Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"However, science tells us that pedophilia is an immutable, unchangeable trait." How long will it be before the homosexuals start pressing for the acceptance of pedophilia since those sick deviants were born that way? How about legalizing sexual relations with farm animals since those perverts were born with those feelings too? Where does society draw that line and say, enough already?????
While treatment cannot eliminate a pedophile’s sexual interests, a combination of cognitive-behavioral therapy and medication can help him to manage urges and avoid committing crimes.
That means there will always be a statistical risk of any random pedophile-in-treatment acting out. The flip side, of course, is that your child runs a statistical risk of being a victim of a horrific and preventable crime. But that's the sacrifice we have to make to live in an Open Society.
No fault divorce already destroyed the sanctity of marriage. If heterosexuals are not allowed to get married twice, except widows and widowers, then I could see at least a logical consistency from a biblical perspective.
"However, science tells us that pedophilia is an immutable, unchangeable trait." How long will it be before the homosexuals start pressing for the acceptance of pedophilia since those sick deviants were born that way? How about legalizing sexual relations with farm animals since those perverts were born with those feelings too? Where does society draw that line and say, enough already?????
Yet, you surely don't worry about how long it will be before heterosexual school teachers will get the right to have sex with their students without being fired, or charged with a sex crime.
As for farm animals, how long do you think it will be before they evolve the ability to sign a marriage license?
No fault divorce already destroyed the sanctity of marriage. If heterosexuals are not allowed to get married twice, except widows and widowers, then I could see at least a logical consistency from a biblical perspective.
That's just it! It was non-religious groups who made divorce on command a reality. Anyone worth their salt, when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, will work through their issues. The phrase "before God and these witnesses I promise to be a faithful and true wife/husband till death do us part" is a vow, not just words.
I'm proud to have been married almost 35 years now. I was raised by a divorced mother and I swore, from a very young age, that when I married I would do whatever it took to remain married to that person.
It hasn't been easy, not by a longshot, but we have both remained together and in love through all of the storms. Marriage is very important to us.
Yet, you surely don't worry about how long it will be before heterosexual school teachers will get the right to have sex with their students without being fired, or charged with a sex crime.
As for farm animals, how long do you think it will be before they evolve the ability to sign a marriage license?
The what is exactly different between a civil union vs civil marriage? If you are saying they are not equal then you saying that there is more to marriage beyond just a recognized union. If it is just a word, civil union should be good enough.
But no, this is about forcing society to recognize your union and treat it as being just as natural and normal as a man and a woman forming a bond.
Did you even read what I wrote? Civil unions were banned along with marriage and domestic partnerships. IS THAT CLEAR? It has been said over and over, no form of recongition was allowed us due to religious objection, so how can you say civil unions were ever an option?
Why do most lesbian women have a history of male partners then?
Most? What citations have you for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Freedom of religion is a right too, ya know. Yet under the banner of discrimination, the government has created laws prohibiting the free exercise of the baker's faith.
That is false. They are creating laws with the aim of preventing discrimination. Laws that apply to everyone of all faiths or no faith at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
But no, this is about forcing society to recognize your union and treat it as being just as natural and normal as a man and a woman forming a bond.
No it is about recognizing that there is one institution at the society level and that there is no reason to discriminate access to that institution based on the sex of the people obtaining it.
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 Of course they do not choose the temptation to engage in homosexual conduct. But they do choose to act on those temptations and they do choose to engage in a full-blown lifestyle centered around their sexual activities.
Actually, they are for many millions of religious (lft and right) people. Like I said earlier, why is there a problem differentiating marriage (man and a woman) and a civil union (man and a man, man and a woman, woman and a woman) if they both retain the exact same benefits?
AND, why is it that their lives are centered entirely around their sexual appetites?
If a heterosexual based his or her entire life around it, every waking moment, most people would agree they have a mental problem. Yet, somehow it's acceptable for homosexuals?
Why?
Procreation is of great importance to an expanding society, which is necessary for economic expansion. Didn't you get the memo?
Look up! Why must it be called "marriage" if marriage is a religious belief? Seems to me the only argument against calling them civil unions is to slight those who are religious.
Debasing a formal religious ceremony which has been around for millenia is just a slap in the face, even to those who are religious but do accept homosexuality. It's one thing to gain acceptance, and quite another to force it and then rub peoples noses in it for their efforts.
And procreation happens, regular, with or without marriage vows,(which do not contain any promises to bear or sire children ) or, didn't YOU get the memo, prairie dog? Getting married doesn't come with any obligation, societal or otherwise, to bring children into the world. Procreation is not something that can be placed on marriage as some sort of standard, defining it as such. If that has happened, no, I didn't get the memo.
AND, why is it that their lives are centered entirely around their sexual appetites?
Errrr, they dont. Where did you pull this one from? I see no reason to think sex is any more (or less) important in their monogamous committed relationships that in yours or my monogamous committed relationships.
One of the biggest barriers to LGBT rights in America is the fact the two sides disagree over what homosexuality even is.
In the eyes of many conservatives, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Because it's a choice, they believe its their right to discriminate against those who make that choice. To them, marriage equality isn't equality, its a special privilege granted to those who choose a relationship other than that of the norm. To them, the homosexual could simply marry someone of the opposite gender and would be equal. The thing is, if their definition of homosexuality was correct, they would have some very valid points.
However, science tells us something different. It tells us that sexual orientation is an immutable, unchangeable trait. It tells us that it isn't any different from gender or race. Sexual orientation, like gender identity, is at the core of who a person is. Even if a gay man never has a relationship with another man he is still gay. Therefore, refusing to serve them or allow them to marry because of an immutable characteristic is in fact discrimination on the same level as race or gender discrimination. Conversion therapy does not work because you cannot change an immutable characteristic. Even ex-gay "success stories" will usually admit they still experience some degree of unwanted same-sex attraction. If the conservatives were right and it was a choice, why would that be?
Until conservatives are willing to accept the science that says sexual orientation is an immutable trait, they will not support LGBT rights. They will cling to the idea that its a choice to justify their discrimination and disgust.
I think many conservatives know sexual orientation is not a matter of choice (although I do not agree that it is unchangeable like race and other genetically determined properties), but they don't know how to reconcile that with their old-testament worldview. So they pretend it is a choice, or a disease. When they look at it as a choice, they can get rid of their moral dilemma and turn it into the guilt of others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..... ... ...
