Question for those who believe homosexuality is immoral. (morals, beliefs)

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Mostly Jehovah's witness but I know quite a bit about christianity as well... See there I go answering your attacks on my intellect when you just side stepped an easy question... If Now is a disappointing time to be a christian... your words... WHEN was it a good time to be one?

Actually, to an extent I agree with you. Christians are human, just like everybody else. The fact that imperfections can be used as an argument against the morality of a religion is the religion's own fault for pretending to be a flawless and superhuman entity. It's not. Christianity may have an incredible message for humanity, but that message is in the hands of a race of people that are, by nature, prone to mistakes and imperfection.

So really, Christianity is a constant state of disappointment. My own faith is one of constant disappointment. As Paul said, "That which I love I do not do, and that which I hate I do." That's totally how it is for everyone, and Christianity as a religion is no exception.

It's interesting to question whether or not more people would be drawn to Christianity if its leaders simply acknowledged that they make mistakes and sometimes even do damage to God's perfect plan.

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Starfish

Still no one is budging. What's the point?

I agree with what Tom said, too.

One of the points is to do our best to change the mindset that it's ok to discriminate against people based solely on their sexuality or other irrelevant attribute. The point is to try to teach people to treat others as they'd like to be treated. At least that's my point. What's yours?

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by tomspug

This seems to be a common LDS point of view. Is the sole point of debate to force people into your own opinions? Don't you think there is any value in understanding the point of view of people whose opinion differs from yours?

By not doing that, you're choosing to assume that you are automatically right before the conversation even starts. A wise person would automatically accept that the possibility that they are completely wrong and start there.

There might be a point if we were covering new ground. This topic has been thrashed to death in multiple threads.

I do believe I'm right; so do you.
Inspite of my opinions, if you check my posts, I have tried to stay respectful to both sides. I just don't see any reason to keep beating this any further. However, it will probably continue on, so I'll just step out.

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Starfish

There might be a point if we were covering new ground. This topic has been thrashed to death in multiple threads.

I do believe I'm right; so do you.
Inspite of my opinions, if you check my posts, I have tried to stay respectful to both sides. I just don't see any reason to keep beating this any further. However, it will probably continue on, so I'll just step out.

Of course you don't see any reason to keep beating it any further. It doesn't really affect you. If it was illegal to practice Mormonism in the U.S., and the subject had been addressed several times before, without any progress towards you being able to practice your religion, wouldn't you continue to argue it until you changed the mindset that didn't allow you your rights?

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by Starfish

There might be a point if we were covering new ground. This topic has been thrashed to death in multiple threads.

I do believe I'm right; so do you.
Inspite of my opinions, if you check my posts, I have tried to stay respectful to both sides. I just don't see any reason to keep beating this any further. However, it will probably continue on, so I'll just step out.

The reason these same arguments get rehashed is because people can't get it through their skulls that their religious beliefs are irrelevant to those who don't believe in them, it doesn't concern them, and therefore there is no justification for them to be bound and restricted by laws based solely on those religious beliefs. Why is that so hard to understand?

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Our nation has a demand and a requirement to treat everyone as equals and with equal rights IRREGARDLESS of their race, creed and taste in bed.

Our nation gives extra rights and legal power to married people.

They can not deny those rights to same sex life long partners. Legally or morally the law is clear.

Your bigoted, one minded intolerence got boring pages ago when I stopped responding to you. You dont like them then dont SEAL them... this is not a religious matter. This is a justice of the peace and an individual rights matter. If everyone in this country thinks and agrees and votes that gays should not be married and be able to enjoy the same rights as any other married couple then the supreme court should still rules that gays can be married if the matter went that far. All men were created equal. (And women too!)

As card Stated in his Article

Frankly, I find that this quickly turns into a delicious hypocrisy: Those whose agenda is "tolerance" and who insist that ugly words like ****** not be used against them have found an exactly analogous word to use as a weapon in their virulent intolerance of those who disapprove of either their behavior or their political agenda. They use the word to silence opposition, to subvert legitimate discussion. Those who use the word this way are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they are willing to deny the right of others to disagree with them. Thus, in the name of tolerance of diversity, they seek to force others into a perfect uniformity of thought. The fascism of the left is no more attractive than the fascism of the right.

using terms like Bigot only further your own fanatacism.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by mball1297

It's still all of the same stuff. He might have said it differently, but it's all based on the same fallacies. I never knew Card was an LDS, but the point still stands that all of the arguments against homosexuality are fallacies. There's nothing hypocritical about supporting homosexuality. The only hypocrisy comes from the opposition of it.

See? this is exactly the fanatacism he talks about in this article.

Those who use the word this way are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they are willing to deny the right of others to disagree with them.

youa re claiming by your statement that anything that does not support Homosexuality is hypocrisy when it is far from any such a thing.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

No one is arguing your religious view... You can condemn them in your church, not seal them or recognize their marriages... whatever.

In the world outside of LDS there is a nation. It grants rights to people and declares it will treat them all as equals. Gays are people and have the same rights.

In america that is. Call it a civil union if it makes you feel better. But its equality their after and acceptance. Not heaven or hell but if they choose to believe in those Im sure another religion besides LDS would be happy to have them.

Morals have dicated our laws from the beginning and most of them are rooted in Jeudo-Chrisitanity.

It is wrong to condemn someone from bringing thier religious views to a debate, considering the fact that religious views have dictated the outcome of many issues in the country.

there are those who feel that religion is "outdated" or "wrong". But communities form thier entire social fabric on morals, mainly morals rooted in some religious belief.

Alot of you try to play the "race" card and say that youa re being opressed just like blacks were in the '50s. You cannot compare Race to homosexuality because Race is not a behavior.

homosexuality is a behavior. Being black is not. being male or female is not a behavior.

we punish people who do not conform to our moral standards in society, look at the Laws. Killing is Immoral, yet we have laws against it to punish those who do it. Having feelings of contempt and a desire to murder someone is not against the law when it is controlled and not acted upon.

both are Moral issues, and it's the homosexual minority that is trying to lower the standards of American morals.

They simply are not merely wanting just "rights"...

Rather they are seeking to enforce acceptance of their sexual liaisons as having equal validity with heterosexual marriages, to the point of having legal rights as spouses, the right to adopt children, and the right to insist that their behavior be taught to children in public schools as a completely acceptable "alternative lifestyle." It does not take a homophobe to recognize how destructive such a program will be in a society already reeling from the terrible consequences of "no-fault" divorce, social tolerance of extramarital promiscuity, and failing to protect our adolescents until they can channel their sexual passions in a socially productive way.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Of course you don't see any reason to keep beating it any further. It doesn't really affect you. If it was illegal to practice Mormonism in the U.S., and the subject had been addressed several times before, without any progress towards you being able to practice your religion, wouldn't you continue to argue it until you changed the mindset that didn't allow you your rights?

We never had to, We just moved away from where we were not wanted.

It was mormons that pioneered the path to the Pacific Coast. They settled the desert where nobody else wanted to live, and allowed it to thrive into an ever-increasing population.

We never got in people's face and demanded acceptance by rioting or picketing. We moved away and then people realized that we had even higher standards than the rest of the country.

We never had to lobby for acceptance.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

The reason these same arguments get rehashed is because people can't get it through their skulls that their religious beliefs are irrelevant to those who don't believe in them, it doesn't concern them, and therefore there is no justification for them to be bound and restricted by laws based solely on those religious beliefs. Why is that so hard to understand?

"It is hard to make a case for the naturalness of such an obviously counter-evolutionary trend as same-sex mating." - Orson Scott Card

It is extremely counter-evolutionary.