>> You are personally opposed to homosexuality, obviously, and it seems to be causing you to build an argument that society must oppose it <<
in general people strive to have society share the same moral beliefs they do. do you think it serves a society to have widely diverging views of morality? i think not. consensus is preferred. so of course i would like to see society agree with me that homosexuality is wrong and should be opposed.
>> Your disdain, possibly even hatred, for homosexuals is clouding your logic <<
what if i replaced homosexuality with terrorism? does your disdain, possibly hatred, of terrorism cloud your logic? does simply showing disdain or hatred for something automatically result in your logic being clouded? i don't think so.
>> You consistently argue for upholding the rights of individuals, except homosexuals <<
i don't know what you're talking about. it is you who has spoke incessantly about the rights of individuals, not i. i have spoke about the privileges homosexuals seek, not rights.
>> Your argument boils down to non-acceptance by the majority <<
just like your argument for no public sex boiled down to non-acceptance by the majority. forgive me if i followed your logic!
>> The Constitution was specifically designed to prevent this type of argument <<
then i guess you can expect to see homosexuals copulating in the park in front of your kids. you still haven't given me a good reason why this is unacceptable.
>> The beauty of our three-tiered system of government is that there is a judicial system that specifially prevents what you are trying to accomplish: <<
oh my. don't even get me started on how federal judges and the supreme court have perverted our justice system and trampled on the constitution. one argument at a time.
>> the removal of rights from a specific minority. <<
i'm sure it would only be a minority of people who would actually want to engage in sexual relations in public. aren't you seeking to take away their rights when you advocate laws against that? should the judicial system step in to protect this minority view?
>> Equating pedophiles and homosexuals is a weak non-argument. More pedophiles are heterosexual than homosexual <<
i don't know if this is true or not, but it has no bearing on any of my arguments.
>> Pedophilia is definitely a victim crime, <<
how is there a victim if the child consents?
>> whereas homosexuality is mutually consenting. <<
ok, if homosexuals can give consent, then homosexuality is a choice. if homosexuality is a choice, then it is not like being black, or asian, etc. and does not fall under the same protections as race--which clearly is not a choice. so make up your mind. |
