>> I believe that a union between gay people can be every bit as strong and mutually benefitial as a heterosexual union <<
beneficial to whom? certainly not society. if homosexual unions are so beneficial to society i would assume you wouldn't have any problem with our entire society becoming homosexual? if something is beneficial it should be encouraged. how is it beneficial to society to encourage homosexuality?
>> I believe the gay unions I've seen are in fact stronger and more monogamous than the average heterosexual union, but that may simply be my own observation. <<
i'm not arguing whether it's beneficial to the couple. i'm arguing whether it's beneficial to society. of course not. if it was beneficial to society we would want to encourage its practice as much as possible. if our society was to adopt the practice i'm not sure which would kill us first--aids or lack of pregnancy. either way, it's clear that there is nothing to be gained from an encouragement of homosexuality.
>> Unlike the abortion issue, I truly do not understand the opposition argument to allowing homosexual marriage. The main argument seems to be something along the lines of 'brainwashing our youth' and 'destroying the family unit'. <<
that is exactly what the gay mafia seeks to do. brainwash our children and destroy the family unit. nice characterization.
>> My first question is: what happened to free choice? <<
you're absolutely right. how about that free choice? by golly i want to marry my sister--shouldn't that be my choice? i want to marry five women, shouldn't that be my choice? let's just make marriage mean absolutely nothing, because it means everything!
>> Aren't people allowed to choose their religious belief, their political belief, their taste in home furnishings? <<
wasn't it you who told me you can't choose a religious belief that says it's ok to kill people? well our society has taken the position that you can't have a "religion" where it's ok to practice polygamy or same sex marriages.
>> Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose their sexual preferences? <<
i never said gays couldn't choose to prefer who they wanted to sodomize. i simply said society doesn't have an obligation to recognize or sanctify that type of behavior if it deems it immoral or detrimental to the community.
>> I get occasional visits from Christian groups and Mormon missionaries hoping to convert me to their faith. Are they trying to brainwash me? <<
why don't you ask them? i cannot answer this question.
>> Why is sexual preference, when practiced privately between consenting adults, the subject of special treatment? <<
everything we were discussing had to do with public--not private. marriage is a public institution. so is adoption, the military, and indoctrination of the gay lifestyle in public education.
>> Since when does your particular brand of religion hold sway over those who choose not to follow it? <<
when does society's "particular brand of religion hold sway over those" whose religion says it's ok to murder people? isn't that the example you offered earlier?
>> As far as the alleged attack on the family unit, what does that really mean? Why would a homosexual union not be considered a strong family unit? <<
umm, maybe because homosexuals spread the deadly disease aids, have much shorter lifespans as a result, and don't perpetuate the culture by having babies. that's just for starters.
>> And, if you're so worried about the effects on children of such a union, <<
first of all, such a union doesn't provide children. it provides disease.
>> what about single parents? What about parents of religions that you also deem unacceptable? Should we disallow single parent families or non-traditional families because they don't fit your mold of a family unit? <<
the whole point you don't seem to get is, society cannot force someone who is single to not have a baby. just the same, society cannot force homos to refrain from their blasphemous behavior. these things have nothing to do with what we are discussing, because i told you they are circumstances which society cannot control. however, society can control who we grant a marriage license to, who should be able to adopt, and so forth.
>> Now, the argument seems to fall back to indoctrination of children. Here, I agree that children are special, and need to be prepared for the impact of certain bad influences. But I believe it is up to the parents what are bad influences, and how they will handle them <<
society has a right to decide that the community as a whole should be empowered to help parents protect children from negative influences. parents cannot always be there to protect their kids and so they have a reasonable expectation that society will protect children when they are not there to do it themselves.
>> Unfortunately, what one person considers bad, another finds acceptable <<
that's why society elects representatives in a democratic fashion. so the people's will can be expressed to shape the community standards. this is basic stuff we are covering here.
>> Short of locking our kids away, we as parents need to prepare our children for the reality of life, instead of filling them with misinformation <<
what are you talking about? what misinformation?
>> We teach our children that everyone is different, and defaming a person based on those differences is wrong <<
how about terrorists? are they just "different"? how about murderers, rapists, pedophiles, drug pushers, etc? are they just "different" and not better or worse?
>> I need to guide my child towards goodness and tolerance while preparing her for the reality of hateful people <<
so do you guide your child towards goodness and tolerance of bin laden?
>> I therefore believe that it is every parent's duty to properly prepare their child for real life, which includes a wide variety of beliefs <<
i see. so in other words you don't want to expose your kids to only good beliefs, but evil beliefs as well? so tell me something. there are terrorists out in this world. there are gays, drug pushers, pedophiles, etc. if you expose your children to all this wicked behavior along with everything else, how is your child going to choose the right beliefs to hold? after all, he has such a plethora of choices! he just might like the thought of pushing drugs or becoming a homo. maybe he will decide on becoming another johnny taliban! it is people like you who breed the johnny walkers of this world. how sad.
>> But to attempt to restrict someone's right to choose a union that brings them joy and fulfillment <<
i didn't say i was restricting the right of homos to engage in their sick, depraved behavior. i said society doesn't have to recognize that behavior as acceptable however. i don't know why you have such a hard time understanding the distinction.
>> I don't give a iota what your opinion of homosexuality is. It becomes my business when you attempt to impose that opinion on others by restricting their rights. <<
there you go again. i can tell logic is not your strong suit. marriage is not a right. adoption is not a right. serving in the military is not a right. yet you keep trying to say that my views advocate restricting someone else's "rights". apparently that is the only way you can refute my views--mischaracterize them.
>> In the above paragraph, are you comfortable with substituting "black/asian/hispanic person" for "homosexual"? <<
of course not. because homosexuality is a behavior, and a person's race or nationality is not a behavior.
>> If so, you are at least consistent <<
you are the one is who is inconsistent--not i. you are trying to compare a behavior to something beyond one's control. if you are black you will wake up every day of your life being black. you can wake up one day and choose to either engage in homosexuality, or refrain from it. see the difference?
>> In certain cases, like private clubs, it is within your rights. In others, like hiring and housing, it is breaking the law. <<
the government telling me i have to respect or hire someone who engages in behavior that my religion teaches me is morally wrong infringes on my rights to free exercise of religion.
>> This is a tough one, and touches many possibilities. I believe that there are certain proprieties that need to be respected <<
why some and not others? why yours and not mine?
>> You don't perform certain bodily functions, or sexual acts, in public <<
says who? who are you to tell me i can't engage in those activities in public! going to the bathroom and engaging in sex are all natural functions people engage in. by what right or authority do you tell me i can't do them in public?
>> Nudity in public, except in well marked private areas, is also a taboo <<
i'm not stupid, i realize it's taboo. i am asking you to explain why it's taboo.
>> However, I don't see what is wrong with innocuous displays of affection between same-sex partners. <<
i see. so aren't you imposing or thrusting your religion or version of morality onto others when you allow homos to kiss but not people to prance around naked? who died and left you in charge?
>> The same degree of public affection should be allowed for both hetero and homosexual couples. <<
so you think it's ok whether it's homos or heteros to kiss someone on the face in public. maybe i believe that homos or heteros should be able to kiss each other on the genitals in public. where do you draw the line?
>> I believe that the choice of union is a right and carries with it certain privileges <<
you are seriously confused. privileges imply some sort of benefit or favor others do not enjoy. as soon as you make the claim everyone has a right, how can anyone be privileged?
>> What if the majority decided that racially mixed marriages were unacceptable (as it did back in the unenlightened times)? <<
i have already gone over this before. people don't have any control of their skin color, but they do choose whether or not to engage in homosexuality.
>> Does majority rule cover instances such as this? What if the majority decides that the Islamic faith cannot be practiced in America? <<
the constitution protects the free exercise of religion. if society wants to amend the constitution then so be it.
>> If you believe that Hitler was elected in a democracy, then I believe you have a very funny definition of the term. <<
i just knew this would open another can of worms. now we are going to resort to a debate about was hitler elected in a democracy or not.
>> Based on your selected quotes, you seem to believe that the Founding Fathers wished for a Christian-only society <<
well that is what our nation was founded on. our money does not say "in allah we trust"
>> If so, then you must believe that we should outlaw all other religions, and deport anyone who practices them <<
i have come to expect this sort of low-level logic from you. why am i not surprised you would jump to a conclusion like that.
>> If not, then you must believe that they meant that society should be tolerant of different beliefs and practices. <<
so a society should be tolerant of murderers, pedophiles, rapists, etc? after all those are different "practices" are they not?
>> The definition of morality has changed since the founding of the nation. Homosexuality was prohibited, but so were womens and minorities rights <<
so just because women and minorities have gained rights, liberals are bored and are moving onto homosexuals. soon it will be rights for pedophiles. rights for children, rights for everyone to do whatever they please. that is the trouble with liberalism. as robert bork said, it is an unstable agenda. as soon as one set of shackles binding the individual are broken, you bump right up against the next set. liberals get right to work on breaking down the next set until there are no restrictions on individuals left. |
