Posted on 03/04/2013 6:04:02 PM PST by xzins
Kirk and Madsen argued that homosexual activists and their allies should avoid talking about sex and sexuality. Instead, “the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.”
That revolution has happened, and it has been stunningly successful.
Now, the United States Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments in two cases that directly address the question of same-sex marriage and the Constitution.
What should Christians think about this? We do believe in civil rights. Taken at face value, civil rights are those rights that a person should be recognized to possess simply because he or she is a citizen.
When Rights Are Wrong
At this point Christians have to think very carefully. We do not want to deny anyone his or her civil rights. To do so would not only violate the Constitution but also deny the rights that are granted, not by the government, but by the Creator. But is same-sex marriage such a right? The answer to that question must be no.
Marriage laws always discriminate. Current laws discriminate on the basis of age, marital status, and gender, as well as a host of other issues.
Discrimination on the basis of an unchangeable characteristic such as skin color would be wrong. But Christians cannot accept the argument that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.
Furthermore, we recognize that marriage, like human rights, exists prior to the law. Christians understand that marriage was instituted by the Creator, who designed marriage and the family as the foundational social unit of human society. Marriage unites a man and a woman in a holy covenant that should last as long as they both live.
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
It banned homosexual sex in general. It didn’t ban homosexual sex only for same sex couples.
I guess I’m so conditioned to our deviant era that I’m now unconsciously distinguishing between “couples” and strangers in the night.
Sheeesh...my culture has changed so dramatically for the worse.
FWIW, the CDC could justify banning males having anal sex with males on the basis of disease transmission.
The quote: The statute at issue here makes sodomy a crime only if a person “engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003).
Scroll down to where the text is highlighted in yellow: Law TextLink
It should prohibit intentionally (deliberately) depositing seminal fluid anywhere but in one's lawful wife's vagina, but it did not.
As for the lesbians, what they do is morally objectionable as well, but has far less impact on public health, and so arguably is a less fit subject for regulation by public policy. I would still oppose valorizing their disorder by fraudulently calling it marriage.
Good luck getting such a law passed. There's not one state legislature anywhere in the U.S. that would pass such a law.
I guess we'll have to collapse utterly into disease and sexual disintegration, before we get the point.
And the Court found that to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
WRONG! The decision was all about privacy and due process and based entirely upon the concept of consensual adult sexual conduct in a private setting.
Just like abortion -the leftists winked and cited privacy to make it happen.
I suggest you do some research -either you are making things up OR are severely misinformed...
The court has never said homosexual sex was okay just as it has never said abortion was not murder -it simply sidestepped the question and granted legality to social disorder.
How does one identify the 'gay' beings you refer to? It would be pretty hard to enforce such a law. I always thought laws were made in regards to actions and not a supposed state of being ESPECIALLY one that is subjective and ONLY self declared.
The law could not have discriminated --I would grant you that the homosexually disordered may have been, as the one would say, 'unfairly' targeted -much like the other minorities the community organizer rallies.
I think you have been drinking a bit too much leftist koolaid. Then again, it may just be a libertarian thing...
What you referenced was not actually what the court ruled - it was only the opinion of Justice O’Connor, concurring in the judgment.
Read O’Connor on Lawrence v Texas.
It would only become actionable if one party had a grievance, and evidence of wrongdoing. Injury. Tort.
Here's the choice before us:
Put sodomy in the criminal code as illegal for all...
Or leave sodomy out of the criminal code, in which case it morphs into a human right (has already happened), sodomy-enthusiasts become a protected class (has already happened), and it becomes illegal to advocate AGAINST harmful deviant sex practices, even in our schools, religious organizations, and health care providers, whether from a moral, religious, sociological or public health/epidemiology point of view.
Everyone who does not go along with this, including K-12 teachers and ministers of the Gospel, will be unemployable and will be prosecuted.
I'm not predicting this. I'm reporting it.
I’m sorry, but that’s a terrible idea. Criminalizing consensual marital sex?
Setting aside the potential for abuse in divorces or other strained relationships (you’re perhaps unaware that the sodomy prosecution in Lawrence v. Texas resulted from the tipoff of a scorned lover), you’re also suggesting that married couples wink at the law and disobey it. That’s an even worse idea that can only foster contempt for the law in general. And with good reason - a law designed to be selectively applied is a law worthy of our contempt.
The government has no business in our marital beds. To suggest otherwise is an invitation to statism at its very worst.
It has nothing to do with actually policing/surveilling/making arrests of anybody in the privacy of their own bedroom, whether gay or straight.
What it's about is prying back the bar of the trap with which they hope to destroy - --to destroy ---Christian beliefs and practies, Christian individuals, churches and ministries.
And for that matter, you can add the words "Orthodox Jewish," "Dharma Buddhist," "Vedantic Hindu," or Platonist- Aristotelian and Hippocratic, if you want to reference the moral pagans of classical antiquity. We're talking about sustainable human civilizations, here.
Don't you realize that they have already sprung this trap?
Don't you realize that if sodomy is legal, it makes homosexuals a "protected class"? (It has already happened.)
Don't you realize that if homosexuals are a "protected class," it is ILLEGAL to do or say anything that might offend or exclude them -- that is, anything that is less than celebratory of their sexual proclivities?
ILLEGAL to sell goods or services related to weddings, carry on any kind of matrimonial ministry, do counseling related to marriage, educate kids about sex and decency, unless you positively protray and promote sodomy and lesbianism as the equivalent of true marriage?
You wanted it, you got it. Good and hard.
And by the way, the Lawrence case, as you can see HERE (LINK), was a set-up by the Lambda Foundation.
The law banned oral and anal sex between two people of the same gender, but not oral and anal sex between two people of opposite genders. I was responding to another poster who claimed the law was not discriminatory because it banned sodomy by everyone, which it did not.
Oh, I’m getting the point exactly.
You’re apparently willing to play games with the law to serve political ends.
It’s certainly your right to suggest such an agenda, but you cannot call it conservative.
...and the sole marital value you want to conserve is that the right to sodomy be secured with with the Nihil Obstat of the state?
What did such desperate married couples do before Lawrence? Oh, the humanity! Forced into a life of crime! We can only hope they got a little extra frisson of excitement by being transgressive!
I'd be receptive to your ideas of how to prevent the destruction of the liberty and dignity of Americans in the specific, serious instances described in my previous post.
(you’re perhaps unaware that the sodomy prosecution in Lawrence v. Texas resulted from the tipoff of a scorned lover)
Perhaps you’re unaware that the entire charade was exacatly that - a scene pre-planned in order to do precisely what it did - legalize sodomy, to help usher in homosexual “rights” of every description, inluding marriage, adoption and fostering of children, homosexuals in the military and so on.
In fact the men who participated in the set up had tried one or more times before to draw police in to a “domestic dispute” situation and find two homosexuals sodomizing each other, but the other times didn’t work out as planned.
I will be back to the thread in a bit.
A. There is nothing morally or instrinsically or historically legally wrong with laws that specifically apply to homosexual acts. Or acts of bestiality, incest, rape, and so on.
B. There is nothing morally or instrinsically or historically legally wrong with laws that forbid sodomy in the widest sense of the word across the board.
It’s only the modern acceptance of what has always been considered gross and depraved immorality that all of a sudden found “Rights” where they did not previously exist.
Forward! March! Into the utopian future! Imagine a world with no laws against sodomy/bestiality/incest/inter-generational “love”! What a utopia of love!
And the convserse: If you’re agaist this “freedom”, off to the gulags with you, caveman!
A. There is nothing morally or instrinsically or historically legally wrong with laws that specifically apply to homosexual acts. Or acts of bestiality, incest, rape, and so on.
B. There is nothing morally or instrinsically or historically legally wrong with laws that forbid sodomy in the widest sense of the word across the board.
It’s only the modern acceptance of what has always been considered gross and depraved immorality that all of a sudden found “Rights” where they did not previously exist.
Forward! March! Into the utopian future! Imagine a world with no laws against sodomy/bestiality/incest/inter-generational “love”! What a utopia of love!
And the convserse: If you’re agaist this “freedom”, off to the gulags with you, caveman!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.