Preacher makes a good case against homosexuality

[Hobo1]

This is a stupid thread. Whatever causes a person to become homosexual may not be known, but we do know that it is an integral part of all societies and can never be stopped. Same sex marriage is increasingly being accepted by society. Plus religion and sexual preference have completely separated subjects. Its like a car mechanic giving his opinion on the subject.

They only reference to sexual behavior in all major religions is in relation to adultery.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Dr who

Christianity and Islam are fundamentally the same

Both are vile but Islam is the few hundred years behind Christianity that the dates of their respective invention imply

A few hundred years ago Christian were doing exactly the same stuff

It is just that through the work of decent left leaning people they have been forced to moderate their ludicrous excesses

Both religions are equally ridiculous but at least Islam doesn't advocate necro-cannibalism

 

[PLC1]

Ha! I bet I am the only one to watch that and the OP has been biting his tongue waiting for someone to watch.

The video is of a man who claims to be a reverend ( I would assume he is actually one since it might be a crime to go before the council and make false claims about ones identity).

He starts making arguments ostensibly against special rights for gays but we later learn that he is quoting people from the past who were making these arguments against rights for blacks.

It is of course, a comparison and we are suppose to conclude that if someone made an argument that sounded like this and it was wrong before then it must also be wrong to make similar arguments now. That is of course a clever point to make in a speech but it is not sound logic. There may very well be sound arguments to make against the ordinances that are being proposed to establish what are called gay rights. As I mentioned above I think these arguments are best made as secular arguments at council meetings.

So lets get this thread going! Were civil rights for blacks "special rights" or were civil rights for blacks examples of rights that should be extended to all being finally extended to blacks? Presently, are the rights that are being proposed for gays special rights or are they just rights that all should have protected? Are these ordinances even protecting rights? For example, is marriage a right or a restriction of rights?

Finally, someone actually watched the video instead of just reading the title and coming to the wrong conclusion!

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The title is sufficiently pejorative to be an affront

And everyone (except most of the posters on this board) would be horrified if 'racial equality' was substituted for 'homosexuality'

 

[dogtowner]

I probably differ with many of my Republican and Conservative friends with respect to my support of Gay marriage. Here's my logic on the issue:

The only legitimate use of force is done in retaliation to stop the individual(s) who initiated the use of force - the Individual Right of Self Defense. Government's only legitimate role is to protect the individual rights of it's citizens. It is the Individual Right of Self Defense that authorizes government to act as the agent of our protector in cases where rights are being violated, to defend the individual and stop (or punish) the offender(s).

As Jefferson once said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." So long as the beliefs, or actions, of another individual do not violate the rights of others, then there is no justification for using the force of government to stop his actions (bans on gay marriage) or otherwise punish him for his beliefs. To do so would be immoral.

What consenting adults choose to do with their lives is none of my business, and by extension, it is also none of government's business. While most "gay" rights activists would likely agree with that statement, even the most ardent supporter of "gay" rights would - through some feet of mental gymnastics - suddenly claim it IS government's business with regards to polygamy (which I also support, as it does not violate anyone's rights).

If you can admit that two gays marrying one another does not violate your rights but still believe you have a right, and by extension government has a right, to ban social behavior simply because you find it repugnant, then anything you do that someone else finds repugnant (such as keeping the fruits of your labor or, worse yet, accumulating wealth) is also fair game. By supporting a system that places demands or bans on people whose actions are not violating the rights of anyone, you have no standing to oppose whatever demands they feel necessary to place on you.

while it is of little concern of government who is zooming whit or how (I would hope you agree that sex with minors or incest are a bad things) its another matter to start issuing benefits as though they were rights.

 

[Dr.Who]

I probably differ with many of my Republican and Conservative friends with respect to my support of Gay marriage. Here's my logic on the issue:

The only legitimate use of force is done in retaliation to stop the individual(s) who initiated the use of force - the Individual Right of Self Defense. Government's only legitimate role is to protect the individual rights of it's citizens. It is the Individual Right of Self Defense that authorizes government to act as the agent of our protector in cases where rights are being violated, to defend the individual and stop (or punish) the offender(s).

As Jefferson once said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." So long as the beliefs, or actions, of another individual do not violate the rights of others, then there is no justification for using the force of government to stop his actions (bans on gay marriage) or otherwise punish him for his beliefs. To do so would be immoral.

What consenting adults choose to do with their lives is none of my business, and by extension, it is also none of government's business. While most "gay" rights activists would likely agree with that statement, even the most ardent supporter of "gay" rights would - through some feet of mental gymnastics - suddenly claim it IS government's business with regards to polygamy (which I also support, as it does not violate anyone's rights).

If you can admit that two gays marrying one another does not violate your rights but still believe you have a right, and by extension government has a right, to ban social behavior simply because you find it repugnant, then anything you do that someone else finds repugnant (such as keeping the fruits of your labor or, worse yet, accumulating wealth) is also fair game. By supporting a system that places demands or bans on people whose actions are not violating the rights of anyone, you have no standing to oppose whatever demands they feel necessary to place on you.

If you mean that two gay people should be allowed to have whatever ceremony they want then I agree. If you mean that the gov can tell those two that they cannot have that ceremony unless they get a license then I disagree. If you mean that once they are forced to get that license they will then receive a bunch of perks at the expense of their fellow citizens then I again disagree. If you mean that once they are forced to get a license and once they get perks then those who disagree will be guilty of discrimination then I disagree again. And if their inclusion into the club of those who are forced to get a license requires that the definition of the marriage of the rest of people must be changed then it has caused injury.

 

[Dr.Who]

while it is of little concern of government who is zooming whit or how (I would hope you agree that sex with minors or incest are a bad things) its another matter to start issuing benefits as though they were rights.

Exactly!!!

 

[GenSeneca]

while it is of little concern of government who is zooming whit or how (I would hope you agree that sex with minors or incest are a bad things) its another matter to start issuing benefits as though they were rights.

I did say "consenting adults"... While that covers the issue of minors, incest is another matter. I think it's gross and do not condone such activity but, so long as they are both consenting adults and aren't violating anyone's rights, then it's none of my business and I have no right to stop them.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you mean that two gay people should be allowed to have whatever ceremony they want then I agree. If you mean that the gov can tell those two that they cannot have that ceremony unless they get a license then I disagree. If you mean that once they are forced to get that license they will then receive a bunch of perks at the expense of their fellow citizens then I again disagree. If you mean that once they are forced to get a license and once they get perks then those who disagree will be guilty of discrimination then I disagree again. And if their inclusion into the club of those who are forced to get a license requires that the definition of the marriage of the rest of people must be changed then it has caused injury.

I have said many times before... If you are required to get permission from the government - i.e. a license - to exercise a "right" then it is NOT a right, it's a privilege subject to the whims of government and society. That is exactly what marriage has become. I believe every individual has a Right to be married to whomever they like and their choices shouldn't be regulated by government. Have whatever marriage ceremony you like, to whomever you like, without interference from the government.

If government wants to be a record keeper for the purpose of arbitrating disputes between married peoples and dealing with divorce, I'm fine with that, that's a legitimate function of government to uphold contracts (social or legal).

Nobody should get any special treatment from government for being married (or single), everyone IS an individual and should be treated, equally, as an individual by government. So while I support "gay" marriage, I have never supported "gay rights", as they aren't seeking rights that are equally applied to all individuals but special privileges, bestowed by government, to certain exclusive groups. They want to be included among those in the group granted special privileges the rest of us do not get.

 

[Openmind]

I have said many times before... If you are required to get permission from the government - i.e. a license - to exercise a "right" then it is NOT a right, it's a privilege subject to the whims of government and society. That is exactly what marriage has become. I believe every individual has a Right to be married to whomever they like and their choices shouldn't be regulated by government. Have whatever marriage ceremony you like, to whomever you like, without interference from the government.

If government wants to be a record keeper for the purpose of arbitrating disputes between married peoples and dealing with divorce, I'm fine with that, that's a legitimate function of government to uphold contracts (social or legal).

Nobody should get any special treatment from government for being married (or single), everyone IS an individual and should be treated, equally, as an individual by government. So while I support "gay" marriage, I have never supported "gay rights", as they aren't seeking rights that are equally applied to all individuals but special privileges, bestowed by government, to certain exclusive groups. They want to be included among those in the group granted special privileges the rest of us do not get.

Could you explain what you see as "special privileges" requested by gay people?
What "special privileges" are that some exclusive groups get do we not get?
And how is that related to gay rights?

 

[dogtowner]

I have said many times before... If you are required to get permission from the government - i.e. a license - to exercise a "right" then it is NOT a right, it's a privilege subject to the whims of government and society. That is exactly what marriage has become. I believe every individual has a Right to be married to whomever they like and their choices shouldn't be regulated by government. Have whatever marriage ceremony you like, to whomever you like, without interference from the government.

If government wants to be a record keeper for the purpose of arbitrating disputes between married peoples and dealing with divorce, I'm fine with that, that's a legitimate function of government to uphold contracts (social or legal).

Nobody should get any special treatment from government for being married (or single), everyone IS an individual and should be treated, equally, as an individual by government. So while I support "gay" marriage, I have never supported "gay rights", as they aren't seeking rights that are equally applied to all individuals but special privileges, bestowed by government, to certain exclusive groups. They want to be included among those in the group granted special privileges the rest of us do not get.

well it was demanded of governments but yes, its a legitimate function. And yes, they seek privilege not afforded to others.

 

[GenSeneca]

Could you explain what you see as "special privileges" requested by gay people?
What "special privileges" are that some exclusive groups get do we not get?
And how is that related to gay rights?

First off, there are no "gay" rights (or "black" rights, or "womens" rights), there are only individual rights and they apply to all individuals equally and without exception.

Secondly, as I said, you do not need to get permission from government to exercise an actual Right - for example, you don't need a license from government to exercise your right to free speech here on this forum. If you require permission, then it is a special privilege, not a right. It's "special" because not everyone get's permission, only certain "special" interests are given permission, such is currently the case with heterosexual monogamous couples (HMC's) with regard to marriage licenses.

Gays should be demanding that EVERYONE be afforded the same Right to marry ("everyone" would include any consenting adults), if they did that they would be supporting Individual Rights, as I do. Instead gays are only demanding that their special interest group be included among those currently eligible for obtaining government permission to marry, i.e. they want to obtain the same "special" privilege that is currently only available to HMC's.

 

[dogtowner]

First off, there are no "gay" rights (or "black" rights, or "womens" rights), there are only individual rights and they apply to all individuals equally and without exception.

Secondly, as I said, you do not need to get permission from government to exercise an actual Right - for example, you don't need a license from government to exercise your right to free speech here on this forum. If you require permission, then it is a special privilege, not a right. It's "special" because not everyone get's permission, only certain "special" interests are given permission, such is currently the case with heterosexual monogamous couples (HMC's) with regard to marriage licenses.

Gays should be demanding that EVERYONE be afforded the same Right to marry ("everyone" would include any consenting adults), if they did that they would be supporting Individual Rights, as I do. Instead gays are only demanding that their special interest group be included among those currently eligible for obtaining government permission to marry, i.e. they want to obtain the same "special" privilege that is currently only available to HMC's.

correct, survivor benefits and automatic access to spousal healthcare. but at least they're being honest about it now and have gotten over the facade of "love".

 

[PLC1]

correct, survivor benefits and automatic access to spousal healthcare. but at least they're being honest about it now and have gotten over the facade of "love".

Should no one get survivor benefits and access to spousal healthcare, or should everyone get those things?

 

[Cruella]

Should no one get survivor benefits and access to spousal healthcare, or should everyone get those things?

??? Insurance companies don't ask for a marriage cert. They only ask for name, and SS# and if the other person is insured with another company.