LifeSomewhereElse LifeSomewhereElse

Gays revolt!

Gays revolt!

Yawn....

I guess I just dont get it.  You all know the deal, the prop 8 in CA to that defines marriage as between a man and a women.  It seems that tonight that there is a big protest in LA tonight over it (LA, really? huh!)  Personally, I am surprised by the outcome, the stereotypical CA apparently is not what it all cracked up to be.  Anyway, I see that the people have spoken in response to judges making the laws.

 

21,029 views 93 replies
Reply #51 Top

supposedly its not our place to judge morality.

End of quote

But it is our place to judge things done to other people.

 

Reply #52 Top

LEAUKI POSTS:

As for the gay groups that see something as their "right" which is both new and not approved by voters AND the groups that believe that their morality should be forced on others and who pretend that they represent all good religion:

You are both nuts. Go away.
End of quote

Nope, there is no going away from this battle.

The US uses criminal penalties to police the morality of its citizens day in and day out..isn't that what police do when they arrest murderers, theives, and kidnappers--enforce laws based upon the immorality of those actions?

Jefferson and our other Founding Fathers understood a sense of morality comes naturally to all people as part of the natural or Moral law, sometimes called conscience. From the moral law, Jefferson observed that the self-evident unalienable rights of all people should be protected by a government established by the people. In other words, the Founders believed the higher authority, the "Creator" to whom we should appeal to establish objective moral grounds in our laws.  The Declaration was the moral statement that would later become the foundation of the Constitution. The Founders confirmed that establishing a morality was unavoidable and was derived from the Moral Law, the law not everyone obeys, but the law by which everyone expects to be treated.

So summing up, all laws judge actions or behavior by declaring directly or by implication that one behavior is right and its opposite is wrong. All good laws are just laws and to legislate justice is to legislate morality. Since securing justice is the primary function of government, so legislating morality is constitutional, but the question that is before us in this battle for marriage is whose morality should be legislated?

And this is where we get to the Big Lie that comes from the serpent/devil .....that man thinks he can redefine his own existence and make himself into his own thought up image and likeness apart from the Creators. This rebellion has been going on since Adam and Eve's and has been transmitted through the generations.

Micheal Jone's, Culture War, pretty much nails it when he writes, "No social progress outside the moral order"  and in one of the recent articles concerning marriage.....a minister writes....."Human freedom instead of being the liberty to do good, becomes the licence to do what feels good. Human relationships, particularly the marital relationship can in that sinful regime be shaped into any form we can negotiate with others. The result is the systematic enthronement of rape as secular paradigm for sexual relationships."

He goes on and makes a very good point...one that needs be said...

Real marriage is total freedom on part of both husband and wife...in such a relationship each party if free to give him/herself totally and receive the other totally.....This is why attempted "homosexual marriage" is a perversion of truth. Homosexuals cannot be fruitful or bound in mind and heart, becasue being the same sex, they are not complementary personalities. The goods of permanence, fidelty, and progeny are all impossible. We don't have to look at the Bible for this, it's obvious human reality and something that society must look at when considering "homosexual marriage".

Homosexual practioners attempting marriage are trying to mash themselves into a relationship that they cannot by their own choice make work. A couple cannot base intimate union on mutual abuse. Why becasue they are propagating the Big lIe through a series of derivative lies, big and small. Imagine a young boy growing up in a household in which two adult are both male and they regularly sodomize each other. The Great lie, derivitive of the Big lie is that this behavior is right, good and normal. The subsidiary lie is that the two males are "faithful" to one another when one or both are out cruising for sex, regularly or irregularly. This boy will not have a chance to understand real marital love, and that is spiritual, mental, psychological and, by extension, physical abuse.

When the Big Lie and the subsidiary lies are preached as truth in "families" such as this, there is a real danger that the broader community will suffer as this lie is protected in law and culture. In fact, the lie is being codified in country after country."

After this he writes about the "hate crime" legislation already operating in Europe and in Canada...and blogs have been written about such... by which pastors and priests can be fined, imprisoned for saying that homosexuality, the behavior, are evil, unhealthy and sinful. We know that the same legislation is pending in Washington DC and expected to be passed into law under the Obama administration.  If such happens, then I could be in trouble for even writing this article.

  

 

Reply #53 Top

If an incestuous couple find that a fetus is going to have serious problems its not like they can't have an abortion.


Leauki posts:
Thanks. Yours is probably the best arguments against both incest and abortion I have heard.
End of quote

I second that!

Reply #54 Top

Quoting Dr, reply 47
I dont know, I prefer beef.
End of Dr's quote

Well in the way your using it ya beef is better then long pork. lol

 

 

Reply #55 Top

Quoting Dr, reply 22

Personally the only diffrence between humanity and animals to me is I like people more (generally speaking of course).
I dont know, I prefer beef.
End of Dr's quote

 

Chicken isn't bad either.

Reply #56 Top

The subsidiary lie is that the two males are "faithful" to one another when one or both are out cruising for sex, regularly or irregularly.
End of quote

Yeah, no straight people ever do that O:)

Reply #57 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 54


LEAUKI POSTS:
The US uses criminal penalties to police the morality of its citizens day in and day out..isn't that what police do when they arrest murderers, theives, and kidnappers--enforce laws based upon the immorality of those actions?
End of lulapilgrim's quote

isn't there a difference between morality and crimes?

What crimes in the US are there to enforce morality as opossed to preventing harm?  The crimes you list all cause harm to others and are treated as such and those doing such are arrested to prevent harm being done to others.

Can infertile people marry?  They are denied children as well, are their marriages worthless?

What if the gay people in the marriage don't sodmise each other?  Does that make it ok?

What if heterosexual people practice anal sex?

Is it the act of buggery you object to?

Reply #58 Top

The US uses criminal penalties to police the morality of its citizens day in and day out..isn't that what police do when they arrest murderers, theives, and kidnappers--enforce laws based upon the immorality of those actions?

End of quote

No. The laws are enforced based on the danger those actions represent to others.

We lock up (or execute) a murderer because of the danger he represents to other people, not because of the immorality of his crimes. We can forgive their crimes, but we cannot guarantee the safety of other people who might come into contact with dangerous criminals in future.

Laws are not about morality and never have been. Jewish law, to use an example from the Bible, prohibits the eating of pork. But eating pork is not immoral (and gentiles are free to eat pork if they like).

 

Reply #59 Top

Quoting Basmas, reply 59
.Can infertile people marry?
End of Basmas's quote

 

Infertility has always been a reason to get a divorce... so yes traditionally it is of less value.

Reply #60 Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 60
-enforce laws based upon the immorality of those actions?No. The laws are enforced based on the danger those actions represent to others. 
End of Leauki's quote

They also enforce laws to protect citizens from themselves.  Suicide is against the law, same with dueling.  Both acts are with consenting adults.

Reply #61 Top

They also enforce laws to protect citizens from themselves.  Suicide is against the law, same with dueling.  Both acts are with consenting adults.

End of quote

True.

Generally laws are enforced to protect people, from others and from themselves.

 

Reply #62 Top

Is it the act of buggery you object to?
End of quote

While I'm a live and let live type person...it''s legislating this as good, equal, normal, etc. that is wrong for society to do in my view. So Yes, i object to buggery just as I do any legislation that would condone or legitimize acceptance of fornication or adultery.  

Can infertile people marry? They are denied children as well, are their marriages worthless?
End of quote

Yes of course to the first question. No to the 2nd. First, infertile marriages are the exception and not the rule and second, many adopt children and their children receive the benefits of a mother and a father....a benefit that's impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow.   

isn't there a difference between morality and crimes?
End of quote

Do you mean difference between immorality and crimes?  either way the answer is Yes....

There are loads of things that are immoral or wrong but not crimes.

But this isn't to undermine the fact that the state enacts and enforces laws related to public order and well-being on the premise that public order and well-being are "moral" goods. Some immoral acts don't impinge upon the public good and therefore aren't subject to legislation.

What crimes in the US are there to enforce morality as opossed to preventing harm? The crimes you list all cause harm to others and are treated as such and those doing such are arrested to prevent harm being done to others.
End of quote

Take drunk drivers and motorists for example....if certain conduct is harmful it must be outlawed or restricted to discourage its incidence and to protect innocent people,  right?....but also protect the drunk driver from killing himself.

Again, keeping in mind that laws discriminate against behaviors or actions. Just laws regarding homosexuality are the same...they're designed to discourage potential harmful conduct in order to protect society as well as those who participate in those acts from unwanted consequences. Laws should not encourage immoral and unhealthy behavior for any reason.

In the case of drivers, responsible laws set speed limits......

Take the healthfulness of the homosexual lifestyle.....A study taken on obituaries indicated longetivity and the median age of death for homosexual men who did not have AIDS is 42! for those with AIDS it's 39. This indicates the lifestyle is so unhealthy that they are dying at nearly half the age of the general population. Compare this with the average death of smokers who according to the CDC, on average die 7 years  earlier than non-smokers. If we believe that  it's right to discourage and restrict smoking in our society and we sure do bigtime, how can we honestly believe it is right to sanction and encourage homosexual behavior which is proven inherently dangerous and unhealthy?

Should we legislate morality that kills people by the age of 42 or the one that preserves them to 75 or 80?

 

 

   

 

 

Reply #63 Top

Take the healthfulness of the homosexual lifestyle.....A study taken on obituaries indicated longetivity and the median age of death for homosexual men who did not have AIDS is 42! for those with AIDS it's 39. This indicates the lifestyle is so unhealthy that they are dying at nearly half the age of the general population. Compare this with the average death of smokers who according to the CDC, on average die 7 years earlier than non-smokers. If we believe that it's right to discourage and restrict smoking in our society and we sure do bigtime, how can we honestly believe it is right to sanction and encourage homosexual behavior which is proven inherently dangerous and unhealthy?

Should we legislate morality that kills people by the age of 42 or the one that preserves them to 75 or 80?
End of quote

hmmmm interesting point Lula. 

I never thought about it like that.  My uncle (homosexual) died way too young so he would have fit this profile of dying before he should have. 

Reply #64 Top

So Yes, i object to buggery just as I do any legislation that would condone or legitimize acceptance of fornication or adultery.  

End of quote

What about laws that legitimise children born outside of marriage?

 

Reply #65 Top

After all, any married couple will tell ya that sex goes out the window once the honeymoon is over.
End of quote

speak fer yourself.......:blush:

Reply #66 Top
Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 64

A study taken on obituaries indicated longetivity and the median age of death for homosexual men who did not have AIDS is 42! for those with AIDS it's 39......Should we legislate morality that kills people by the age of 42 or the one that preserves them to 75 or 80?

End of lulapilgrim's quote

This study instrested me so I did some digging, and guess what?  Its a pile of misreported sh** and carried out by a man who set up what is now the Family Research Institute whoes mission is to 'to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality', so nice an impartial

They looked at the ages of the men who died in the late 1980-early 1990 and who's death was mentioned in 'gay' magazines and the like.  Thats it.  They didn't take into the accout of sampling error of the age of the people who are likely to be mentioned in the openly gay media, the proportion of gay people that represented or anything.

It's simular to me going into the childs section of a USA graveyard and proclaiming to the world that living the USA means that you have a median age of death of seven, therefore we should prevent anybody following the US lifestyle.

Reply #67 Top

This study instrested me so I did some digging, and guess what?

End of quote

Your results don't surprise me. Religiously influenced opinions seek data to support their claims, not vice versa.

Scientific method: Seek a claim that supports the data.

Religious method: Seek data that supports the claim.

Science ignores many claims, religion ignores much data.

 

Reply #68 Top

LULA POSTS:

So Yes, i object to buggery just as I do any legislation that would condone or legitimize acceptance of fornication or adultery.

LEAUKI POSTS:
What about laws that legitimise children born outside of marriage?

End of quote

I'm blanking out.....Which laws? Children born outside of marriage are at a great disadvantage .....what laws legitimise that?

I'm opposed to any legislation that condones or legalizes sexual licence becasue children always end up being the big losers.

Reply #69 Top

I always wondered if homosexuality disproved evolution, otherwise the non-reproducing trait would have not survived.....

Reply #70 Top

Quoting LifeSomewhereElse, reply 72


I always wondered if homosexuality disproved evolution, otherwise the non-reproducing trait would have not survived.....

End of LifeSomewhereElse's quote

No it hasn't.  Not everything in humans needs to be 'correctly' evolved and numerous things are good in one situation and poor in others. 

For example instead of thinking of a 'homosexual' gene think of a gene for 'being attracted to men'.  When combined with other things it produces gay mem who don't have any children or a woman who has more children as she sleeps with anybody who asks, if the net affect of the second is greater than the first it carries a selective advantage.

Reply #71 Top

Quoting little-whip, reply 66
Is it the act of buggery you object to?Yes, and that's precisely why she should be all FOR gay marriage.After all, any married couple will tell ya that sex goes out the window once the honeymoon is over.If you object to gay sex, you should FORCE them to marry.  Bye-bye hanky-panky!
End of little-whip's quote

I'm with you little-whip,

JOA

Reply #72 Top

For example instead of thinking of a 'homosexual' gene think of a gene for 'being attracted to men'.
End of quote

Ya, except the genome has been mapped and no "gay" genes of any kind were found.  There are no inborn biological marker that compels anyone to be a homosexual. That we are even discussing "gay" genes as a stamp of legitimacy proves we can manipulate and denature almost anything.

Even though scientists haven't even come close to to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, activists still clamour that it's the same as race or gender. Black Americans voted 70% for Prop 8 in part becasue they are sick and tired of the bona fide civil rights movement being hijacked by those pushing for special rights based upon sexual behavior, something that's changeable.   

I tend to agree with Dr. Charles Socarides...rather than a "gay" gene, for some homosexuality is unconsciously determined in  a child's early years and that we have a practical science that can grapple with those unconscious beginnings...it's called psychoanalysis and it's a science that can bring freedom to the lives of many who are stuck in a place they would not otherwise choose." pg. 7 of his blookbuster book, "Homosexuality, A freedom Too Far".

 

Reply #73 Top

LULA POSTS:

A study taken on obituaries indicated longetivity and the median age of death for homosexual men who did not have AIDS is 42! for those with AIDS it's 39......Should we legislate morality that kills people by the age of 42 or the one that preserves them to 75 or 80?


BASMAS POSTS:
This study instrested me so I did some digging, and guess what? Its a pile of misreported sh** and carried out by a man who set up what is now the Family Research Institute
End of quote

Okay, you don't like the messenger but that doesn't change the facts one iota.

I think FRI published their findings in the 80s and early 90s...and my reaction was the same as KFC's is. I've personally noted this when reading the obituaries. Since then, there has been an avalance of data that documents the "gay" lifestyle results in early death, disease, and unhappiness. Ever read reports from the New England Journal of Medicine about the strong coincidence of homosexuality and the occurrence of anal cancer? Or the Annuls of Internal Medicine or the Centers for Disease Control Mortality rates?

In general, married men live longer than single men....does that fact put you in a tailspin?

Why do homosexual activists spin fairy tales and propigate myths about the homosexual lifestyle as if there wasn't a formidable body of evidence that shows the tragic reality that homosexuality is unhealthy and self-destructive and leads to a shorten life span? To advance their agenda by getting laws passed that promulgate homosexuality without any restraints.

All the window dressing in the world can't change the fact that same-sex sex can never equal the conjugal love between a man and a woman bonded in the unity of marriage in accordance with God's plan and natural law.  

  

Reply #74 Top

Okay, you don't like the messenger but that doesn't change the facts one iota.

End of quote

No, but the method they used to determine the "facts" does. As he said.

 

In general, married men live longer than single men....does that fact put you in a tailspin?

End of quote

An excellent argument for gay marriage!

 

Reply #75 Top

Ok you are right, I shouldn't have said gene, I was trying to make it simpler to read.  Replace gene for trait.

If there is no biological basis in any way shape or form can you explain the, several, peer-reviewed scienctific articles disussing the different ratios of finger lenghts in homosexual women compared to straight women?

For example, Williams et al, Nature 2000:404 455-456?

If there is no biological basis why do lesbians hands resemble straight men more than straight women?  (The leading theory is that it refects the levels of various hormones in the womb, turning the women into 'semi' blokes.)

At what point did I say that there was no lifespan reduction?  There almost certainly is but not 30+ years as that study would say, but my answer to that would be to spend a fraction of the resources used to fight this reglious fight to fight the causes of this change.

As an aside not having medical cover reduces life span more that the established, correctly carried out, studies of gay men work out that being gay does.  Are you campgaining for medical cover for all?

 

'In general, married men live longer than single men....does that fact put you in a tailspin?'

No.  But it doesn't prove that marriage causes longer lifespan either only that marriage is assoiated with a longer span, they might both be caused by a very different factor.