Quote:
Originally Posted by Khadra
I'm getting really tired of the "it's not natural" argument. NOBODY has refuted the evidence that suggests it is natural yet, and I've posted it numerous times. Would you please do so? (find evidence below)
And actually, I can and will deny that liberals are trying to change the church. Well maybe some are but I don't think most are. I know I personally couldn't care less what the church does in it's own policies. I just want it to stay the heck out of government. I am all for freedom of religion. Allowing same-sex marriage is not an infringment on religion. However, prohibiting same-sex marriage IS an infringment by the church on the state.
And how on earth can you use religion to back up your point? Yeah the major religions condemn homosexuality, but they are also VERY OLD. Society changes. We learn and GROW. Progress is a good thing. Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't make it right. If you want to live in the past go ahead, but you have no right to make others do the same. Some of us prefer to move on and let people be happy.
I just wanted to say I am a liberal but I absolutely agree with you on this point. How anyone can suggest priests be forced to marry gay couples is beyond me. I hope you realize that poster does not represent the majority of gay rights supporters though.
|
First of all, that quote of mine that you added to, the part about "2000 years of church teaching" and you said "thats a religious argument". Let me clarify, I am using that argument while keeping in mind that the church has built the framework for our laws and constitution. Just to clarify.
And when you say "It is natural". Again, your missing my point. It corrupts the natural order of things. Meaning it changes the definition of "family", and since many laws were created with family moral values in mind it changes our morals as a country.
And let me address your first and last paragraph at the same time. How can you agree with that last statement I made, and also deny that the gays are trying to change to church? I am not saying that they are changing the church in an extreme way, such as forcing priests to marry gays. But they are trying to change it in an indirect way. They are trying to create new age catholics that are ok with gays, almost as if they are writing christian beliefs themselves. If you understand what I am trying to say, if you don't I could try and explain it better, I'm tired and it is late so my effort in this post is lacking.
And your other paragraph, "How could you use religion to back you point", I'm sorry but I almost laughed when I read that. I could use religion because, as you agree, every major religion rejects homosexuality. However, I am only using religion as an argument because of it's parallel and it's role in developing the republic that we live in today. And you say "just because its old doesn't mean its right"... so just because a concept is "new" makes it right? My point is... Governments, Rules, Ideas, ect. have all come and gone, but religion has always been there. So that may or may not hint that there is something to the moral codes of religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khadra
AGAIN with the ignoring of scientific evidence. Seriously, you people who keep saying "it's not natural" have absolutely no credibility. I also don't understand why you are in a debate thread if you are not willing to debate.
|
I don't believe I was speaking to you. You don't have to wait you turn, I just got my reply to you up. I didn't forget
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan
That is discrimination. "You do not have the right" is always discrimination. Either everyone has a right to something, or no one has it. Any attempt to deprive someone of their equality is discrimination, and that's exactly what you're promoting.
So, from what I can tell your two major arguments are as follows:
-Homosexuality is damaging to children and familes
-Homosexuality does not have the favour of the majority in America
I'll argue the second point first, since it's much easier to dispute. You are right; from what I gather homosexuality isn't supported by a majority of Americans. Yet. But if you're appalled by the liberalism on this site, you should realize that this is the tone of our generation. TeenHelp is reasonably representative of our generation, and our generation is the one about to take center stage in the world. More people our age have liberal ideals - morally, if not always politically - than in any generation previous. Soon we all are going to define our culture, and part of that definition will be an emphasis on acceptance and equality despite our differences. Put bluntly, religious bigotry and the people who embrace it are dying out, and good riddance.
As for your assertion that homosexuality destroys family values , I challenge you to back that up with any logical argument. So far you've done nothing but cry about how it's unnatural, which sounds more like a witch-burning mentality than any belonging in the twenty-first century. Whether you admit it or not, your argument against homosexuality is religious. To an atheist, we are incapable of doing anything outside the "natural order", because being ourselves natural anything we do becomes part of that order. Only religion attempts to cling to concepts like absolute right and absolute wrong. The only way you can prove a non-religious argument against homosexuality is by showing how it is harmful to others, not only claiming that it is, and good luck doing that.
|
And a THIRD reply. whew, I'm tired. I'll make this short and sweet. Ill bold and reply, in order...
-It is NOT discrimination, your logic is grossly flawed. Again, there is freedom of religion, and freedom to raise your kids however, see on of my two previous posts for more.
- Thank you
-Well you are willing to admit that the majority doesn't want gay marriage, yet you have faith in our generation. I'll warn you, don't get ahead of yourself. Young people have been liberal as long as free speech has existed. Many grow out of it once they start paying taxes, have a family to raise morally, ect. Not saying you are completely wrong, I'm just saying don't get ahead of yourself.
-AGAIN, you are missing the point. And I have provided logical arguments, its just obvious that you aren't understanding. See my previous to posts for more detail. It disturbs the natural order, it changes the definition of family, and since are country is based on family morals, that can't be good.
-My whole argument is non religious for the the most part. Your not getting it. The mention of religion in my argument is incidental, not required. Do I have to draw a picture for you or what?
All for now, the battle begins tomorrow. Although I am about sick of this topic, but I'll do my best.