"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."
Only as it pertains to procreation. In many other instances, evidence points in the opposite direction: that homosexuality is a natural portion of widely diverse human sexual behavior. To limit sexual behavior to reproduction is 'dehumanizing' our sexual nature.
"Heterosexuality is the basis of humanity. It is us and clearly so, whether we procreate or not."
Simply not so. You cannot argue both sides; the biological argument that you use is that heterosexual is more natural biologically. I'm saying that is simply not true, *except* in the case of procreation. If the non-procreation purpose of sexuality is to form a close, intimate physical bond between two people, which I assert, it can and does happen between both homo and heterosexual couples.
"I never once claimed homosexuality leads to bestiality and child abuse"
Sorry, you jumped into this mid-argument. The original poster made such a lame claim; it is standard rightist stuff. That's how we got into the whole 'domino' discussion. His position was that homosexuality led to all sorts of 'bad' behaviors; I think bestiality and man/child love were the examples he cited.
"Here is the evidence: state one valid reason why society should accept homosexuality and not polygamy and bestiality."
Same-sex partners have formed loving life commitments with stable families and strong morales. They have their own children, or adopt, and wish to raise those children in a world that is free from ridicule and scorn, and to enjoy the same rights as other heterosexual married couples. I believe the humanity of the situation in itself, along with the fact that they are not harming each other or other people, makes it evidence enough.
"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.
...
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."
I was raised Catholic. We were taught that only certain people were right, and everyone else was wrong. Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc were all living in sin, and damned to eternal hellfire. I'm sure there were some Catholics, as well as others, who also believed that other religions were all 'wrong'.
However, just because you believe others are dead wrong in their beliefs does not give you the right to take aways *their* rights. That is what tolerance is; accepting the fact that your beliefs are dead opposite of someone elses, and not whacking them over the head because of it.
There are many people who hold beliefs that are not only contrary to yours, but so contrary as to be distasteful. Many religious people cannot stand the thought of atheism. It is so abhorrant to them that their first reaction is that is should not be tolerated. We know, however, that our country was founded on the principle that men (and, now, women :) are free to hold beliefs that are contrary to the majority, and still have their rights protected.
The real issue is: do homosexuals harm others in a way that *requires* the government to take away their rights? |
