Ford Motor Company Supports Homosexual Movement

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 31 2005, 11:31 PM'] Or those who believe in the constitution will point to the 14th amendment. You can't say consenting adults have a right to have sex and then deny gay sex. That's unequal application of the law. [/quote]
I know this whole discussion is off the posted topic, but the 14th Ammendment has nothing in it regarding sex. This is an activist liberal twisting of the law.

The idea that all "consenting adults" have a right to sex, is not in the original constitution, and did not even exist in America until the late 20th century.

Most states had anti-Sodomy laws, and no one regarded these as "unconstitutional" until the late 20th century. Liberal activist judges and lawmakers have made a travesty of American Law.

Kizlar, playing the "patriot" card here won't work. "Gay rights" were not a principle America was founded on, as history attests. Even Thomas Jefferson (hardly a religious man), recommended as governor of Virginia that sodomy be punished by castration (common penalty for sex crimes at the time).


You seem absurdly devoted to "gay rights," hardly the position of a faithful Catholic. No one is forcing you to join these boycotts, but people have aright to boycott. No reason fly to pieces whenever anybody calls for one, nor to make personal accusations of "hate" against anyone who disagrees with you!

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 1 2005, 12:14 PM'] I know this whole discussion is off the posted topic, but the 14th Ammendment has nothing in it regarding sex. This is an activist liberal twisting of the law.

The idea that all "consenting adults" have a right to sex, is not in the original constitution, and did not even exist in America until the late 20th century.

Most states had anti-Sodomy laws, and no one regarded these as "unconstitutional" until the late 20th century. Liberal activist judges and lawmakers have made a travesty of American Law.

Kizlar, playing the "patriot" card here won't work. "Gay rights" were not a principle America was founded on, as history attests. Even Thomas Jefferson (hardly a religious man), recommended as governor of Virginia that sodomy be punished by castration (common penalty for sex crimes at the time).


You seem absurdly devoted to "gay rights," hardly the position of a faithful Catholic. No one is forcing you to join these boycotts, but people have aright to boycott. No reason fly to pieces whenever anybody calls for one, nor to make personal accusations of "hate" against anyone who disagrees with you! [/quote]
The truth is quite simple Socrates, so listen up. The United States government isn't Christian or Catholic. It was founded by atheists and deists, and it is a secular humanist institution. As such, it is against the principles of the United States to deny marriage to homosexuals, to deny their legal right to have sex, and to deny their other freedoms.

This isn't MY agenda. That's the truth. That's the country we live in. This is why I think patriotism is incompatible with Catholicism in most western nations today. Morally, such things are wrong. Legally, in the United States, according to the constitution, they're inalienable rights.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 1 2005, 01:23 PM'] The truth is quite simple Socrates, so listen up. The United States government isn't Christian or Catholic. It was founded by atheists and deists, and it is a secular humanist institution. As such, it is against the principles of the United States to deny marriage to homosexuals, to deny their legal right to have sex, and to deny their other freedoms.

This isn't MY agenda. That's the truth. [/quote]
In California, up is down and black is white. But "California truth" is not truth.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 1 2005, 12:23 PM'] The truth is quite simple Socrates, so listen up.  The United States government isn't Christian or Catholic.  It was founded by atheists and deists, and it is a secular humanist institution.  As such, it is against the principles of the United States to deny marriage to homosexuals, to deny their legal right to have sex, and to deny their other freedoms.

This isn't MY agenda.  That's the truth.  That's the country we live in.  This is why I think patriotism is incompatible with Catholicism in most western nations today.  Morally, such things are wrong.  Legally, in the United States, according to the constitution, they're inalienable rights. [/quote]
You are dead wrong about the U.S. Constitution! I'm not claiming the Constitution is infallible or perfect, but the truth is there is nothing in the Constitution declaring that everyone has a right to homosexual or any other deviant sexual activity. And no one interpreted it as such for over 200 years of our nation's history.

The states all had anti-sodomy laws. That's right, in most states homosexuality was a crime punishable by law!
These laws were universally recognized as universal by the 10th Ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The claim that the U.S Constitution was made to in any way protect homosexuality or other deviant sexual behavior is a lie!

You show yourself woefully ignorant of American history and of law (though I suppose your ignorace is pardonable give the liberal nonsense that it passed off as history in too many schools.)

Your anti-American rant has offered no proof at all against the facts I have stated, and proves nothing but your own ignorance.

Edited June 1, 2005 by Socrates

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 1 2005, 12:41 PM'] You are dead wrong about the U.S. Constitution! I'm not claiming the Constitution is infallible or perfect, but the truth is there is nothing in the Constitution declaring that everyone has a right to homosexual or any other deviant sexual activity. And no one interpreted it as such for over 200 years of our nation's history.

The states all had anti-sodomy laws. That's right, in most states homosexuality was a crime punishable by law!
These laws were universally recognized as universal by the 10th Ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The claim that the U.S Constitution was made to in any way protect homosexuality or other deviant sexual behavior is a lie!

You show yourself woefully ignorant of American history and of law (though I suppose your ignorace is pardonable give the liberal nonsense that it passed off as history in too many schools.)

Your anti-American rant has offered no proof at all against the facts I have stated, and proves nothing but your own ignorance. [/quote]
Actually, you're completely off base. What kept laws like these on the books, and what prevented "gay rights" until the 20th century is the SAME thing that kept Black people impoverished and segregated until the 1950s. It's the same thing that kept poll taxes on the books despite their illegitimacy. What thing is that? People like you.

The reason America never recognized gay marriage or the "right to sodomy" as you call it, is because most of the American populous was disgusted by the idea. As such, they prevented these sorts of things from occurring. Now, however, we have people who aren't disgusted by anything and they're claiming that the fourteenth amendment allows for gay marriage, gay sex, and a host of other social ills.

You know something? They're right. They aren't right morally, but they're right legally. History in the US doesn't matter in terms of the interpretation of the constitution. If it did, Blacks would still be segregated, not allowed to eat in restaurants, not allowed to drink in certain water fountains. However, that interpretation of the constitution was struck down not because it was patently evil - but because somebody finally looked at the document without his own inherent bigotry.

The truth is, if you take an unbiased look at the constitution, gay marriage is completely and wholly unavoidable. The fourteenth amendment specifically gives the same rights to all citizens - gay or straight. If straight people have a right to get married, then you have to give it to gays as well or society is unequal. If straight people have the right to have sex without being bothered by the government about it - then guess what, so do gays.

Your patriotism is misplaced. This is why I see the United States for what it is - a fundamentally un-Catholic and un-Christian institution. But I'm not ignorant. I know my history and jurisprudence far better than you do. It isn't that I am a liberal and am twisting the words of the constitution. No, I just have the courage to read what it actually says.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 1 2005, 12:41 PM'] In California, up is down and black is white. But "California truth" is not truth. [/quote]
Mateo, if you can tell me how the 14th amendment to the constitution allows for an unequal application of marriage laws or sodomy laws, then I'll give you a cookie.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 1 2005, 01:09 PM'] Actually, you're completely off base. What kept laws like these on the books, and what prevented "gay rights" until the 20th century is the SAME thing that kept Black people impoverished and segregated until the 1950s. It's the same thing that kept poll taxes on the books despite their illegitimacy. What thing is that? People like you.

The reason America never recognized gay marriage or the "right to sodomy" as you call it, is because most of the American populous was disgusted by the idea. As such, they prevented these sorts of things from occurring. Now, however, we have people who aren't disgusted by anything and they're claiming that the fourteenth amendment allows for gay marriage, gay sex, and a host of other social ills.

You know something? They're right. They aren't right morally, but they're right legally. History in the US doesn't matter in terms of the interpretation of the constitution. If it did, Blacks would still be segregated, not allowed to eat in restaurants, not allowed to drink in certain water fountains. However, that interpretation of the constitution was struck down not because it was patently evil - but because somebody finally looked at the document without his own inherent bigotry.

The truth is, if you take an unbiased look at the constitution, gay marriage is completely and wholly unavoidable. The fourteenth amendment specifically gives the same rights to all citizens - gay or straight. If straight people have a right to get married, then you have to give it to gays as well or society is unequal. If straight people have the right to have sex without being bothered by the government about it - then guess what, so do gays.

Your patriotism is misplaced. This is why I see the United States for what it is - a fundamentally un-Catholic and un-Christian institution. But I'm not ignorant. I know my history and jurisprudence far better than you do. It isn't that I am a liberal and am twisting the words of the constitution. No, I just have the courage to read what it actually says. [/quote]
This is more baseless nonsense.

Show specifically where in the fourteenth ammendment there is anything protecting "gay marriage."

There is no way you can credibly claim that America's founding fathers sere in support of sodomy or "gay marriage." Most of them would probably be appalled to see the Constitution "interpreted" that way! As I pointed out, even the freethinker Jefferson recommended castration as a penalty for sodomy.

I challenge you to find anything prior to the 1970s or so claiming legal support for homosexulality.

Your claims are baseless and without merit.


However, it's nice to see that you've switched your postition to being against the "gay rights" agenda, rather than defending it!

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 1 2005, 01:24 PM'] This is more baseless nonsense.

Show specifically where in the fourteenth ammendment there is anything protecting "gay marriage."

There is no way you can credibly claim that America's founding fathers sere in support of sodomy or "gay marriage." Most of them would probably be appalled to see the Constitution "interpreted" that way! As I pointed out, even the freethinker Jefferson recommended castration as a penalty for sodomy.

I challenge you to find anything prior to the 1970s or so claiming legal support for homosexulality.

Your claims are baseless and without merit.


However, it's nice to see that you've switched your postition to being against the "gay rights" agenda, rather than defending it! [/quote]
I haven't switched my opinion. I've never been in favor of homosexuals having sex with one another. I am in favor of reaching out to them and bringing to them knowledge of the gospel so that their souls might be saved. Unlike you, I'm big on the outreach and not so big on the condemnation.

Could you use the word baseless a couple more times in your next post? I'd really appreciate that considering your own thoughtful citation of evidence.

Here is the fourteenth amendment, I'll repost it:

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

----------------------

Now, section 1 says that all those born in the US are citizens. As such, homosexuals, born in the United States, are citizens. Now I'm going to quote part of section one, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Here we see that not only are "rights" protected but no privilege shall be abridged either. In addition, it states that all people have equal protection of the laws. Therefore, any privilege granted to heterosexuals must also be granted to homosexuals. Otherwise, you are:

A) Abridging a privilege
B) Giving unequal protection under the law.

Therefore, if heterosexuals have the privilege of having sexual intercourse and getting married then homosexuals are to be accorded the same privilege. It's right there, plain as day, black and white.

[Socrates]

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You've made quite a leap here by defining homosexual "marriage" as a "privilege" protected by the Constitution. There is nothing whatsoever that the framers would regard sodomy as a legal privilege. Note that none of them had any problem whatsoever with the state anti-sodomy laws on the books. If they did, surely at least one of them would make some sort of effort to strike them down, or at least have made even a private statement against them.

In fact, the whole idea of "gay marriage" would be unthinkable and repugnant to anyone in the 18th century, much less as a legal "right."
(Jefferson proves this, with his views of sodomy as a punishable crime).

And laws regarding marriage and the like were regarded as matters of state law - it was beyond the scope of the Federal government to get involved in such things (as defined by the 10th ammendment).

No, nobody saw laws against sodomy as "unconstitutional" until the rise of the "gay rights" movement over 200 years later!

All you've proven is how people can twist the letter of the law to mean something the framers of the law never intended!

Edited June 1, 2005 by Socrates

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 1 2005, 02:00 PM'] "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You've made quite a leap here by defining homosexual "marriage" as a "privilege" protected by the Constitution. There is nothing whatsoever that the framers would regard sodomy as a legal privilege. Note that none of them had any problem whatsoever with the state anti-sodomy laws on the books. If they did, surely at least one of them would make some sort of effort to strike them down, or at least have made even a private statement against them.

In fact, the whole idea of "gay marriage" would be unthinkable and repugnant to anyone in the 18th century, much less as a legal "right."
(Jefferson proves this, with his views of sodomy as a punishable crime).

And laws regarding marriage and the like were regarded as matters of state law - it was beyond the scope of the Federal government to get involved in such things (as defined by the 10th ammendment).

No, nobody saw laws against sodomy as "unconstitutional" until the rise of the "gay rights" movement over 200 years later!

All you've proven is how people can twist the letter of the law to mean something the framers of the law never intended! [/quote]
No. You're wrong. Let me go over it very slowly so you can understand.

The laws must be applied equally to all people.

Prohibiting marriage for a certain group of people is an unequal application of the law. Marriage is either acceptable for all citizens or for none of them. You can't pick and choose.

Prohibiting sodomy is obscene. First of all, sodomy isn't even a readily defineable term. For quite some time, it meant sex in anything other than the missionary position. Therefore, anti-sodomy laws violate more than just the 14th amendment.

They violate the rights to privacy. They violate the equal protection under the laws. Some of the sodomy laws applied to all people, regardless of whether or not the sex was homosexual. These laws didn't violate the equal protection clause, but they did violate the citizen's right to privacy.

So here is the truth of the US constitution, as it was written:

You can't allow one group of citizens one set of rights and another group of citizens a different set of rights.

You accuse me of twisting things around - you're the one doing the twisting. What makes you think the framers of the constitution didn't intend what they wrote down. If they meant that everyone was equal except for gays, they would have said so. But they didn't say that. They said the laws have to apply equally to everyone. And nothing you say can change that.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Raphael' date='May 31 2005, 10:01 AM'] Just more reason to get a Chevy. [/quote]
Oh no.....we're supposed to boycott GM too....sorry....well at least that is what some say....whatever.