result in; open queers in the military and adoptions by "same sex" couples.

I know for a fact that if open queers were allowed in the military I would have avoided the military! I can tolerate homosexuals, but when it comes to sharing a room or a group shower; I want the guy(s) to NOT have any interest in me sexually!

Sorry to have mis-stated myslelf and sorry this reply took so long. Exhaustion can create some uncharacteristic thoughts.

MARK A SITY

[logic101.net]

Excuse me, but what is duelting? Sorry, but I don't have a clue on that one. It seems that Webster doesn't either.

If you are refering to two people who decide to have a contest to the death, you know what? I don't have a problem with that! Let them do it.

Nor do I have a problem with law abiding citizens killing criminals in the act of commiting a crime against them. If both these were totally legal we would have a much more polite society, and a safer one.

I still say that what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom (or bathhouse, or queer bar bathroom) should not be legislated against.

However, I have modified my view since I made the inital post. The ruling in question here has no business on the fedral level. The feds do not have constitutional authority to deal with the issue in any way. I was not being consitent with my view of a literal interpetation of the Constitution. I appoligize for this. I should have viewed this the exact same way I view Rowe vs Wade - none of the Fed's business; it is a state issue!

My only defence here is that we just moved and am now trying to get 2 (well, 2 1/2) homes in order, as well as work 60 hrs/week. I really should have dumped the duplex we used to live in. Oh well; hind sight! Basically, I posted before I fully thought out the issue.

However, I do still view state laws against consentual activity between adults as wrong. But this is being delt with on the wrong level. It is not a Fed issue.

What is really scary is what this ruling will probably result in; open queers in the military and adoptions by "same sex" couples.

I know for a fact that if open queers were allowed in the military I would have avoided the military! I can tolerate homosexuals, but when it comes to sharing a room or a group shower; I want the guy(s) to NOT have any interest in me sexually!

Sorry to have mis-stated myslelf and sorry this reply took so long. Exhaustion can create some uncharacteristic thoughts.

MARK A SITY