Some reasons why you should be a liberal rather than a conservative

[bfdd]

There is no point in arguing with someone of Bonobo intellect but if you knew anything, you would know that animals are attracted to genetic difference sexually and less so to genetic similarity. I have been in an endless number of threads on homosexuality and in every one of them some dunce will eventually bring up incest and polygamy.

You use animals to justify human behavior, these same animals participate in incest and polygamy. You can't just pick and choose something you like out of their behavior to fit your cause and ignore the rest. Your argument is flawed because of it. The way I see it some people like vanilla ice cream better than chocolate ice cream and vice versa, they don't really know why no one does, but who cares to each their own.

 

[Moonbeam]

btw Moonbeam, I'm not a homophobe, nor do I have any problem with homosexuality what so ever. I just think trying to justify it by any means is retarded.

I don't need to justify homosexuality. It is a fact of reality and self justifies by its very existence. Glad to hear you aren't a bigot of that type.

 

[Moonbeam]

You use animals to justify human behavior, these same animals participate in incest and polygamy. You can't just pick and choose something you like out of their behavior to fit your cause and ignore the rest. Your argument is flawed because of it. The way I see it some people like vanilla ice cream better than chocolate ice cream and vice versa, they don't really know why no one does, but who cares to each their own.

I used animals to explain that homosexuality occurs in nature in the animal kingdom as well as in man. I don't justify anything, I just show it's part of nature. That fact extablishes it as a reality, a self evident fact, and since many Christians think God created nature then God created homosexuality too then.

It's just simple logic.

 

[bfdd]

I don't need to justify homosexuality. It is a fact of reality and self justifies by its very existence. Glad to hear you aren't a bigot of that type.

I'm not a bigot at all and I agree the fact that people are homosexuals justifies their existence, that doesn't mean using Bonobos is a good argument that it's natural for humans.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not a bigot at all and I agree the fact that people are homosexuals justifies their existence, that doesn't mean using Bonobos is a good argument that it's natural for humans.

Of course it is. They are our closest living relatives. You need to give reasons for your logic, not assert things as facts.

 

[bfdd]

Of course it is. They are our closest living relatives. You need to give reasons for your logic, not assert things as facts.

We share a lot of common DNA with tons of animals and tons of animals share tons of common DNA also, that doesn't mean shit imo. Also, Bonobos suck, Orangutans are way cooler.

 

[sao123]

Weed on the other hand is (as far as I can tell from my studies) not specifically addressed at all throughout the entire Bible. Now, there are certain passages some might try and use to explain their position, but I am skeptical since it is not clearly stated. When God wants to be clear about something, He will emphatically state it.

Do I think weed should be illegal? Yes, because it causes people to act strangely, and this would, among other things, result in an ahhh...unproductive workforce. But will I state that God declares that weed is wrong? No, because I don't believe there is any Scripture that supports such a position. There are more important, clearer positions that we should be focusing our time and energy on.

There is no difference between "getting high" and "getting drunk". Drunkenness is clearly defined in the bible as a sin.

I'm not a practicing Christian, but I was raised as one, and you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Jesus' message was love. Jesus would love gays, abortion doctors, women who got abortions, druggies, drug dealers, atheists, fascists, communists, nazis and everyone in between. Even if you take the bible literally, there is no room in Christianity for hate or prejudice.

Dissapproving of someone's sinful behavior is neither hate nor prejudice. Being homosexual is not who you are, its an act you commit. I am not prejudiced against homosexuals, but like thieves and rapists, their actions need to be discouraged through proper legal channels.

 

[bfdd]

sao133, I don't think homosexuality is sinful and that it shouldn't be discouraged through proper legal means. What gives your beliefs more weight than mine?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

There is no difference between "getting high" and "getting drunk".

Anybody with a basic understanding of chemistry could tell you that there is indeed a difference.

Drunkenness is clearly defined in the bible as a sin.

I am well aware of what the Bible says about drunkeness. Again, drunk <> high. You're stretching to make something the Bible does not say fit your viewpoint. This is one of those grey areas.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

sao133, I don't think homosexuality is sinful and that it shouldn't be discouraged through proper legal means. What gives your beliefs more weight than mine?

Romans 1:26-27:

"26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

And 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The sinful part is pretty clear in the eyes of God, but I believe the emphasis of your post might be on the legal part?

 

[Elfear]

sao133, I don't think homosexuality is sinful and that it shouldn't be discouraged through proper legal means. What gives your beliefs more weight than mine?

Nothing, but that is why we get the opportunity to vote. You vote for what you feel is right and I assume he will too.

You don't understand homosexuality at all, is what you make clear.

But you're the authority on it? What makes you think your understanding is any better than his? Oh, that's right, of course that religious knuckle-dragger could never come up with anything to compete with such intellectual prowess as yours.

 

[sao123]

Anybody with a basic understanding of chemistry could tell you that there is indeed a difference.

they are both a chemically induced altered state of mind.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

they are both a chemically induced altered state of mind.

So is being drowsy after taking NyQuil. Is that a sin as well?

So is anesthesia for when they put you under for surgery. Is that also a sin?

You're really stretching here and on thin ice. Do you see why you should only emphatically stick to the things that are clearly stated?

 

[bfdd]

Romans 1:26-27:

"26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

And 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The sinful part is pretty clear in the eyes of God, but I believe the emphasis of your post might be on the legal part?

That doesn't answer my question. My question is, why do your beliefs trump mine? Is it because you believe in God and I don't? That's not a very good reason. They are all personal beliefs. We are a national of equality, meaning all people should be protected under law and the only law we should make are those detrimental to society. Homosexuality is not detrimental to society.

 

[sao123]

So is being drowsy after taking NyQuil. Is that a sin as well?

So is anesthesia for when they put you under for surgery. Is that also a sin?

You're really stretching here and on thin ice. Do you see why you should only emphatically stick to the things that are clearly stated?

as it often is in the do's and don't, the reason why you take it is just as important as the substance itself. Paul urged timothy to drink some wine with his meal, but also condemns drunkeness.

Whether its weed, vicodin, glue, or alcohol, recreational use for intoxication is unacceptable. Many of those same substances have legitimite uses. 99% of the loudest screamers about legalizing weed, arent the ones who have a legitimite use for it.

 

[sao123]

That doesn't answer my question. My question is, why do your beliefs trump mine? Is it because you believe in God and I don't? That's not a very good reason. They are all personal beliefs. We are a national of equality, meaning all people should be protected under law and the only law we should make are those detrimental to society. Homosexuality is not detrimental to society.

all sin is detrimental to society.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

That doesn't answer my question. My question is, why do your beliefs trump mine? Is it because you believe in God and I don't? That's not a very good reason. They are all personal beliefs. We are a national of equality, meaning all people should be protected under law and the only law we should make are those detrimental to society. Homosexuality is not detrimental to society.

You used the word sinful. That is a biblical, not a secular, term.

Erm...if homosexuality were natural, the human race would have died long ago because we couldn't have reproduced. We were designed to be heterosexual.

Marriage is a religious institute. Why are the homosexuals so fervent to get "gay marriage" approved? Why can't they leave marriage alone and accept legal couplings with the same basic legal rights? It's because they have an agenda.

My question to you is the same as yours to me: why do your beliefs trump mine? Is it because you don't believe in God and I do? That's not a very good reason.

We have offered concessions; the other side of the argument has rejected them. Yet we are the ones "at fault"? :hmm:

 

[Martin]

Your mistake Moonbeam, is that you assume that being "Christian" mean you have to honour Jesus, try to follow his teachings or act like him.

To be a Christian you must believe that :
1) You were born with sin
2) Jesus is the son of god and died for your sins
3) You must accept Jesus as your lord and savior in order to get rid of your sins and save yourself.

Although the world would be wonderful if Christians even attempted to follow Jesus's teachings, being Christian is completely orthogonal to that. Whether you choose to help the less fortunate as some Christians, or choose to fuck them over as others do doesn't really matter.

 

[bfdd]

all sin is detrimental to society.

You believe it is sinful, I don't. Why do you think your beliefs trump mine?

 

[bfdd]

You used the word sinful. That is a biblical, not a secular, term.

Erm...if homosexuality were natural, the human race would have died long ago because we couldn't have reproduced. We were designed to be heterosexual.

Marriage is a religious institute. Why are the homosexuals so fervent to get "gay marriage" approved? Why can't they leave marriage alone and accept legal couplings with the same basic legal rights? It's because they have an agenda.

My question to you is the same as yours to me: why do your beliefs trump mine? Is it because you don't believe in God and I do? That's not a very good reason.

We have offered concessions; the other side of the argument has rejected them. Yet we are the ones "at fault"? :hmm:

True I used sinful, I was just using his terms. I apologize. I agree they should be ok accepting equal rights without the term marriage. I also agree that marriage was originally a religious institution, but now it is a government thing so they have some ground for the claim. If the government would step out of marriage then we wouldn't have this problem right?

Also, I'm not saying my beliefs should trump yours. I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but my question is why should your beliefs in religious teachings trump mine that have nothing to do with religion? I'm not one wanting to pass law to harm religious practitioners or non religious practitioners. I think laws should protect everyone equally regardless of beliefs and that laws should not be based on morals, but what is best for society. I do not believe that homosexuality is at all a detriment to society.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

True I used sinful, I was just using his terms. I apologize. I agree they should be ok accepting equal rights without the term marriage. I also agree that marriage was originally a religious institution, but now it is a government thing so they have some ground for the claim. If the government would step out of marriage then we wouldn't have this problem right?

Also, I'm not saying my beliefs should trump yours. I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but my question is why should your beliefs in religious teachings trump mine that have nothing to do with religion? I'm not one wanting to pass law to harm religious practitioners or non religious practitioners. I think laws should protect everyone equally regardless of beliefs and that laws should not be based on morals, but what is best for society. I do not believe that homosexuality is at all a detriment to society.

Fair enough. I can understand and respect your opinion.

Unfortunately, because of all the tax laws, personal property laws, etc., marriage is too intertwined in our legal system to be easily removed as a legal entity. It is unlikely such a thing would ever occur in a civilized society.

Even if they got civil unions with the same basic legal rights, I doubt that they would stop there. They're the ones on the attack, and we're the ones on defense. If this was a fight for legal equality, it would be one thing, but it is not. It is an assault on the institution of marriage itself.

Leave marriage alone, and you'll see all but the most right-wing objections fade away.

 

[bfdd]

Ryan, I don't disagree. It stopped being about equal rights and more about a word years ago, which is stupid. I still think the government could get out of "marriage" and just grant union licenses, that way the term marriage could still be preserved for religious purposes, then the fight wouldn't need to happen in our court rooms with the people vs the government, but with people vs other groups of people.

 

[Moonbeam]

We share a lot of common DNA with tons of animals and tons of animals share tons of common DNA also, that doesn't mean shit imo. Also, Bonobos suck, Orangutans are way cooler.

I don't know why, that was a Bonobo response.

 

[Moonbeam]

they are both a chemically induced altered state of mind.

So is religious ecstasy, speaking in tongues, driving out devils, and about a million other things. Your thinking shows sever signs of brain damage, for example.

 

[Moonbeam]

RyanPaulShaffer;29101631]

Erm...if homosexuality were natural, the human race would have died long ago because we couldn't have reproduced. We were designed to be heterosexual.

M: You idiot, blue eyes are natural. If people in Africa had blue eyes they would be blind by 50. Frequency and naturalness have no relationship.

RPS: Marriage is a religious institute. Why are the homosexuals so fervent to get "gay marriage" approved? Why can't they leave marriage alone and accept legal couplings with the same basic legal rights? It's because they have an agenda.

M: Many are married in city halls. Marriage isn't just religious and you religious bigots don't get to define the use of language.

RPS: My question to you is the same as yours to me: why do your beliefs trump mine? Is it because you don't believe in God and I do? That's not a very good reason.

We have offered concessions; the other side of the argument has rejected them. Yet we are the ones "at fault"?

M: Screw your concessions. Equal rights not conceded ones.