Athletes in favor of gay marriage rights

#176
#176
sjt18 said:
Correct. You cannot prove a negative. The problem with what you say is that the onus is on them or their supporters to prove it is biological. More that 50 years of research has failed to do that.
Click to expand...

So the onus is on you to prove that your belief system that finds them to be "evil" is legitimate. And you can't, because it is a faith-based belief system by it's own account. So what are we even arguing about, here? You go on thinking they're evil (like you think heathens like me are evil), and we treat them the same as everyone else as a government. Freedom and equality is a beautiful thing. It's protecting you and your beliefs from any wackos that come down the line later, when your beliefs are no longer held by 50% of the population.
 
#177
#177
IPorange said:
So the onus is on you to prove that your belief system that finds them to be "evil" is legitimate. And you can't, because it is a faith-based belief system by it's own account. So what are we even arguing about, here? You go on thinking they're evil (like you think heathens like me are evil), and we treat them the same as everyone else as a government. Freedom and equality is a beautiful thing. It's protecting you and your beliefs from any wackos that come down the line later, when your beliefs are no longer held by 50% of the population.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that rapture will have happened before >50% agree with his beliefs.
 
#179
#179
IPorange said:
So the onus is on you to prove that your belief system that finds them to be "evil" is legitimate. And you can't, because it is a faith-based belief system by it's own account. So what are we even arguing about, here? You go on thinking they're evil (like you think heathens like me are evil), and we treat them the same as everyone else as a government. Freedom and equality is a beautiful thing. It's protecting you and your beliefs from any wackos that come down the line later, when your beliefs are no longer held by 50% of the population.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant. When his beliefs are no longer held...rapture will have already occurred!
 
#180
#180
KiffinKiller said:
That's what I meant. When his beliefs are no longer held...rapture will have already occurred!
Click to expand...

The demographics show otherwise. The US is actually becoming the only religious western nation left, and even here if the trends hold they will be in the minority by 2035.
 
#181
#181
sjt18 said:
I am a pretty religious guy by the standard here... and I do not think it should be protected either. An atheist should not have to hire a Baptist nor respect the practice of their religion on his property or in his business... same for any other pov. Religion is clearly a choice for both parties in any private association. The rights of one side should not be subordinated to the other. We have the freedom to believe and practice a religion... just not on someone else's property or in their business.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that they should be able to discriminate, but but the reality is if they are found to discriminate in hiring based on religion, they will be in big doo-doo. Religious preference is protected. So why shouldn't other lifestyle preferences be protected?
 
#182
#182
nbakerld said:
I agree with you that they should be able to discriminate, but but the reality is if they are found to discriminate in hiring based on religion, they will be in big doo-doo. Religious preference is protected. So why shouldn't other lifestyle preferences be protected?
Click to expand...

Two wrongs.... still don't make a "Right".

Are you really comfortable putting sexuality in the same category or on the same level as religion?

That overzealous protection of religion was justified unfortunately on a perversion of the concept of individual rights. Using such logic as the basis for another fabricated "right" helps nothing.
 
#183
#183
sjt18 said:
Two wrongs.... still don't make a "Right".

Are you really comfortable putting sexuality in the same category or on the same level as religion?
Click to expand...

I am not sure exactly how to answer this. I want to say 'no', but only because I think sexual orientation should be put on a higher level than religion.
 
#184
#184
sjt18 said:
Two wrongs.... still don't make a "Right".

Are you really comfortable putting sexuality in the same category or on the same level as religion?
Click to expand...

It became necessary because sexuality has become an issue viewed through the prism of religion.

I think sexuality is actually in need of more protection than religion.
 
#185
#185
sjt18 said:
Two wrongs.... still don't make a "Right".

Are you really comfortable putting sexuality in the same category or on the same level as religion?

That overzealous protection of religion was justified unfortunately on a perversion of the concept of individual rights. Using such logic as the basis for another fabricated "right" helps nothing.
Click to expand...

I am only comparing them in the sense that they are both lifestyle choices.

Like I have said, I believe the private sector should legally be able to discriminate, but since they can't discriminate, I support equal protection from discrimination for all. That being said, the topic is about public sector recognition of marriage, and government most certainly should not be able to discriminate.
 
#186
#186
IPorange said:
sjt, I'm not going to bother discussing anything genetic with you. It's futile. You're the one who claimed all genetic pools are degenerating, correct?
Click to expand...
No. I am repeating the claims of people who study population genetics.

Genes aren't just hard-coded for one or a set of specific things. They interact with each other because each is a simple command that may or may not interact, supersede, or cancel out another command. Who knows?
Click to expand...
You are now supporting the idea that it isn't genetic? OR are you claiming that homosexuality is the product of some mutation or malfunction?

Also, I don't think the "homosexuality isn't evil" position hinges on it being proven to be genetic.
Click to expand...

I never said it was. In fact, it has absolutely no bearing. IF it were proven beyond all doubt that the inclination was biological... That would NOT compel homosexual behavior.

Regardless of the source of the desires, the behavior itself is chosen.
 
#188
#188
sjt18 said:
No. I am repeating the claims of people who study population genetics.

You are now supporting the idea that it isn't genetic? OR are you claiming that homosexuality is the product of some mutation or malfunction?



I never said it was. In fact, it has absolutely no bearing. IF it were proven beyond all doubt that the inclination was biological... That would NOT compel homosexual behavior.

Regardless of the source of the desires, the behavior itself is chosen.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous, on all accounts.
 
#189
#189
IPorange said:
It became necessary because sexuality has become an issue viewed through the prism of religion.

I think sexuality is actually in need of more protection than religion.
Click to expand...

That's because you have no sensitivity regarding intrusions on religious rights. IIRC, you had no problem with the notion that religious liberties would be curtailed in the name of "homosexual rights".

What "protection" are you talking about? Where are these abuses and such taking place? Is there widespread and pervasive violence or discrimination taking place that I don't know about? Is their property being seized? Have their speech rights been denied? Have their phones been tapped? Have their businesses been raided or shut down?

I have lived in a pretty conservative midwest area for a few years now. I have worked with openly homosexual people in "small town America". People do not agree with their choice. Some people do not interact with them outside of work. But there's NO evidence that people mistreat them at work OR that their careers have been harmed.

It is not "protecting" to make them a special class and foist them onto people who disagree with them. It is not "protecting" to have gov't make new "rights" for them. It is not "protecting" to force the people of the various states to qualify them for a marriage license.
 
#191
#191
sjt18 said:
That's because you have no sensitivity regarding intrusions on religious rights. IIRC, you had no problem with the notion that religious liberties would be curtailed in the name of "homosexual rights".

What "protection" are you talking about? Where are these abuses and such taking place? Is there widespread and pervasive violence or discrimination taking place that I don't know about? Is their property being seized? Have their speech rights been denied? Have their phones been tapped? Have their businesses been raided or shut down?

I have lived in a pretty conservative midwest area for a few years now. I have worked with openly homosexual people in "small town America". People do not agree with their choice. Some people do not interact with them outside of work. But there's NO evidence that people mistreat them at work OR that their careers have been harmed.

It is not "protecting" to make them a special class and foist them onto people who disagree with them. It is not "protecting" to have gov't make new "rights" for them. It is not "protecting" to force the people of the various states to qualify them for a marriage license.
Click to expand...

married couples have protection under the law (whether it domestic benefits, taxes, estate protection, healthcare decisions) that non married people do not.
 
#192
#192
sjt18 said:
That's because you have no sensitivity regarding intrusions on religious rights. IIRC, you had no problem with the notion that religious liberties would be curtailed in the name of "homosexual rights".

What "protection" are you talking about? Where are these abuses and such taking place? Is there widespread and pervasive violence or discrimination taking place that I don't know about? Is their property being seized? Have their speech rights been denied? Have their phones been tapped? Have their businesses been raided or shut down?

I have lived in a pretty conservative midwest area for a few years now. I have worked with openly homosexual people in "small town America". People do not agree with their choice. Some people do not interact with them outside of work. But there's NO evidence that people mistreat them at work OR that their careers have been harmed.

It is not "protecting" to make them a special class and foist them onto people who disagree with them. It is not "protecting" to have gov't make new "rights" for them. It is not "protecting" to force the people of the various states to qualify them for a marriage license.
Click to expand...

What religious liberties will be infringed upon?
 
#195
#195
IPorange said:
What religious liberties will be infringed upon?
Click to expand...

Property rights, right of association, right to self determination for states, free speech, freedom of religion especially with regard to neutral education in public schools,...

Some activists are honest enough to say this is about imposing acceptance. That is not your right or their right or the gov't's right.
 
#198
#198
sjt18 said:
Property rights, right of association, right to self determination for states, free speech, freedom of religion especially with regard to neutral education in public schools,...

Some activists are honest enough to say this is about imposing acceptance. That is not your right or their right or the gov't's right.
Click to expand...

Why does this sound like anti-desegregation reasoning?

And lol at "neutral" education meaning no mentioning of homosexuality.
 
#200
#200
sjt18 said:
Property rights, right of association, right to self determination for states, free speech, freedom of religion especially with regard to neutral education in public schools,...

Some activists are honest enough to say this is about imposing acceptance. That is not your right or their right or the gov't's right.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the only reason Christians have these rights are because we discriminate against gays?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top