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.
Morality is the issue. The majority will decide. That is, things you find disgusting now can very well be openly accepted in the future with a majority based society.
Also, slavery wasn't abolished by a single law dictated to the masses. It was abolished by majority acceptance. Remember, might makes right here. If you attempt to proclaim an ultimate truth with slavery, then you assume to do so with homosexuality. So, how is it your truth is more valid than another? That is the ultimate issue here.
Keep in mind that progressive thought is dictated by majority acceptance. If the majority deems you unworthy to live, you will die and everyone will see it as a matter of truth. Do you follow me?
Absolutely not. Who are you to impose your definition of morality onto everyone else? Your personal beliefs are just that, and have no place in government legislature -- you have no right to use your personal beliefs to deny the rights of people you deem "immoral".
Absolutely not. Who are you to impose your definition of morality onto everyone else? Your personal beliefs are just that, and have no place in government legislature -- you have no right to use your personal beliefs to deny the rights of people you deem "immoral".
Why is the concept so difficult for you to grasp?
Who are you to impose yours? Are you so naive to see that the form of acceptance you seek is that from the majority? What makes your beliefs superior to another? What truth do you claim that is above all others? If homosexuality is right, what makes it so if it is not the majority acceptance? And if that majority changes its opinion on that acceptance, is it wrong? Define right and wrong, truth and falsity. Why are they so and why are they more so than another's claim?
As a lesbian, I'm not trying to "impose" anything. I'm simply advocating the same marriage benefits awarded to heterosexual couples. If you choose to be ignorant and ignore scientific evidence which proves a biological causation to homosexuality, than that's fine. That goes for the rest of the "majority" as well - your ignorance has no bearance on whether or not I deserve equal rights.
In 1950, the majority of Americans were against interracial marriage; that didn't make it right. In 2008, the majority of Americans are against gay marriage; that doesn't make it right. How arrogant of you to think that you and the rest of the "majority" can decide what's right for others and discriminate against others because they go against your personal definition of morality. Get over yourself.
As a lesbian, I'm not trying to "impose" anything. I'm simply advocating the same marriage benefits awarded to heterosexual couples. If you choose to be ignorant and ignore scientific evidence which proves a biological causation to homosexuality, than that's fine. That goes for the rest of the "majority" as well - your ignorance has no bearance on whether or not I deserve equal rights.
I did not make an argument against biological causation. In fact, if you were reading, I dealt with the issue quite specifically. What makes your ailment more deserving of ignorance while others must be classified as wrong? Should pedophiles be given "equal rights" because they have a genetically chemical imbalance that is abnormal? What about those who molest animals? Should "equal rights" be afforded to their deviance? You want to be consistent don't you? They are born that way, so why do you get a pass card of "You are normal in your behavior" and they do not? What makes you better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexiana
In 1950, the majority of Americans were against interracial marriage; that didn't make it right. In 2008, the majority of Americans are against gay marriage; that doesn't make it right. How arrogant of you to think that you and the rest of the "majority" can decide what's right for others and discriminate against others because they go against your personal definition of morality. Get over yourself.
Can they change the color of their skin? Seems like they were being discriminated over something they had no control over. I am not sure how sexual preference fits in with that as the same cause. In fact, I think most civil rights groups who were of that era find it a bit insulting that this proclaimed commonality is being made.
That being said, you evaded my questions. That is, you ignored the fact of majority dictating right and wrong. You also evaded the question of why your position, rather "morality" is valid over another? Please do explain how you are right and others are wrong.
I did not make an argument against biological causation. In fact, if you were reading, I dealt with the issue quite specifically. What makes your ailment more deserving of ignorance while others must be classified as wrong? Should pedophiles be given "equal rights" because they have a genetically chemical imbalance that is abnormal? What about those who molest animals? Should "equal rights" be afforded to their deviance? You want to be consistent don't you? They are born that way, so why do you get a pass card of "You are normal in your behavior" and they do not? What makes you better?
The fact that you can sit at a computer and equate paedophilia and zoophilia with homosexuality between two consenting adults demonstrates a lot about your (lack of) character. I'm not trying to convince you, an ignorant, intolerant bigot, of anything - like I already said, I couldn't care less if choose to ignore scientific evidence which supports reality.
Can they change the color of their skin? Seems like they were being discriminated over something they had no control over. I am not sure how sexual preference fits in with that as the same cause. In fact, I think most civil rights groups who were of that era find it a bit insulting that this proclaimed commonality is being made.
That being said, you evaded my questions. That is, you ignored the fact of majority dictating right and wrong. You also evaded the question of why your position, rather "morality" is valid over another? Please do explain how you are right and others are wrong.[/quote]
I've evaded nothing. You continue to equate homosexuality with an abnormality despite the fact that that view point is not shared by anyone but bigots. And no, blacks can't change the color of their skin just as heterosexuals cannot change their orientation.
The fact that you can sit at a computer and equate paedophilia and zoophilia with homosexuality between two consenting adults demonstrates a lot about your (lack of) character. I'm not trying to convince you, an ignorant, intolerant bigot, of anything - like I already said, I couldn't care less if choose to ignore scientific evidence which supports reality.
You haven't been reading. That is, you do not attack my argument, you simply make assumptions of my intent, conclude your own meaning and then personally attack me. Look up the meaning of the word bigot sometime, you are a perfect model of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexiana
Can they change the color of their skin? Seems like they were being discriminated over something they had no control over. I am not sure how sexual preference fits in with that as the same cause. In fact, I think most civil rights groups who were of that era find it a bit insulting that this proclaimed commonality is being made.
Sex is an action, not a condition. That is, I may be heterosexual, but that doesn't mean I have to have sex. You make the choice to have sex with people of the same sex. You commit to the action of. You could decide to or not to. A person of color can't take their skin off, they can't decide to be one color one day and then a different one on another. Its not the same. A Kleptomaniac may have the urge to steal, but it is the action to which defines the issue. They can choose, they can decide, while a person of color can not. Your not an issue of race, nowhere near it. You are an issue of deviate behavior to which you seek acceptance to and then attempt to proclaim a civil rights issue when people do not agree with your ACTIONS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexiana
I've evaded nothing. You continue to equate homosexuality with an abnormality despite the fact that that view point is not shared by anyone but bigots. And no, blacks can't change the color of their skin just as heterosexuals cannot change their orientation.
Again, a logical fallacy. You ignore the content and jump right to the attacking of the person. Again, you display the actions of a bigot. A person who is intolerant of anything that doesn't conform to your view. You do not entertain any discussion, you merely condemn those who disagree with you. Your position is that of a hypocrite. Look it up, or are you too used to making up the meanings of words, "what it means to you". Thats for the ignorant and the invalid. You dear lady are invalid in your argument in just about every level.
I did not make an argument against biological causation. In fact, if you were reading, I dealt with the issue quite specifically. What makes your ailment more deserving of ignorance while others must be classified as wrong? Should pedophiles be given "equal rights" because they have a genetically chemical imbalance that is abnormal? What about those who molest animals? Should "equal rights" be afforded to their deviance? You want to be consistent don't you? They are born that way, so why do you get a pass card of "You are normal in your behavior" and they do not? What makes you better?
Can they change the color of their skin? Seems like they were being discriminated over something they had no control over. I am not sure how sexual preference fits in with that as the same cause. In fact, I think most civil rights groups who were of that era find it a bit insulting that this proclaimed commonality is being made.
That being said, you evaded my questions. That is, you ignored the fact of majority dictating right and wrong. You also evaded the question of why your position, rather "morality" is valid over another? Please do explain how you are right and others are wrong.
Nomander you are quite wrong in your beliefs. Homosexuality is not caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain and is not a preference any more than you could choose to abandon heterosexuality and embrace homosexuality. To call it an ailment is nothing more than an insult born of ignorance.
The simple truth is that gays are born that way. The part of their brain that controls what sex they are attracted to is different than that in heterosexuals. This fact has been proven. They can no more change than you can change your skin color, so I think the comparison is valid.
Nomander you are quite wrong in your beliefs. Homosexuality is not caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain and is not a preference any more than you could choose to abandon heterosexuality and embrace homosexuality. To call it an ailment is nothing more than an insult born of ignorance.
The simple truth is that gays are born that way. The part of their brain that controls what sex they are attracted to is different than that in heterosexuals. This fact has been proven. They can no more change than you can change your skin color, so I think the comparison is valid.
Honestly i would like to see how it was proven a person is born gay, I personally don't believe we have the technology to do that.
Nomander you are quite wrong in your beliefs. Homosexuality is not caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain and is not a preference any more than you could choose to abandon heterosexuality and embrace homosexuality. To call it an ailment is nothing more than an insult born of ignorance.
The simple truth is that gays are born that way. The part of their brain that controls what sex they are attracted to is different than that in heterosexuals. This fact has been proven. They can no more change than you can change your skin color, so I think the comparison is valid.
genetics, chemical imbalance, etc.... why exactly is irrelevant to my point. Its an abnormality.
Now answer why my beliefs are wrong, and yours are correct? As a matter of absolute truths that is, for that is what you argue correct? For if it is not an absolute truth that you state, what determines it as so? Majority? And then we get back to my very point.
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.
