Here, my friend, is, after all the 'dominos' and 'nature' arguments, the real crux of our differences. You believe that homosexuality is contrary, contrary to nature, contrary to biology, contrary to morality.
It is not a mere belief. It is objective fact. You simply cannot point to anything in nature that has homosexuality as its basis. But you may refer even to your own fundamental structure to see heterosexuality. That objectively demonstrates that homosexual is foreign to human nature.
I do not believe it is a human corruption…
Whether you believe it or not, the fact of its corruption is available to you and to every single sentient being on our planet. It is an objective fact of nature.
Exactly. Same with homosexuality. You maintain that there is no reasonable link between 'religion' and these corruptions and evils. I maintain that also, although you and others argue the reverse with regards to homosexuality ie homosexuality leads to beastiality and child abuse.
Dear me, Kevin. You certainly do corrupt your opponent’s positions. I never once claimed homosexuality leads to bestiality and child abuse. I even said some child abuse can be discounted, given the fact that “abuse” is present. My contention is that once you throw away the basis of human society, to instead accept human corruptions such as homosexuality, you have no logical grounds at all for denying the same acceptance to bestiality and polygamy. And that is absolutely true. You cannot logically reject polygamy and bestiality without the same rejection applying to homosexuality. This is the case because homosexuality, bestiality and polygamy are all human corruptions in the same order.
This is the key flaw of the domino argument; there must be an *established connection* between the dominos. I know of no evidence that links homosexuality in itself to child abuse or beastiality.
Here is the evidence: state one valid reason why society should accept homosexuality and not polygamy and bestiality. If no one can do this, then it is objectively apparent that homosexuality, bestiality and polygamy are all of the same species of human corruptions.
You must not either, since you haven't presented evidence of such a link.
I have repeatedly given the evidence. You simply are unable to get beneath it – likely because the evidence is in your own flesh.
You've tried to demonstrate it with an argument about being against biology that really didn't go anywhere. Humans engage in a lot of behaviour that 'goes against biology', sexual and non-sexual. Being against our 'scientific biology' is simply not a measure of humanity.
Mercy. Listen to yourself. If an act is contrary to our fundamental biological nature, then by definition it is contrary to human nature.
In fact, you have narrowly defined our 'biology' as being procreation.
I have done no such thing. I have defined our biology as that fundamental scheme without which humanity cannot exist. That scheme defines us in nature because it is the very initial thing that brings us into being at the moment of conception. Heterosexuality is the basis of humanity. It is us and clearly so, whether we procreate or not.
There are many sexual acts and many people who engage in sex not for the purpose of procreation...
You’ve simply failed to understand my position.
Well, I'm glad you acknowledge my freedom to hold these beliefs. I ask no one to accept these beliefs, just as I don't ask anyone to accept my particular religious beliefs. THAT is the definition of tolerance. Tolerance is *not* acceptance; it is (from dictionary.com): "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."
To force others to ‘recognize and even respect the beliefs or practices of others’ is to force them to accept those beliefs and practices within their sphere of life and influence. That is a crime against humanity, especially when you use the might of law to force acceptance of something that is foreign. Recognition and respect are voluntary actions. You have no natural right to force others to grant them.
…reexamine your views of religious and human tolerance. I believe that are government, as the practical representation of society, is responsible for drawing the line between behaviors that are individual rights and harmful to others. Once that line is drawn, it is our duty to tolerate others who hold beliefs that are contrary to ours.
But it is not our duty to tolerate others who use the might of law to force toleration of that which is against human nature. That is what you do. It is a crime of the most barbarous sort, though you think you are being “open minded.” Well the “tolerance” you force upon me today, will certainly come back to eat you alive tomorrow. It always does.
As long as families of same-sex partners continue to lose their rights as parents and partners because of intolerance, you'll see people fight for those civil rights.
They may fight and even win those “rights” temporarily. But since homosexual “families” cannot possibly exist in nature, and since homosexuals naturally have no civil rights flowing to them as a result of their sexuality, then they are already doomed. Nature will have her way. |
