I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and civil unions.

[Bern80]

Those on here who say being gay is wrong always quote the Bible as their proof.

I have struggled with my faith for most of my young life (almost 27 yrs) when I finally saw the light (no not that light) what I concluded was it isn't god I don't believe in. it's religion. to come to that I think takes a truly objective view of the concept of religion. Every religion on this planet was created by man with the man always claiming they were inspired by their diety and what they say is the same as what god would say. That simply isn't logical. It isn't logical to believe that their is no himan error in any religious scripture or even human ideas inserted claiming to be that of Gods.

I thought it was funny that some quoted Leviticus. To me there is no more proof of human beliefs being inserted as God's beliefs then the book of Leviticus. Levitcus is basically the book that lists all the sins. The things that suppossedly God doesn't want us to do. I can tell you now that 99% percent of us are going to hell right now based on this one book alone. here are a few of the more bazaar rules:

offerings of grain must first be ground into flour.

If the offering is bread baked in an oven it must be made without yeast

If the offering is bread cooked on a griddle it is to be made of flour with olive oil but no yeast.

If someone unintentianally touches anything ritually unclean, whatever it may be, he is unclean and guilty as soon as he realizes what he has done.

For seven days after a woman gives birth to a son, she is ritually unclean, as she is during her monthly period. (14 says if its a girl)



these all sound like things some old crotchety white man would think up. This is why leviticus isn't brought up much (except to 'prove' that being gay is wrong).

How bout Islam? Do we honestly believe that their God wants them to kill everyone not like them?

As far as homosexuality is concerned I believe that is a human belief inserted into the bible.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Those on here who say being gay is wrong always quote the Bible as their proof.

I have struggled with my faith for most of my young life (almost 27 yrs) when I finally saw the light (no not that light) what I concluded was it isn't god I don't believe in. it's religion. to come to that I think takes a truly objective view of the concept of religion. Every religion on this planet was created by man with the man always claiming they were inspired by their diety and what they say is the same as what god would say. That simply isn't logical. It isn't logical to believe that their is no himan error in any religious scripture or even human ideas inserted claiming to be that of Gods.

I thought it was funny that some quoted Leviticus. To me there is no more proof of human beliefs being inserted as God's beliefs then the book of Leviticus. Levitcus is basically the book that lists all the sins. The things that suppossedly God doesn't want us to do. I can tell you now that 99% percent of us are going to hell right now based on this one book alone. here are a few of the more bazaar rules:

offerings of grain must first be ground into flour.

If the offering is bread baked in an oven it must be made without yeast

If the offering is bread cooked on a griddle it is to be made of flour with olive oil but no yeast.

If someone unintentianally touches anything ritually unclean, whatever it may be, he is unclean and guilty as soon as he realizes what he has done.

For seven days after a woman gives birth to a son, she is ritually unclean, as she is during her monthly period. (14 says if its a girl)



these all sound like things some old crotchety white man would think up. This is why leviticus isn't brought up much (except to 'prove' that being gay is wrong).

How bout Islam? Do we honestly believe that their God wants them to kill everyone not like them?

As far as homosexuality is concerned I believe that is a human belief inserted into the bible.

Simply an attempt to denegrate religious beliefs. As to specifics MOST Christians have accepted that the OLD testament is a nice history lesson but that the new testament supercedes any and all parts of the old when they conflict.

Your little part here as to do with offerings to appease. The old testament offerings could NOT absolve sin, they could only indicate you knew you had sinned and were offering materials to acknowledge the sin. The new testament Jesus establishes that faith in him, acceptance of God through Jesus DOES absolve sin.

It absolves inherited sin ( that we all have because of the actions of Adam) and it absolves any sins we commit and repent for. There are limits on that repentence but that would be a huge kettle of worms, I do not think any Christian denomination believes exactly what any other does on THAT matter.

You are correct " Organized" religion has a tendency to become all about man and not about Jesus or God. Men run the churches and so that leads directly to flaws and errors.

I chose my organized religion because a majority of the things they claim to believe are what I believe. It makes sense to me. The key being YOU are responsible for your faith and actions and interactions with Jesus and God.

Blind obedience to a religious doctrine is never a good choice. YOU are responsible for deciding what is right and wrong within the Bible and teachings of God and Jesus.

There is nothing wrong with belonging to an Organized religion, church, denomination, etc etc. Just do NOT let them do the thinking for you. Man is fallable and all churches are run by men until Jesus returns.

 

[Bern80]

I chose my organized religion because a majority of the things they claim to believe are what I believe. It makes sense to me. The key being YOU are responsible for your faith and actions and interactions with Jesus and God.

And for me there is simply to much about organized religion that doesn't make any sense. Catholic priests must be male, can't have sex with woman and can't marry. Being gay is a sin, yet I refuse to believe a just God would cast someone aside for something they have no control over. I don't believe being gay is a choice, but that's a debate for another time. I don't believe there is any point in praying cause there is no logical way God can answer them. How can he grant 50 cent a grammy w/o saving someone praying for food.

While it is a comedy one of the best movies that gives a healthy prespective of religion is the movie Dogma and Chris Rock's line said it best. "Man went and took a good idea and tried to create a belief structure out of it."

I believe in the thousands of years since the inception of the concept of religion the organized religions have strayed to far from what any God coudl possibly want from us.

I believe God wants relgion to be simple (hence why I always get a kick out of leviticus). Life is simple, as far as God is concerned. he will use you in the next life based on your performance in this one and he doesn't help along the way. You have to figure it out on your own.

 

[liberalogic]

Simply an attempt to denegrate religious beliefs. As to specifics MOST Christians have accepted that the OLD testament is a nice history lesson but that the new testament supercedes any and all parts of the old when they conflict.

Your little part here as to do with offerings to appease. The old testament offerings could NOT absolve sin, they could only indicate you knew you had sinned and were offering materials to acknowledge the sin. The new testament Jesus establishes that faith in him, acceptance of God through Jesus DOES absolve sin.

It absolves inherited sin ( that we all have because of the actions of Adam) and it absolves any sins we commit and repent for. There are limits on that repentence but that would be a huge kettle of worms, I do not think any Christian denomination believes exactly what any other does on THAT matter.

You are correct " Organized" religion has a tendency to become all about man and not about Jesus or God. Men run the churches and so that leads directly to flaws and errors.

I chose my organized religion because a majority of the things they claim to believe are what I believe. It makes sense to me. The key being YOU are responsible for your faith and actions and interactions with Jesus and God.

Blind obedience to a religious doctrine is never a good choice. YOU are responsible for deciding what is right and wrong within the Bible and teachings of God and Jesus.

There is nothing wrong with belonging to an Organized religion, church, denomination, etc etc. Just do NOT let them do the thinking for you. Man is fallable and all churches are run by men until Jesus returns.

While I probably disagree with many of your fundamental religious beliefs that dictate how we should live, I applaud your aggressive individuality. My question, though, is what constitutes "the thinking?" For example, if you believe that homosexuality is wrong, do you form this belief with both logical, deductive reasoning in conjunction with your faith or do you simply feel comfortable attributing it to your faith and claiming it as one of the tenets that you choose to believe? What I mean is-- do you base your religious beliefs on logic and what is in the bible, or do you just choose what you want to believe from the bible?

 

[Edward]

I agree with you that the world is hateful, and gays should be defended, I just think, that if somebody chooses to believe homosexuality is wrong, they should not be treated as if they are hateful bigots.

They shoul be treated as hateful bigots if that is what they are. There is no doubt in my mind that those who oppose same sex marriage and granting the same rights to gays are hateful bigots. This is something that many people do not want to accept because they want to believe that they are willing to compromise and are willing to meet gay people half-way but the truth is that they still think they have the right to set the terms and conditions of a compromise. I doubt that these hateful bigots would be so accepting of a compromise if it was on the terms of gay people and not them.

Their are two kinds of people against homosexuality.

1. those who hate gays

2. those who do not hate gays, but simply oppose homosexuality

with all due respect my friend, I think we should make a distinction.

Such a distinction only benefits those who are bigots. It doesn't benefit those whose rights are being violated. You can say that you don't hate gays just like white people said they didn't hate blacks and that they only opposed desegregation but the fact remained that they did hate black people just like those who oppose gay rights hate gay people based on their sexual preference. This isn't something you want to accept but it is this hate which drives you. You can say you believe in the golden rule or are a Christian but the truth is that you are far from it and that your hate drives you. You can accuse me of being hateful, and not being willing to compromise but as a straight person I can see through your attempts to set the conditions.

Now, I think great comprimise is possible on this issue.

And what would that compromise be? Is it, "that you will allow gay people to do X, Y and Z if they don't demand the same rights as you because how dare they demand those things of you. How dare they think they are your equals. The terms and conditions you set are Q, R, and S and if they don't like it than they aren't willing to compromise." You have got to be the dumbest person if you think people are stupid enough to fall for that shit. Simply because you claim to want to compromise doesn't mean you do instead it is quite obvious you want to set the terms and if people are stupid enough to think that this is a compromise than you are more than willing to let them believe that and in fact want them to believe that your setting the terms and conditions is a compromise.

You could have the most fervert gay activist, and the most fervert religious person opposed to homosexuality, and still find a way, that gays, can visit each other in the hospital, have inheritence, and fight against hate and discrimination, while still respecting the beliefs of those who oppose homosexuality, but are decent people too.

Yet, those who prevail will be those with a certain opinion which you share and that is the real issue. I believe there can be a compromise and that compromise is very simple. Gay people will have the right to marry just like straight people do and straight people including religious people will still have the right to marry according to their own beliefs, and opinions. You speak of a compromise where religious people and people who are opposed to homosexuality will be willing to give gay people the right to visit each other in the hospital, and have inheritance but you do so only on your conditions. What gay person in their right mind would accept those terms? That is: We will allow you to visit each other in the hospital, and inherit from one another but we won't allow you to have X, Y and Z which we reserve for ourselves."

Gays are not good or bad, they are human beings, for which I and in my opinion, everyone else has no right to judge, thats gods job, we have a right to opinion, and if someone asks for your opinion or mine, then we have the right to say what we believe.

The right to have an opinion is often used to disguise the real issue of discrimination and a violation of the rights of others. You can say that we don't have the right to judge homosexuals because they are human beings but you choose to do just that and then attempt to cop-out by saying that it is God's job to judge people. You can try to disguise the fact that you do in fact judge gay's and that you do discriminate based on their sexual orientation but that won't negate the fact that it is still wrong for you to do so.

but its not a war... and it should never be...

The only reason you don't want it to be a war is because you want to force your opinion on everyone else. The truth is that it is indeed a war between those who are fighting for their rights and those who will use whatever tactics they can to deny those rights to people.

comprimise gets things done

What compromise would that be: "because we want you to be good little bitches that we can control we will condesencd to allow you to visit each other in the hospital but don't you dare demand the same rights and priveliges we enjoy or you are hateful, and oppose compromise." That isn't compromise and you aren't advocating a compromise at all instead you are setting down the terms and the conditions that you will allow others to do certain things and that is fundamentally flawed and I doubt that an gay person would accept those conditions just like black people wouldn't have accepted the conditions of "we will allow you to eat in the same restaurant as us, and attend the same schools as us so long as you compromise and don't expect to use the same bathrooms and water fountains as us." What black person would accept those terms or conditions and consider it a compromise?

But of course gay people must and compromise with you before you allow them to do X, Y and Z but if they do not agree to not want Q, R and S they are the ones to blame. The truth is that you aren't willing to compromise because there is one acceptable compromise which is mutually beneficial to gays and to straight people which is that gay and straight people have the same rights regardless of their sexual orientation. That is a compromise, and anything less than that is nothing but a big farce and a big lie.

 

[Edward]

I agree with gunny here. Their are some gays, and their supportes who want to flaunt their sexuality in our faces, and force us to agree with us, or call us homophobes, that is wrong.

That have to be the most bigoted comment I have heard since under the same argument straight people flaunt their sexuality in the face of gay people all the time, and I don't hear you saying that this is forcing gay people to agree with straight people, or protesting that others call gay people heterophobes if they object to straight people doing this.

Gays have a choice who they fuck, not who they are attracted to. Im a straight man, I wanna fuck every woman i see, does that mean the government should recognize, single male idiots who want to sleep with every woman and give them special benefits?

Again, this is a bigoted comment since gay people can also live a chaste life style where they are married to one person. You don't hear gay people saying, "Straights have a choice who they fuck, not who they are attacted to. I'm a gay man, I wanna fuck every man I see, does that mean the government should recognize, single male idiots who want to sleep with every man and give them special benefits" in their opposition to straight marriage? No, because gay people recognize the right of straight people to marry while bigots such as yourself do not extend the same courtesy to gay people and feign tolerance and good will towards gay people and talk of a compromise where gay people are treated under the philosophy of "separate but equal" which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional when it came to black people.

 

[Edward]

Perhaps some do. The radicals that get all the attention DO care. They want to flaunt their aberrant lifestyle in our faces. When I say I don't care what they do in the confines of their own home, THAT is what I mean ... the confines of their own home. Civil union? Fine.

Whose faces? Their masters? Their bosses? Their Gods? Who are you and who are the "us" you speak of? How dare you tell others that they are only allowed to do what they want in the confines of their own home. And I am sure that gay people are glad to hear you say, "Civil union? Fine" as if they need your damn permission. You don't hear gay people coming out and acting upset that straight people flaunt their lifestyle in their faces or say such things as "When I say I don't care what straight people do in the confines of their own home, THAT is what I mean ... the confines of their own home."

But the fact remains their lifestyle is based on aberrant sexual behavior, and they were and probably still are demanding a law that caters solely to that behavior.

No, it is you who are demanding that the law caters solely to your behavior and the behaviors you consider appropriate and the rest of the people can be damn if they do not agree with your arrogant ass. You think you have the right to place conditions upon gay people and demand that they accept them and when they do not you show your hateful colors. If gay people were to simply accet the station you have relegated them then they would not be "flaunting their sexuality" and you could go on believing the shit you believe but if a gay person does not accept these conditions and is not willing to confine their relationships to their homes you show your true hateful nature. No gay person in their right mind would accept these conditions and wouldn't simply accept a "separate but equal" form of marriage just like black people weren't willing to do so. All the arguments you now use have been used by every bigot who has ever lived in our country and has been directed at every group that bigots have targeted including gay people. As if gay people should be happy that your bigoted ass doesn't kill them, beat them up or use violence against them. I am sure all the gay people out there are in gratitude that you have decided to only deny them their rights instead of burning crosses on their lawns.

So, as far as politics goes, I disagree. They DO care, They are demanding not only equality under the law; which, they already enjoy, they demand in addition that their aberrant behavior be recognized by law.

That is exactly what they are demanding and so long as the sexual behavior of straight people is recognized by the law they also deserve the same and you have no right to deny them the same recognition because you believe that the heterosexual lifestyle is not abnormal. You don't even want equality under the law instead you want "separate but equal forms of marriage just like fucking bigots did with black people..." All this talk about compromise ignores the single fact that gay people are treated as second class citizens based on their sexual orientation and lifestyle.

This issue goes beyond equality under the law to the rights of people. It is one thing for people to say that gays have the same rights when they are treated differently under the law based on their sexual orientation. You demand that gay people allow the law to recognize your sexual behavior while not recognizing theirs as if this is acceptable. As if "separate but equal" forms of marriage is good enough for gay people and that if they demand actual equality they are no different than the "black people your bigoted ancestors hated."

 

[Edward]

I see a bit of a difference here. While I support gays having the same rights. I am not sure you need gay marriage for that. For example, a gay person, can hide the fact they are gay, a black person has no such ability at all to do that.

A gay couple can no more hide that they are gay and a couple than a black and white couple could hide that they were a couple and of different races. You have to be the dumbest person to think that this is even possible. If gays want to be treated equally than they must have the same rights to enjoy their relationships in the open as do straight people. They cannot be relegated to the back of the bus (figuratively speaking) or forced to accept separate legal facilities for their unions than straight people.

I think quite honestly, its a different issue.. With that being said, im sure we can find a way, to give gays the same rights, and to be honest, civil unions are the best way to go.

Do you realize that this is the exact argument for the "separate but equal" philosophy that black people were forced to accept as a compromise even though it wasn't a compromise at all?

My confliction ends here: civil unions. Its not marriage, but its just enough, that gays get all the benefits, and anyone jew, christian, or muslim, still has the right to be against if he or she chooses.

I am sure that gay people are grateful to learn where your conflict ends but I doubt that they will settle for it because it makes no sense to accept any form of marriage where they are not treated the same as straight people and for good reason and that is it isn't a compromise at all instead it is bigoted jackasses like you condescending to allow gay people to have civil unions while keeping for yourself the separate "bathroom" that is marriage. All straights please line up in the straight line to get married and all gay people please line up in the gay line to get a civil union. Of course, we could always decide that all black people should line up in one line and all white people line up in another just like the bigots who came before you did but I doubt that would go over very well now that blacks are seen as equals but everyone except for bigots. This is true of gays as well who will not settle for anything less than equality under the law and of course there will always be bigots such as yourself who will be upset that gays didn't accept the terms you placed upon them (i.e., civil unions).

Call me crazy, but I think, comprimise means , one or both sides are pissed, they didnt get it their way, or exactly how they wanted it [/QUOTE]

But the side that accepts this comrpomise does in fact get it "their way" and "exactly how they wanted it." You call this a compromise but it isn't a compromise at all instead it is the argument of "separate but equal" which black people had to live under and which was essentially unfair because it applies a different standard to a person because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. No gay person in their right mind is going to accept any form of marriage which isn't marriage and they aren't going to do so for the same reason black people did not accept the "separate but equal" philosophy.

 

[Gunny]

I guess it is easier to CLAIM as much than to provide support for your opinion.. then again, I guess id better agree or face your "wrath"

What's there to prove? I lived through the time. You were probably still playing with Barbies.

And you sure as Hell haven't provided a lick of support for YOUR opinions.

 

[Gunny]

Whose faces? Their masters? Their bosses? Their Gods? Who are you and who are the "us" you speak of? How dare you tell others that they are only allowed to do what they want in the confines of their own home. And I am sure that gay people are glad to hear you say, "Civil union? Fine" as if they need your damn permission. You don't hear gay people coming out and acting upset that straight people flaunt their lifestyle in their faces or say such things as "When I say I don't care what straight people do in the confines of their own home, THAT is what I mean ... the confines of their own home."

Your feigned indignation act is getting rather old. Who am I? A man who believes abnormla is abnormal and has one vote and you can bet I cast it every chance I get.

If you or anyone else wants to do stupid shit that's clearly wrong sans a dishonest, relativist argument, then someone needs to drag you around by the leash.


No, it is you who are demanding that the law caters solely to your behavior and the behaviors you consider appropriate and the rest of the people can be damn if they do not agree with your arrogant ass. You think you have the right to place conditions upon gay people and demand that they accept them and when they do not you show your hateful colors. If gay people were to simply accet the station you have relegated them then they would not be "flaunting their sexuality" and you could go on believing the shit you believe but if a gay person does not accept these conditions and is not willing to confine their relationships to their homes you show your true hateful nature. No gay person in their right mind would accept these conditions and wouldn't simply accept a "separate but equal" form of marriage just like black people weren't willing to do so. All the arguments you now use have been used by every bigot who has ever lived in our country and has been directed at every group that bigots have targeted including gay people. As if gay people should be happy that your bigoted ass doesn't kill them, beat them up or use violence against them. I am sure all the gay people out there are in gratitude that you have decided to only deny them their rights instead of burning crosses on their lawns.

Your argument here is as stale as your feigned indignation, and your attempt to paint me as some kind of extremist is pure bullshit. I vote for what I believe in, and tough shit if YOU don't like it. I really could care less what you, or extremist homosexuals want, or will accept.

There's nothing hateful about it. Bigotted? Yeah. I have little tolerance for idiots and fools who make backwards-assed arguments to support their agenda walking all over me, but go into a song and dance rant when it doesn't work out for you.


That is exactly what they are demanding and so long as the sexual behavior of straight people is recognized by the law they also deserve the same and you have no right to deny them the same recognition because you believe that the heterosexual lifestyle is not abnormal. You don't even want equality under the law instead you want "separate but equal forms of marriage just like fucking bigots did with black people..." All this talk about compromise ignores the single fact that gay people are treated as second class citizens based on their sexual orientation and lifestyle.

You're talking out your ass. I have NO problem with equality under the law, and have not stated anything else.

This issue goes beyond equality under the law to the rights of people. It is one thing for people to say that gays have the same rights when they are treated differently under the law based on their sexual orientation. You demand that gay people allow the law to recognize your sexual behavior while not recognizing theirs as if this is acceptable. As if "separate but equal" forms of marriage is good enough for gay people and that if they demand actual equality they are no different than the "black people your bigoted ancestors hated."

You're SO right. When the people exercise their rights and vote against "gay marriage," the people have spoken, and tough shit if you come out on the short end of the stick.

The law doesn't recognize my sexual orientation. It recognizes only NATURAL sexual orientation.

You keep ranting throughout every thread "the people," when what you REALLY mean is the individual, and you ignore a basic tenet of society in favor of your BS argument ... When one chooses to live outside the conforms of society, then one is DIRECTLY responsible for the consequences resulting from it. Since you're so worried about the "individual," see if your mind can grasp "individual responsibility for one's actions."

You want to be a fag? Knock yourself out. But don't whine like a bitch when I call you a fag.

 

[mattskramer]

The law doesn't recognize my sexual orientation. It recognizes only NATURAL sexual orientation.

That depends on your definition of “Natural”. Does “natural” mean “most popular”? Some people (homosexuals) consider it perfectly natural to be more sexually attracted to people of their same sex.

When one chooses to live outside the conforms of society, then one is DIRECTLY responsible for the consequences resulting from it. Since you're so worried about the "individual," see if your mind can grasp "individual responsibility for one's actions."

I don’t understand what you mean by this paragraph. When you live inside the conforms of society, then you are directly responsible for your actions too. In addition, basically, heterosexuals and homosexuals take responsibility for their actions. You will find exceptions on each side (abusive husbands, risky promiscuous, etc).

You want to be a fag? Knock yourself out. But don't whine like a bitch when I call you a fag.

The term is homosexual, you homophobic honkey. You cracker. You are probably a tambourine whacker and Bible thumper too.

 

[Gunny]

That depends on your definition of “Natural”. Does “natural” mean “most popular”? Some people (homosexuals) consider it perfectly natural to be more sexually attracted to people of their same sex.

What they "consider," and what biology dictates are two very different things.


I don’t understand what you mean by this paragraph. When you live inside the conforms of society, then you are directly responsible for your actions too. In addition, basically, heterosexuals and homosexuals take responsibility for their actions. You will find exceptions on each side (abusive husbands, risky promiscuous, etc).

I did not imply that those who live within the conforms of society were not responsible for their actions. I merely commented within the context of the argument.

However, those who live WITHIN the conforms of society do not face society's judgement as they do for living outside the conforms of society. Living within society's conforms is pretty-much a non-issue, while living outside them draws society's attention.


The term is homosexual, you homophobic honkey. You cracker. You are probably a tambourine whacker and Bible thumper too.

Nothing homophobic about me, nor my argument, and you know it. I'm also not a Bible thumper and you know THAT too. Let's don't try and pretend you and I haven't been around and around over this issue a bazillion times before, or as if you haven't had you ass kicked by my argument as many times.

And not ONCE, have I used the Bible to defend my stance.

And dude, I don't resemble your pic ... I ain't ugly enough to have to whack ANYTHING.

 

[mattskramer]

Nothing homophobic about me, nor my argument, and you know it. I'm also not a Bible thumper and you know THAT too. Let's don't try and pretend you and I haven't been around and around over this issue a bazillion times before, or as if you haven't had you ass kicked by my argument as many times.

And not ONCE, have I used the Bible to defend my stance.

And dude, I don't resemble your pic ... I ain't ugly enough to have to whack ANYTHING.

Keep dreaming. I knocked down every argument against civil unions that was ever made. Are you hung up on the old naturalistic fallacy? I killed that one too. Are you not a Christian? They are just tambourine whackers. Oh well. By the way, I'm happily married.

 

[Gunny]

Keep dreaming. I knocked down every argument against civil unions that was ever made. Are you hung up on the old naturalistic fallacy? I killed that one too. Are you not a Christian? They are just tambourine whackers. Oh well. By the way, I'm happily married.

I'm afraid you delude yourself. You have not knocked down the "natural" argument since you can't.

Can't say I've ever heard Christians called tambourine whackers. Kinda' 19th century, isn't it?

And yes, I am a Christian but I don't get all caught up in names like you PC folk do.

 

[mattskramer]

I'm afraid you delude yourself. You have not knocked down the "natural" argument since you can't.

See http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/fallacies/naturalistic.asp

The argument tries to draw a conclusion about how things ought to be based on claims concerning what is natural.

See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural

The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

I explained this fallacy many times. Chemotherapy and radiation treatment is not natural but it helps cancer patients. Cancer is a natural part of aging. If you live long enough you will likely get cancer. The next time you get so sick, let nature take its course.

Can't say I've ever heard Christians called tambourine whackers. Kinda' 19th century, isn't it?

Perhaps, but the word “fag” is getting old too. Okay, so you are a Fundie, Holly Roller, or just a Jesus freak.

And yes, I am a Christian but I don't get all caught up in names like you PC folk do.

First of all, I am not a member of the “PC folk”. I am an individual. I do not get caught up in name-calling. I used merely used derogatory terms for “Christian as you used, by proxy, a derogatory term for “Homosexual”. I just stooped, momentarily, to your level to demonstrate your pettiness.

 

[Vintij]

I dont get why christians are so against homosexuality, when king james the first....was an openly gay king. You know, king james, first one to commission and publish the bible in england 1611. If it wasnt for him, you wouldnt have a bible.

 

[mattskramer]

I dont get why christians are so against homosexuality, when king james the first....was an openly gay king. You know, king james, first one to commission and publish the bible in england 1611. If it wasnt for him, you wouldnt have a bible.

Don’t criticize the mailman for giving you bad news. One’s being a hypocrite does not negate one’s advice. It merely means that he does not live up to his own advice. Dr. Laura had an affair. Does that automatically negate her advice on relationships? I think that you should drink 8 cups of water each day and eat 5-6 servings of fruits and vegetables each day. I do not do this. Does this make my advice wrong? No.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I made this post, more as a point of reference, to start discussion, im actually neutral on homosexuality. And not opposed to civil unions, only gay marriage.

Don’t criticize the mailman for giving you bad news. One’s being a hypocrite does not negate one’s advice. It merely means that he does not live up to his own advice. Dr. Laura had an affair. Does that automatically negate her advice on relationships? I think that you should drink 8 cups of water each day and eat 5-6 servings of fruits and vegetables each day. I do not do this. Does this make my advice wrong? No.

 

[Larkinn]

You want to be a fag? Knock yourself out. But don't whine like a bitch when I call you a fag.

No, actually they have a right to speak out against you calling them slurs. Don't call blacks ******* and don't call gays fags. Its just fucking decency.

... When one chooses to live outside the conforms of society, then one is DIRECTLY responsible for the consequences resulting from it. Since you're so worried about the "individual," see if your mind can grasp "individual responsibility for one's actions."

They aren't responsible if there shouldn't be any consequences for it. This blame the victim mentality is fairly disgusting.

If you or anyone else wants to do stupid shit that's clearly wrong sans a dishonest, relativist argument, then someone needs to drag you around by the leash.

Please, explain to me how homosexuality is "stupid shit that's clearly wrong".

 

[Gunny]

No, actually they have a right to speak out against you calling them slurs. Don't call blacks ******* and don't call gays fags. Its just fucking decency.

I don't call blacks *******. But I DO call fags fags.



They aren't responsible if there shouldn't be any consequences for it. This blame the victim mentality is fairly disgusting.

I'm not blaming any victim. I am holding the perpetrator responsible for his/her actions.


Please, explain to me how homosexuality is "stupid shit that's clearly wrong".

Doing the Mattskramer on me? You and I have had this same argument more than once in the past. I think he's wrong. I think you're wrong. Y'all think I'm wrong. Since I know I'm not, I can easily live with you two being wrong.