Homosexuality will never be or should be a Protect Class

Forced compliance with liberal ideals...forced lower morality. Forcing business to abandon their principles.

Liberals cry about oppression of perverse behaviors, and out of the other side of the liberal hypocritical mouths the same people label others haters and such...if they speak out about what offends them. You used the "persecution complex" argument arrogantly deciding if one is not on the same page with liberal idiocy...your position is not worthy. As if you and any of the current fad following crowd have the position of authority to arrive at this conclusion.

- - - Updated - - -

Liberals sell their policies as freedom and open mindedness, when if you look at what they want and their acts, it is about control.

 

Thanx for openly revealing without shame how little you understand about the book you are trying to preach from. There is an entire book in the Bible dedicated to what you just described. The marriage bed is the only place this is to be played out. The only guideline is one man and one woman in holy matrimony. God not only created this, he endorses it and blesses it.

Man has chosen to pervert something God made holy.

 

Do you have any suspects that you blame for your alienation from society?

 

My grand girls expectation of privacy in her school locker room and bathroom. In CA the gay activist's agenda is being played out (at least the fall out). If you are a boy and you "decide" you are "confused" about your sexuality than you may use whichever gender room you like.

What has happened is, the young girls expectation of privacy has been thrown under the bus so that the rights of the "confused" can be lifted up above everything else, including common sense.

 

http://braungardt.trialectics.com/theology/natural-law-lewis/

Excerpts:



I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong— in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

 

Semantics. There was a time in our social evolution when women were treated as property in most societies as well. This is why the appeal-to-tradition argument always fails. Just because something was done in the past is not evidence that it is necessarily correct or right.

And how very different. Child marriages for example, were very common in many societies until modern times. Females were often treated as property as well, being "sold" to the husband. The Bible actually states this explicitly in several places. We also see many examples of non-traditional marriages...concubines were common across many different cultures.

So I am not sure you really want to point to past cultures to define what "normal" or "right" is. That argument might come back to bite you.

"Right" and "wrong" have had dramatically different meanings in different cultures. Even in our own. There was a time in our history when slavery was considered not only normal but even righteous. For every one similarity you point to I could point to two differences.

"Natural" is not necessarily desirable. Rape is natural too.

 

Why are people who have a moral problem with homosexuality so obsessed with having sex with kids or animals?

 

Is any and all sex in marriage blessed and made holy. Oral, woman on top, bent over the kitchen counter, sodomy, lights on, outside in public.
No perversions at all if a couple is married?

- - - Updated - - -

What special rights do they have?

 

Then no special rights have been given under the constitution. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

'the lack of choice and freedoms and liberties'. What have you lost.
NOT 1 person crying about losing freedoms have said what they lost. NEVER. Nor will you.

 

I believe you fabricated the ruling. Out of pure emotion.
Johnny can't walk into school tomorrow and say, I'm a girl today, so I'm going to use the girls facilities. Try a little logic.

 

They want to keep their secrets to themselves and are afraid if it becomes acceptable, they'd slip up and found out.

 

yes there is, you need to try again.

 

This is about the normalization of deviance.

"The gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable."

In engineering the "normalization of deviance" builds error into all human systems. Small, seemingly harmless modifications to technical and procedural standards collectively propel a system toward disaster.

This is another weakening of the nation's foundation, and it will eventually collapse...economically and socially.

My advice is to learn to speak Chinese.

 

You are correct. Most people who decry SCOTUS decisions could not pass a high school civics test, much less comprehend the intricacies of constitutional law. I believe some of the lower court cases, before Obergefell v Hodges, ruled that statutes discriminating against gays fall under the intermediate scrutiny test.

 

Then why was the gay marriage deal framed under "gays have the constitutional right to marry"?

- - - Updated - - -

Marriage, forced by the SCOTUS.

 

They don't have a constitutional right to marry, you and I agree. The only thing I see, is they now have the same rights as we all do to marry anyone of legal consent. Or the constitutional right to not be treated as 2nd class citizens.
- - - Updated - - -

You lose. Marriage isn't a special right for anyone. It's the same for all.
Want to try again?

 

Nope, you have my opinion. And "I" didn't lose. America lost. Its being killed little by little by your man in DC.

 

Let's be real. This day was bound to happen. SSM was going to be legal one way or another. I think the only thing to worry about is this whole "identifying" BS. When a white person can "identify" as black, even though they are not black at all.

Can I identify as a Native American, even though I am not? If so, then I will identify as one and apply to receive one of the scholarships at the local college that are reserved for Native Americans.

I'm sure real Native Americans won't mind. Even though they only give out two of these a year. I'm sure they'd be fine if a white, non-native American got it (assuming I actually received it).

The "identify" bs needs to be addressed. SSM doesn't really affect anyone but those involved in the relationship.

 

You have the right to have an opinion. Fact. No matter how wrong it is.
America won. More people are now considered the same class of people, more equality. How is that not a win for America?

What logic possess you to think it's a loss?

 

SSM is wrong on every level. I don't care how you slice it, or force it. Or what court you go crying to.

 

Really? Dosent really affect anyone? It weakens us as a nation, it tries to blur the lines of right and wrong. It spits in the face of all that is Christian. And for a reason. The agenda is to decimate all that this nation stood for.

 

Well, that and to give social and monetary rights and privileges to gays that they did not have before. But that all heteros had.

- - - Updated - - -

Gay marriage did not happen because of Obama. The President doesn't have that kind of power.

 

Just like Interracial or interfaith marriage was?

Like women wearing pants.

If your ideology cannot survive without help, maybe it doesn't deserve to survive. You are witnessing social darwinism in action.

 

You're aware that Emperor Augustus saved Rome by embracing traditional values. One of the first things he did was make homosexuality a crime, as well as adultery. He sent his own daughter to an isolated island as punishment for adultery.

History can teach us a valuable lesson...Rome began to collapse 3 centuries after Augustus, and part of the reason was the embrace of immorality and it's war against the family. Augustus knew,the Principate hinged upon the family and upon saving the Roman culture from absorption into a multi-culturalist melting pot of entropy.

Tolerance and multi-culturalism is more of a gedanken experiment ...it works in thought only.

In practice it fails.

Homosexualtiy has merely fractured society by installing yet another victim class, another sub-group demanding their own special recognition. It does not lead to unity, it furthers separation.

We're no longer Americans, we're hyphenated by ethnicity, by creed..and now sexual orientation.

Emperor Augustus knew...restoring traditional Roman values...one of placing family first as the cornerstone. A man, and woman bearing children and raising these children in a monagamous and virtuous environment.