An atheist asked: “How does homosexuality affect you in anyway other than you just not liking it?” - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

An atheist asked: “How does homosexuality affect you in anyway other than you just not liking it?”
in Religion

By RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts

An atheist asked: “How does homosexuality affect you in anyway other than you just not liking it?”

My response…

I policed one of the largest LGBTQ communities in the United States on four-different shifts. I watched the deception, the sorrow, the murder, the self-destruction, the self-loathing, the self-mutilation, the hopelessness, the hate, the anger, the filth, the abuse of LGBTQ in society. I've had the blood/fluids on my hands and arms; I've arrested/transported the homosexual abuse of minors; I've seen the detestable and nastiness the vileness the sickness that comes with LGBTQ deception.

I am also a Christian and find homosexuality to be a sin against my Lord's Covenant of Marriage between one-man/one-woman becoming one-flesh for life. Homosexuality (LGBTQ) is a nasty, embarrassing, shame on the American people and LGBTQ is a tell-tale sign of God's Judgment on any society...it is an attack on the family unit as well (Romans 1:18-32).

Homosexuality (LGBTQ) seeks to destroy the Biblical family unit, the bedrock of any society and LGBTQ seeks to force its perversion and hopelessness on America's posterity and those deceived by its demonic deception are killing themselves in unprecedented numbers.

The problem with homosexuality in society is that it does not work, it does nothing to provide mores, norms, values, that are sustainable to a healthy, happy, moral, dignified, honorable people in a Constitutional Republic governed by the rule of law...it is confusion, it is sexual perversion, it is sin against our Holy God and it brings shame upon any people who seek to live an honorable and moral life before God and before man.



smoothieRS_masterZeusAres42kenpageZombieguy1987



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 681 Pts
    edited January 6
    @RickeyD

    I think the biggest stumbling block for you is that you seem to think homosexuality is chosen. It is not. People who are gay didn't wake up one day and decide to be homosexual anymore than you chose to be straight. Do some legitimate research (outside of the Bible) and you will find this to be true. 

    That being said, religious views which hold homosexuality to be an "abomination" indict their own deity as an immoral and malicious thug or, at the very least, a being ignorant of the nature he/she/it is said to be responsible for. Furthermore, these religious views cause the very "deception, the sorrow, the murder, the self-destruction, the self-loathing, the self-mutilation, the hopelessness, the hate, the anger" you saw in your patrol. In short, religious bigotry contributes to this (if it isn't the primary cause), and those who claim to have the moral high ground are doing something extremely immoral by condemning people for aspects of themselves beyond their control. Do better.
    PlaffelvohfenHappy_KillbotsmoothieZombieguy1987
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 2410 Pts
    edited January 6
    @RickeyD Have you ever heard of survivor ship bias?

    Let me explain it with a true story from WWII of a mathematician that saved countless lives by recognizing this flaw in reasoning.

    https://blog.hubspot.com/sales/survivorship-bias

    The US air force kept track of all the planes returning from bombing runs, and made a plot of where the bullet holes were most commonly located. The graph looked something like this:



    The Air force was about to issue an order to add more armor to the planes.

    Now the question: Do you think they wanted to put the armor where there was the most bullet holes?

    If you said yes, you fell for the logic trap. The correct answer is to put the armor where there ARE NO HOLES!

    The mathematician Abraham Wald recognized is an example of survivor ship bias. You see, the data only came from planes that returned, meaning all the others not returning were shot down. What this implies is that the bullet holes are located where the plane is the strongest, and the armor should be placed where there are no holes.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lets apply this reasoning to your situation. If you are always going to crimes, then you will not see all of the homosexual people who are law abiding citizens, and this may be responsible for your assumption that they are evil somehow. This compounded with your tendency to believe they are evil due to religious indoctrination, and your communities lack of approval for homosexuals for conservative reasons, leads me to think that maybe you did not get an unbiased picture.
    SkepticalOnePlaffelvohfensmoothie
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • smoothiesmoothie 376 Pts
    edited January 6

    "I saw a few homosexuals rape and kill people so all homosexuals are evil!"

    That is your argument boiled down. It is not that simple, Rickey. The biased picture you painted because of your religion makes you blind to reality. You want to be right, you want to prove your interpretation of the bible so bad. I get that. However, you don't know when to quit. You cannot accept reality when it differs from your prejudice. Your own decisions and thought are being manipulated.

    YOU are deceived. Everybody here already knows that.


    You did not state any reasonable arguments other than you "not liking it". Your "reasons" are opinionated and bias, not factual.

    That athiest was correct.
    why so serious?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3409 Pts
    edited January 6
    You are yet to explain what any of your observations have to do with people's sexual orientations.

    Also, what do you mean by "policing an LGBT community"? What is it, a neighborhood where only LGBT people live or something? I have never heard of such.

    Also, you claim to have been in the law enforcement for over 30 years. I imagine you have witnessed a lot of atrocities committed by heterosexual people as well. Why no word of those in your post?

    Interesting how your Bible verse condemns male prostitutes, but says nothing about female prostitutes. I see who wrote that book and why. Dirty boys!

    ---

    Whyyy, Debra? Whyyy?
    smoothie
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts
    The argument that "Homosexuality isn't a choice and therefor shouldn't be considered wrong" falls apart when you examine in in a relative manner.

    So let's take the above statement and try to apply it to another ideology and see if it holds weight.

    "Pedophilia isn't a choice, people can't choose to not be sexually attracted to children and therefor it shouldn't be considered wrong".
    I'm going to go with a "No" on this one, seems that the fact that it's not a choice doesn't deserve any weight".

    "Zoosexuality isn't a choice, people can't choose to not be sexually attracted to animals and therefor it shouldn't be considered wrong".
    Again I'm leaning towards "No", seems that the fact that the person feels that way naturally doesn't really matter.

    The core of this argument is that because something isn't a choice...it's not wrong to do it.  This is so ethically wrong it's not funny.  If there were any remote truth to this statement then you could literally apply it to anything else and it would work but it doesn't.  Using this excuse is ethically reprehensible and from a logic standpoint it's downright deception intended to play on people's sympathy in order to bypass standards of morality.


    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts
    @SkepticalOne ; Homosexuality IS immoral, It's a choice...no one forces you to take another man's penis into your mouth or rectum; it's a mental and spiritual illness; it's confusion; it's rebellion and sin against God's Covenant of Marriage; it's nasty and vulgar behavior. Unless the practicing homosexual repents of their immorality and believes-trusts in Jesus Christ as Lord for the mediation and forgiveness of sin, they will not see life in God's Kingdom.




    smoothie
  • RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts
    @MayCaesar ; Yes, my first assignment in patrol was the "Montrose" in Houston...LGBTQ galore.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts
    @Vaulk ; Homosexuality, pedophilia, these are "choices" of the will. No one forces you to take another man's penis into your mouth or anus and no one forces the pedophile to seek sexual contact with children. These are demonic deception, they are a mental and spiritual illness and unless the participants repent of their immorality and trust-believe in Jesus Christ as Lord for the mediation and forgiveness of sin, the immoral will NOT see life in God's Kingdom.

    You are NOT a beast of the field that you should defile your body in a same-sex union and what appears to be homosexuality in the animal kingdom is often times "dominance"....you are not a beast of the field and don't use the soul-less behavior of same to justify your sin...it's not relevant.


    smoothie
  • Vaulk said:
    The argument that "Homosexuality isn't a choice and therefor shouldn't be considered wrong" falls apart when you examine in in a relative manner.

    So let's take the above statement and try to apply it to another ideology and see if it holds weight.

    "Pedophilia isn't a choice, people can't choose to not be sexually attracted to children and therefor it shouldn't be considered wrong".
    I'm going to go with a "No" on this one, seems that the fact that it's not a choice doesn't deserve any weight".

    "Zoosexuality isn't a choice, people can't choose to not be sexually attracted to animals and therefor it shouldn't be considered wrong".
    Again I'm leaning towards "No", seems that the fact that the person feels that way naturally doesn't really matter.

    I agree. However, I believe it is a necessary point to make when people claim you can simply "choose" to not be a homosexual.

    Both sides of the argument have fault.

    However, this point is factually sound against the opposition to homosexuality, when it comes to things like conversion therapy and the morals of enacting laws against homosexuality.

    The real question is does it matter if it is a choice or not? If it was a "choice" who does it affect? Should authoritarian laws make that "choice" for them? For some on the opposing stance, it does matter, they want it to be a choice so they have a stronger argument. For the religious folk, it makes them sleep better at night when they believe homosexuals are choosing their sexuality instead of their religion. They want an enemy that made the choice to "live in sin".
    why so serious?
  • @RickeyD
    RickeyD said:
    @SkepticalOne ; Homosexuality IS immoral, It's a choice...no one forces you to take another man's penis into your mouth or rectum; it's a mental and spiritual illness; it's confusion; it's rebellion and sin against God's Covenant of Marriage; it's nasty and vulgar behavior.
    You have defined it as immoral. Morals are not a factual argument here. You have also defined it as "nasty vulgar behavior", again opinions that have no place and only your interpretation of a book says so.

    Nobody said that a sexual act was not a choice. It is the homosexual feelings that are not a choice. You think just because sex is a choice that the feelings are too. Wrong.

    The scientific consensus say it is not a mental illness. This is factual material to be used in debates and not your opinions. Your feelings are irrelevant.

    However, we already know you hate science.
    why so serious?
  • RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts
    @smoothie ; Feelings are not sin...feelings are not action...feelings are equated to an emotion...they are personal and they are NOT sin. Sin manifests when "feelings" manifest into action and homosexuality is not a feeling, it's a perversion of nature and sin against God.

    I have NOT defined homosexuality as immoral, your Creator has done this for good measure. You espouse nasty and defiled conduct that is not sustainable, it's not moral, it's not normal, it's not natural, it's not healthy, homosexuality is sexual debauchery...it is filthy and defiled and indicative of a mental and spiritual illness.


    smoothie
  • RickeyD said:
    @smoothie ; Feelings are not sin...feelings are not action...feelings are equated to an emotion...they are personal and they are NOT sin. Sin manifests when "feelings" manifest into action and homosexuality is not a feeling, it's a perversion of nature and sin against God.
    It is a sexual feeling, which is still a feeling that manifests because of the psychology of the human brain. You do not choose when to feel happy or sad much like how a homosexual does not choose to be attracted to a member of the same sex.




    why so serious?
  • RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts
    @smoothie ; I do not choose to be happy or sad but I can choose how I respond to those "feelings." If you are engaging in homosexual behavior and thus responding to a feeling of rebellion to Nature, a rejection of human physiology and compromise with immorality, you have actively, with volition, made a "choice." This choice is immoral and degrades you, your body and your soul and unless you repent of this unwise "choice" and turn to Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God the Father, you will not see life in the Kingdom of God.


    smoothie
  • @RickeyD ;
    Lust is an example of a feeling you can't control, and it's considered a sin.

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  Matthew 5:27-28

    I mean, can anyone honestly say that they can prevent this from happening? It isn't practical and doesn't make much sense anyways.

    This is the reason that other Abrahamic religions like Islam cover their women in public.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot ; You can choose to lust or not...you can look away, you can think on things honorable. Lust is a choice not simply a feeling. Desire is not sin, lust is not simply desire but a compulsion that consumes the mind and desires action...or said action is played-out in the mind.

    Jesus said...

    Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' Mat 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

    Lust - Greek = epithymēsai =
    epithyméō (from 1909 /epí, "focused on" intensifying 2372 /thymós, "passionate desire") – properly, to show focused passion as it aptly builds on (Gk epi, "upon") what a person truly yearns for; to "greatly desire to do or have something – 'to long for, to desire very much' " (L & N, 1, 25.12).

    covet (2), coveted (1), craved (1), desire (1), desired (2), desires (1), gladly (1), long (3), longing (1), lust (2), sets its desire (1).

    "For as [a man] he thinks in his heart, so is he."  Proverbs 23:6a

    Jesus said...

    "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders."  Matthew 5:19 (NASB)

    Lust is more than a feeling, it's a compulsive desire with accompanying fantasy. Jesus warned against lust because lust is the precursor to physical action to fulfill that lust...a desire of the heart.

    You can opt to not lust even though you find a person attractive...there is no need to act upon same and pursue that desire or allow desire to manifest into compulsive lust where one engages in fantasy and sex in the mind.

    If you suggest that lust in homosexuality is unavoidable, you are wrong...lust in homosexuality emanates from the demonic not the heart that seeks righteousness and morality.










    smoothie
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 681 Pts
    edited January 7
    RickeyD said:
    @SkepticalOne ; Homosexuality IS immoral, It's a choice...no one forces you to take another man's penis into your mouth or rectum; it's a mental and spiritual illness; it's confusion; it's rebellion and sin against God's Covenant of Marriage; it's nasty and vulgar behavior. Unless the practicing homosexual repents of their immorality and believes-trusts in Jesus Christ as Lord for the mediation and forgiveness of sin, they will not see life in God's Kingdom.




    Homosexuality isn't simply "taking another man's penis into your mouth or anus". I mean, besides the obvious that sex between men includes other options (say..a handjob? ... toys?) it also include woman on woman sex.  Regardless, sex isn't the important part -it is the love between people that is. I for one couldn't care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why you do much less the "creator of everything" would be concerned with it. 

    Take a step back and consider how absurd it would be for the creator of everything to call blue-eyed people an "abomination". How are people born (or created) with blue eyes any different than other people? What's more, the creator should know this, so either he is malicious or he (or the people who dreamed him up) didn't know blue eyes are quite natural. Now consider that homosexuality is much like eye-color, and...well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm pulling for ya!
  • Vaulk said:
    The argument that "Homosexuality isn't a choice and therefor shouldn't be considered wrong" falls apart when you examine in in a relative manner.

    So let's take the above statement and try to apply it to another ideology and see if it holds weight.

    "Pedophilia isn't a choice, people can't choose to not be sexually attracted to children and therefor it shouldn't be considered wrong".
    I'm going to go with a "No" on this one, seems that the fact that it's not a choice doesn't deserve any weight".

    "Zoosexuality isn't a choice, people can't choose to not be sexually attracted to animals and therefor it shouldn't be considered wrong".
    Again I'm leaning towards "No", seems that the fact that the person feels that way naturally doesn't really matter.

    The core of this argument is that because something isn't a choice...it's not wrong to do it.  This is so ethically wrong it's not funny.  If there were any remote truth to this statement then you could literally apply it to anything else and it would work but it doesn't.  Using this excuse is ethically reprehensible and from a logic standpoint it's downright deception intended to play on people's sympathy in order to bypass standards of morality.


    Homosexuality is between consenting adults... unlike pedophilia and Zoosexuality (is that a real term?).  So, the examples are not analogous and the associated reasoning flawed.
    smoothie
  • RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts
    edited January 7
    @SkepticalOne ; There is no love in homosexual or lesbian sex...it's aberrant lust fulfilled and it's sin. The homosexual-the lesbian-the sexually immoral will not enter the Kingdom of God lest they repent of their sin and seek forgiveness by faith-trusting in Jesus Christ as Lord for the mediation of said sin. Don't fool yourself and don't attempt to justify your sin...if you're a homosexual-lesbian (LGBTQ), adulterer, fornicator, you must repent of sin and trust in Jesus as Lord or you'll live and die in futility and without hope (John 14:6). Homosexuality is sin against God's Covenant of Marriage and only belief/trusting in Jesus Christ can forgive that sin and restore-heal the homosexual and give them life and hope and peace (John 3:16).


    smoothie
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 681 Pts
    edited January 7
    RickeyD said:
    @SkepticalOne ; There is no love in homosexual or lesbian sex...it's aberrant lust fulfilled and it's sin. The homosexual-the lesbian-the sexually immoral will not enter the Kingdom of God lest they repent of their sin and seek forgiveness by faith-trusting in Jesus Christ as Lord for the mediation of said sin. Don't fool yourself and don't attempt to justify your sin...if you're a homosexual-lesbian (LGBTQ), adulterer, fornicator, you must repent of sin and trust in Jesus as Lord or you'll live and die in futility and without hope (John 14:6). Homosexuality is sin against God's Covenant of Marriage and only belief/trusting in Jesus Christ can forgive that sin and restore-heal the homosexual and give them life and hope and peace John 3:16).


    If I were gay and I had a choice between pretending to be something I'm not so I could have an eternity of being something I'm not ...or being myself, it doesn't seem like much of a choice. 

    On the other hand, if there is no afterlife (which seems to fit the evidence), then not being yourself wastes the only life you get.
    smoothie
  • RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts
    edited January 7
    @SkepticalOne ; No one is a homosexual or lesbian - they're living a lie...even nature testifies against this physiological debauchery. The homosexual or lesbian is NOT being true to them self or God...they are under the sway of Satan and seek death in Hell in accordance with his wishes. How odd to think that three-score-and-ten is the summation of this life.


    smoothie
  • RickeyD said:
    @SkepticalOne ; No one is a homosexual or lesbian - they're living a lie...even nature testifies against this physiological debauchery. The homosexual or lesbian is NOT being true to them self or God...they are under the sway of Satan and seek death in Hell in accordance with his wishes. How odd to think that three-score-and-ten is the summation of this life.


    You said something interesting: "even nature testifies against this". Please, expand on this. I'll let you explain before I weigh in.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts
    @SkepticalOne ; The anus was not created for insertion but expulsion...this is why butt-plugs are needed by active and experienced homosexuals in order to retain fecal matter. Disease is rampant in the homosexual community...it's a nasty, filthy, deathstyle. Nature testifies against the union of homosexuals in that they cannot procreate and the natural order, as initiated by our Creator in the Covenant of Marriage, is defiled in the homosexual and lesbian act. LGBTQ is an embarrassment to any people and our children are the victims of LGBTQ activism...suicide rates for our youth involved in transsexualism is off-the-charts. Homosexuality is NOT sustainable, it's filthy, it's disease ridden, it's nasty, defiled, behavior. LGBTQ is mental and spiritual illness.


    smoothie
  • smoothiesmoothie 376 Pts
    edited January 7
    RickeyD said:
    this is why butt-plugs are needed by active and experienced homosexuals in order to retain fecal matter.
    @RickeyD LOL is that what your christian private school taught you? :joy: :joy: :joy: :joy:

    They are sex toys, Rickey ...
    RickeyD said:
    Nature testifies against the union of homosexuals in that they cannot procreate and the natural order, as initiated by our Creator in the Covenant of Marriage, is defiled in the homosexual and lesbian act.
    How is that nature "testifying" against the union of homosexuals? Nature produces homosexuals through many species. Some homosexuals of other species even share relationships akin to heterosexual versions. This is nature.

    Your version of "natural order" from your "creator" is irrelevant.
    RickeyD said:
    LGBTQ is mental and spiritual illness.

    why so serious?
  • RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts
    @smoothie ; You are ill and need spiritual intervention.


    2) Anal sex linked to increased risk of incontinence: http://https//www.reuters.com/article/us-health-analsex-incontinence-idUSKCN0VD2RH

    3) Gay Bowel Syndrome – Consequences of Anal Sex: http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/AnalEroticism


    Homosexuality is a mental and spiritual illness and only by surrendering to Jesus as Lord and allowing Him to remove the aberrant desires will you be healed and find peace with God the Father.









    smoothieRS_master
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts
    edited January 7
    smoothie said:
    Vaulk said:
    The argument that "Homosexuality isn't a choice and therefor shouldn't be considered wrong" falls apart when you examine in in a relative manner.

    So let's take the above statement and try to apply it to another ideology and see if it holds weight.

    "Pedophilia isn't a choice, people can't choose to not be sexually attracted to children and therefor it shouldn't be considered wrong".
    I'm going to go with a "No" on this one, seems that the fact that it's not a choice doesn't deserve any weight".

    "Zoosexuality isn't a choice, people can't choose to not be sexually attracted to animals and therefor it shouldn't be considered wrong".
    Again I'm leaning towards "No", seems that the fact that the person feels that way naturally doesn't really matter.

    I agree. However, I believe it is a necessary point to make when people claim you can simply "choose" to not be a homosexual.

    Both sides of the argument have fault.

    However, this point is factually sound against the opposition to homosexuality, when it comes to things like conversion therapy and the morals of enacting laws against homosexuality.

    The real question is does it matter if it is a choice or not? If it was a "choice" who does it affect? Should authoritarian laws make that "choice" for them? For some on the opposing stance, it does matter, they want it to be a choice so they have a stronger argument. For the religious folk, it makes them sleep better at night when they believe homosexuals are choosing their sexuality instead of their religion. They want an enemy that made the choice to "live in sin".
    This is one of my favorite arguments, it consists of "Well who's it hurting"?  This argument is ethically skimpy at best because the repercussions of our choices are almost never known up front, it can take years, decades for the full ramifications to materialize and therefor the question as to who if affects doesn't serve as an argument.

    We can do the same with the above question: When a Father and Daughter both consent to have sex and therefor enter into an incestuous relationship...who does it hurt?

    If the argument "Well it's not hurting anyone" was valid then you could easily apply it to consensual incestuous relationships...but I'm of the opinion that they're wrong.  This is actually a consequence of opening the door to homosexual legitimacy, other forms of sexual impropriety managed to slip in behind it without our blessing.

    When homosexuality was still against the law (Sodomy was a felony) we began to break down the barriers first by suggesting that "Homosexuality isn't a choice, we're born that way" and now that we've successfully used that argument to open the doors for homosexuals...take a look at what's happening with pedophilia .  Looks like the same path is being used to explain how it's not their fault and that we shouldn't blame them because they're born that way.  Prior to the re-writing of the law to allow for homosexual lifestyles it just so happens that homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality and some other nasty forms of sexual deviancy were all listed together in the same federal code as "Crimes against nature".  The consequences of allowing just one of the crimes against nature out of the lockup and pushing it into the light as a celebrated lifestyle has resulted in the others gaining a foothold in the justification for their impending release.

    "But it's not hurting anyone" isn't a good argument.


    PlaffelvohfenDeesmoothieRickeyDSkepticalOne
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 681 Pts
    edited January 8
    RickeyD said:
    @SkepticalOne ; The anus was not created for insertion but expulsion...this is why butt-plugs are needed by active and experienced homosexuals in order to retain fecal matter. Disease is rampant in the homosexual community...it's a nasty, filthy, deathstyle. Nature testifies against the union of homosexuals in that they cannot procreate and the natural order, as initiated by our Creator in the Covenant of Marriage, is defiled in the homosexual and lesbian act. LGBTQ is an embarrassment to any people and our children are the victims of LGBTQ activism...suicide rates for our youth involved in transsexualism is off-the-charts. Homosexuality is NOT sustainable, it's filthy, it's disease ridden, it's nasty, defiled, behavior. LGBTQ is mental and spiritual illness.


    Hmmm, that's all nonsense based on your biases. Homosexuality occurs in species besides humans - are they running contrary to nature? Disease is rampant among those who don't take care of themselves (straight or gay) - you are certainly being unfair in your conclusions. Lastly, it is natural for people to age out of reproduction (while still being capable of sex) and even people of typical reproductive age are unable to procreate, so again, are these individuals running contrary to the "natural order"? Check your biases.
    smoothie
  • RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts
    @SkepticalOne ; Beasts of the field are not homosexual...they seek dominance and you and the homosexual and the lesbian are NOT soul-less beasts of the field that you should engage in immoral, unnatural, nasty, defiled, disease ridden, shameful, same-sex unions. My conclusions are not unfair, they are truth and you're attempting to defend a spiritually and psychologically sick and immoral behavior that is indefensible. If the LGBTQ participant does not repent of their immorality and trust-believe in Jesus Christ as Lord for the mediation of sin, they will die in sin and lose their soul in Hell. This is truth!


    smoothieSkepticalOne
  • Vaulk said:
    This is one of my favorite arguments, it consists of "Well who's it hurting"?  This argument is ethically skimpy at best because the repercussions of our choices are almost never known up front, it can take years, decades for the full ramifications to materialize and therefor the question as to who if affects doesn't serve as an argument.

    We can do the same with the above question: When a Father and Daughter both consent to have sex and therefor enter into an incestuous relationship...who does it hurt?

    If the argument "Well it's not hurting anyone" was valid then you could easily apply it to consensual incestuous relationships...but I'm of the opinion that they're wrong.  This is actually a consequence of opening the door to homosexual legitimacy, other forms of sexual impropriety managed to slip in behind it without our blessing.

    When homosexuality was still against the law (Sodomy was a felony) we began to break down the barriers first by suggesting that "Homosexuality isn't a choice, we're born that way" and now that we've successfully used that argument to open the doors for homosexuals...take a look at what's happening with pedophilia .  Looks like the same path is being used to explain how it's not their fault and that we shouldn't blame them because they're born that way.  Prior to the re-writing of the law to allow for homosexual lifestyles it just so happens that homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality and some other nasty forms of sexual deviancy were all listed together in the same federal code as "Crimes against nature".  The consequences of allowing just one of the crimes against nature out of the lockup and pushing it into the light as a celebrated lifestyle has resulted in the others gaining a foothold in the justification for their impending release.

    "But it's not hurting anyone" isn't a good argument.


    Incestous relationships hurt, because if they produce a child it would have a huge risk of birth defects. Pedophilia hurts because its an unconsenting child with permanent psychological/physical damage to the child. Beastiality hurts because its an unconsenting animal, and with two different species that are vastly different that both creatures involved can hurt each other.

    The argument "if you legitimize homosexuality then it's a slippery slope to other relationships" isn't a good argument. We are talking about homosexual relationships first and foremost. Obviously pedophiles will try and take the chance to gain acceptance, they have been trying forever. Pedophiles are scum in this way and it hurts the cause of homosexuals. You can legalize homosexuality without legalizing pedophilia/bestiality/incest.

    It is a good argument because the other relationships you proposed do hurt people. Homosexual relationships are two consenting adults, with no possibility of producing a child with birth defects, and are the same species. Comparing homosexuality to these other types of relationships is unfair.
    why so serious?
  • smoothiesmoothie 376 Pts
    edited January 13
    RickeyD said:
    @SkepticalOne ; Beasts of the field are not homosexual...they seek dominance and you and the homosexual and the lesbian are NOT soul-less beasts of the field that you should engage in immoral, unnatural, nasty, defiled, disease ridden, shameful, same-sex unions. My conclusions are not unfair, they are truth and you're attempting to defend a spiritually and psychologically sick and immoral behavior that is indefensible. If the LGBTQ participant does not repent of their immorality and trust-believe in Jesus Christ as Lord for the mediation of sin, they will die in sin and lose their soul in Hell. This is truth!
    @RickeyD Humans are animals, mammals in fact. We just have higher intelligence, don't feel so special.

    You designed your own truth based on your religious interpretation. It is not factually based on reality.

    Also, HIV rates continue to decline. There are even drugs now that completely block the new infection of HIV/AIDS. It is extremely likely to be an extinct virus in the millennial/zoomer lifetime.

    RickeyD said:
    @smoothie ; You are ill and need spiritual intervention.


    2) Anal sex linked to increased risk of incontinence: http://https//www.reuters.com/article/us-health-analsex-incontinence-idUSKCN0VD2RH

    3) Gay Bowel Syndrome – Consequences of Anal Sex: http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/AnalEroticism


    Homosexuality is a mental and spiritual illness and only by surrendering to Jesus as Lord and allowing Him to remove the aberrant desires will you be healed and find peace with God the Father.
    1. These "anal plugs" are used by mainly the elderly and not specifically gay men. They are used by everybody, Rickey.

    2. Only 12% of gay men in total have this incontinence that is not far from the 5% of total men. That even includes the elderly previously mentioned. Anal sex can be very safe and is as dangerous as vaginal when done correctly. This stat is irrelevant, incontinence mainly occurs when the performer is being dangerous and risky in sex. Incontinence is extremely rare in all cases of sex. You are using a scare tactic, straight sex is more likely to result in HIV/AIDS than homosexual sex resulting in incontinence. Speaking of straight sex, women also are known to have problems with urinary incontinence after vaginal sex https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5293379/. Painting this incontinence as a homosexual issue is immature and pure bias.

    3. This website is extremely biased and not based on factual material. Seems like an anti-gay scare website based on the language. 90% of the sources used are as old as the 1960's, outdated. I wouldn't trust this even if was supporting my argument, clearly, you don't care. After a quick google search (literally wikipedia), this term was retracted in 2005 because results were incredibly biased and this term was simply used to dismiss gay patients instead of actually diagnosing them, disgusting practice. The "syndrome" could also have been used against heterosexual women with the same symptoms, but no, it was used against homosexuals specifically. This term has no place in the medical field and promoting a pre-aids era term that is discontinued shows you have zero respect for factual material and instead use outdated terms to slander, go figure.

    4. Your christian community likely brainwashed this man. Sad. This is an example of the power of your propaganda. Christians love to give these people a platform, and promise them fame and fortune to denounce their own sexuality. The truth is that having an "ex-gay" promote homophobia is hilarious and these people were likely never gay in the first place https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/68217-a-change-of-heart-on-same-sex-attraction-alan-chambers.html https://prospect.org/civil-rights/so-called-ex-gay-life/

    One more thing...
    RickeyD said:
    @SkepticalOne ; The anus was not created for insertion but expulsion
    The human senses and anatomy were not created to drive cars. Now it is the most popular form of transportation in the modern world. The eyes were not created to read, yet everybody does now. The mouth was not created for kissing, yet it is extremely popular among couples. There are many more examples....

    We can use our bodies for our own invention Rickey. Society revolves around it.
    Plaffelvohfen
    why so serious?
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts
    smoothie said:
    Vaulk said:
    This is one of my favorite arguments, it consists of "Well who's it hurting"?  This argument is ethically skimpy at best because the repercussions of our choices are almost never known up front, it can take years, decades for the full ramifications to materialize and therefor the question as to who if affects doesn't serve as an argument.

    We can do the same with the above question: When a Father and Daughter both consent to have sex and therefor enter into an incestuous relationship...who does it hurt?

    If the argument "Well it's not hurting anyone" was valid then you could easily apply it to consensual incestuous relationships...but I'm of the opinion that they're wrong.  This is actually a consequence of opening the door to homosexual legitimacy, other forms of sexual impropriety managed to slip in behind it without our blessing.

    When homosexuality was still against the law (Sodomy was a felony) we began to break down the barriers first by suggesting that "Homosexuality isn't a choice, we're born that way" and now that we've successfully used that argument to open the doors for homosexuals...take a look at what's happening with pedophilia .  Looks like the same path is being used to explain how it's not their fault and that we shouldn't blame them because they're born that way.  Prior to the re-writing of the law to allow for homosexual lifestyles it just so happens that homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality and some other nasty forms of sexual deviancy were all listed together in the same federal code as "Crimes against nature".  The consequences of allowing just one of the crimes against nature out of the lockup and pushing it into the light as a celebrated lifestyle has resulted in the others gaining a foothold in the justification for their impending release.

    "But it's not hurting anyone" isn't a good argument.


    Incestous relationships hurt, because if they produce a child it would have a huge risk of birth defects. Pedophilia hurts because its an unconsenting child with permanent psychological/physical damage to the child. Beastiality hurts because its an unconsenting animal, and with two different species that are vastly different that both creatures involved can hurt each other.

    The argument "if you legitimize homosexuality then it's a slippery slope to other relationships" isn't a good argument. We are talking about homosexual relationships first and foremost. Obviously pedophiles will try and take the chance to gain acceptance, they have been trying forever. Pedophiles are scum in this way and it hurts the cause of homosexuals. You can legalize homosexuality without legalizing pedophilia/bestiality/incest.

    It is a good argument because the other relationships you proposed do hurt people. Homosexual relationships are two consenting adults, with no possibility of producing a child with birth defects, and are the same species. Comparing homosexuality to these other types of relationships is unfair.
    If you're going to use the potential repercussions of a child born of an incestuous relationship having birth defects then likewise we'd have to take into account all the negative repercussions of homosexual relationships.  This would include the rise in risk of sexually transmitted diseases, the disorders related to homosexual intercourse and the undeniable statistics behind the homosexual community as a whole in regards to drug use, sexual promiscuity, and overall risky lifestyles.  Additionally, using a potential byproduct that isn't a guaranteed outcome in order to prove the morality of the original action doesn't quite work...unless of course you apply this standard across the argument and...again...now we're stuck looking at all the bad stuff that can come as a result of homosexuality.

    Children that are byproducts of incestuous relationships are at a risk of genetic disorders but not for the reasons people think.  It's not that the incestuous pregnancy causes the disorder, it's that ALL people carry recessive disorder genes and when you couple with a relative you are at a higher risk of bringing those pre-existing genes forward to your offspring.  All in all the genetic disorders that are present in today's society are actually more dominant than disorders that can be produced from an incestuous relationship.  This means you're actually more at risk to have a child with down syndrome with a regular partner or any other common defect than to produce a defective offspring with a relative.

    Ultimately the point is still missed though.  The argument in and of itself doesn't stand to reason.  "Who's it hurting" is a bad sole argument for the practice of anything but should be one of the qualifiers in a long list of questions that need to be asked before moving forward with a choice. 
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • smoothiesmoothie 376 Pts
    edited January 12
    Vaulk said:
    If you're going to use the potential repercussions of a child born of an incestuous relationship having birth defects then likewise we'd have to take into account all the negative repercussions of homosexual relationships.  This would include the rise in risk of sexually transmitted diseases, the disorders related to homosexual intercourse and the undeniable statistics behind the homosexual community as a whole in regards to drug use, sexual promiscuity, and overall risky lifestyles.  Additionally, using a potential byproduct that isn't a guaranteed outcome in order to prove the morality of the original action doesn't quite work...unless of course you apply this standard across the argument and...again...now we're stuck looking at all the bad stuff that can come as a result of homosexuality.

    Children that are byproducts of incestuous relationships are at a risk of genetic disorders but not for the reasons people think.  It's not that the incestuous pregnancy causes the disorder, it's that ALL people carry recessive disorder genes and when you couple with a relative you are at a higher risk of bringing those pre-existing genes forward to your offspring.  All in all the genetic disorders that are present in today's society are actually more dominant than disorders that can be produced from an incestuous relationship.  This means you're actually more at risk to have a child with down syndrome with a regular partner or any other common defect than to produce a defective offspring with a relative.

    Ultimately the point is still missed though.  The argument in and of itself doesn't stand to reason.  "Who's it hurting" is a bad sole argument for the practice of anything but should be one of the qualifiers in a long list of questions that need to be asked before moving forward with a choice. 

    @Vaulk Heterosexual relationships also have similar negative repercussions when it comes to STDS/drug use/violence no matter the "chances". So I agree that using potential repercussions is not a strong argument, which many people make against homosexual relationships. It is unreasonable to say that every heterosexual or homosexual relationship will result in these negative outcomes. Good argument.

    I believe in the legalization of victimless crimes (like the previous sodomy laws), so I do have a bias when it comes to debating the repercussions of anything bad resulting in somebody's own outcomes. Regarding consensual homosexuality, I believe homosexuals should decide whether to indulge in homosexual sex on their own will. The negative outcomes of STDS, drug use, and promiscuity only hurt people directly involved in the acts of this.  You could use the same "gays are bad heres the stats" argument against black people that they will commit more crime and not live as long, its a faulty argument. To be infected with HIV/AIDS in the modern era through consentual homosexual sex, you have to make the conscious and consentual decision to have this sex and then reject items like condoms and PrEP. It is a choice to be made by the person in their private life.

    Who does homosexuality hurt? The consenting people involved, in some circumstances. I think it is a choice to be made by them when they know the risks and are allowed to take precautions. The government should not decide this for them. Homosexuality is not pedophilia.
    why so serious?
  • Vaulk said:
    The argument that "Homosexuality isn't a choice and therefor shouldn't be considered wrong" falls apart when you examine in in a relative manner.

    So let's take the above statement and try to apply it to another ideology and see if it holds weight.

    "Pedophilia isn't a choice, people can't choose to not be sexually attracted to children and therefor it shouldn't be considered wrong".
    I'm going to go with a "No" on this one, seems that the fact that it's not a choice doesn't deserve any weight".

    "Zoosexuality isn't a choice, people can't choose to not be sexually attracted to animals and therefor it shouldn't be considered wrong".
    Again I'm leaning towards "No", seems that the fact that the person feels that way naturally doesn't really matter.

    The core of this argument is that because something isn't a choice...it's not wrong to do it.  This is so ethically wrong it's not funny.  If there were any remote truth to this statement then you could literally apply it to anything else and it would work but it doesn't.  Using this excuse is ethically reprehensible and from a logic standpoint it's downright deception intended to play on people's sympathy in order to bypass standards of morality.


    So your argument in standard form is thus:

    Premise 1: Some say that homosexuality isn't a choice and therefore isn't wrong.

    Premis 2: Pedophilia isn't a choice either but that's wrong.

    Conclusion: Therefore, Homosexuality is wrong!


    Sorry dude, but you're gonna have to do better than that. Because pedophilia is wrong does not mean homosexuality is wrong.
    smoothiePlaffelvohfen









  • @RickeyD


    Thank you for your police service. But this is exactly why religion can have a negative impact when applied to the public sphere. I believe you are looking at this through a very biased lens. Can you really tell us that you don't see hopelessness, hate, filth, fluids… in heterosexual neighborhoods? It sounds like the inner-city descriptions I've heard my entire life. But here you have turned a common problem into an uncommon one and pinned the blame on homosexuality (perhaps in a different discussion you would pin it on race). Is this because you have filtered your experience through your beliefs? I am particularly offended by your suggestion that homosexuals abuse children any more than heterosexuals do. In fact, that is part of the problem with your opinion. There is no objective support here that you provide for your position, only anecdotal. I think it very likely that your proposition that homosexuality is the cause of these problems is objectively unsupportable (provide some if there is-not from a biased religious or right-wing source). If I have time, I'll do it myself. You site the Bible but that has little clout as an objective scientific or sociological source. You may respond with; it is God's word therefore an authority on everything. Well that probably worked in the Middle Ages, by you are surrounded by too many people today would are capable of independent cognitive thought. You need those people who sadly still exist who have bought into the biggest con in human history, "faith". Religion has only survived because faith demands the suspension of cognitive independent thought. So, this is really the only non-anecdotal evidence you provide, faith, have faith that my God exists and that this is his book. Other than that, what actual evidence do you have that homosexuality doesn't work in society, that it brings shame on people, etc... Did you interview them and ask them if they felt shame because of their sexuality? Do you conduct any controlled inquiry? If they do feel shame, how do you know it isn't poverty or perceived lack of upward mobility that is the cause? How do you know it isn't because of your attitude, society's attitude, that is to say prejudice, it's presence today and its long legacy! How do you know it isn't because of their ethnic group and the prejudice they suffer?

    In fact, your position sounds very punitive and not very open to discussion.  The more I read it the more disturbing it is. You really are just making one sanctimonious holier than thou judgmental declaration after another. You don't say "I think…", "I feel that maybe…", etc. Your say "are", is" you use the emphatic. It's a poisonous position.

    Anytime, someone makes a declaration like this, stating that something is entirely this or that, in this case homosexuality is entirely bad, then you know something is wrong. Black and white are signs of an extreme view. You have likely seen what you wanted to see. But it is highly unlikely that you really observed the people in these neighborhoods objectively. You have decided to not recognize the good that is there. And all because of an ancient book's unquestionable authority, for which there is no evidence, either for it having been authored by God or for the existence of this god. A god who you would say is loving and all good. Yet He compels you to make such a hateful statement.

    Faith should have a foundation in observable facts.  I must say you do not strengthen my faith in law enforcement as an isolated example (I have no reason to believe that you represent all of law enforcement. You on the other hand appear to believe that your interpretation of your experience represents all homosexual communities and all homosexual (LBGTQs) everywhere). It does not give me comfort that at least on of them is biased and judgmental, and by the way, therefore so uninterested in due process. You realize that your position is decidedly un-American and anti-democratic, right?

    "The problem with homosexuality in society is that it does not work, it does nothing to provide mores, norms, values, that are sustainable to a healthy, happy, moral, dignified, honorable people in a Constitutional Republic governed by the rule of law..." So, in other words these people aren't really Americans, they aren't worthy citizens because of their sexual orientation. This shows, not only, classic prejudice, but disdain for America values, its justice system and government. You are suggesting that all should not be represented, only those you deem fit. You suggest disdain for equality, inclusiveness, fair justice, human-rights, tolerance, openness, freedom... all the bedrock of American principles. You are siding with a dictator, one absolute invisible strongman in the sky. The Bible (especially the old testament) has very little to do with American values and everything to do with European Enlightenment (humanist) values. If fact, America would have likely been born much earlier if human progress had not been weighted down by the burden of ancient religious superstition.  Heaven is a dictatorship. The only freedom it offers is a bogus and profoundly contradictory kind of freedom contingent upon becoming a slave to God or be damned to an eternity of agony. This is a mockery of freedom of choice. And it certainly is loving!

    So, I think your position would rest on much more solid ground if you would just leave your faith out of it, though that may not be possible for you to do. By the way, my experience with gay people is completely counter to yours. My oldest friend is gay, I've had gay students, and an uncle was gay. Those I have known are happy, prosperous, filled with life, and positive energy. But I will not do what you do and say that my experience represents all LGBTQ individuals and communities. Your position really is disturbing, frightening actually!  

    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbotsmoothie

  • Sorry, but my last post was mainly assuming your position on this topic. So, I need to ask what your position is to be clear. So, what is your current position on homosexuality? Do you think it is wrong? And why, etc?









  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts

    Sorry, but my last post was mainly assuming your position on this topic. So, I need to ask what your position is to be clear. So, what is your current position on homosexuality? Do you think it is wrong? And why, etc?
    I think homosexuality isn't a choice, I'm a straight Male and I cannot summon the will to be sexually attracted by another Male therefor...it isn't my choice to be heterosexual and likewise I don't think homosexuals can choose either.

    As far as it being wrong, I believe it's wrong in so far as the Bible says it's a Sin.  I'll explain how I arrive at this conclusion.  

    I don't personally subscribe to subjective Morality nor do I believe that it truly exists.  All morals begin somewhere and, more specifically, in the United States we live in a Christian Nation (As declared by the Supreme Court of The United States) and therefor our morality ultimately originates "Under God" because "In God We Trust".  You can argue all day long until you're blue in the face but the undeniable fact is that "He" is there.  He is built into everything about this Country and despite the separation of Church and State, He and His teachings remain a fundamental principle of our Country.  

    Because He is the basis of our Morals and subsequently our Laws then when referencing whether or nothing something is Moral I ultimately defer back to the person in which our National Motto refers to, and He says it's immoral.  

    Now, what do I think should be done about it?  Nothing mostly.  I don't think Homosexuals or any other alternate sexual person should be cast out, vilified or punished.  I don't much care what they do amongst themselves, my stance on the matter is mostly indifferent until it comes to the new-age model, the "You must celebrate my lifestyle or you're a bigot" model.  Anytime anyone suggests that artificially influencing public opinion is necessary...I'm immediately suspicious.  Forcing people to be accepting of your lifestyle is disingenuous and therefor constitutes a reason to be wary of it.    


    ZeusAres42
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • i want to clarify my position before i make a statement. i am a born again christian, so i am your sister, in christ. that said, i disagree with your position, that it is a sin to be gay. i am not the one to judge, because i myself am bisexual. What i want both of us to commit to is prayer, and civilized debate, in the Name of Christ. My position is that same sex marriage can be blessed by God. Do you accept my terms of debate? I am willing to provide facts, and evidence. Please do not use the no true Scotsman fallacy.
  • Vaulk said:

    Sorry, but my last post was mainly assuming your position on this topic. So, I need to ask what your position is to be clear. So, what is your current position on homosexuality? Do you think it is wrong? And why, etc?
    I think homosexuality isn't a choice, I'm a straight Male and I cannot summon the will to be sexually attracted by another Male therefor...it isn't my choice to be heterosexual and likewise I don't think homosexuals can choose either.

    As far as it being wrong, I believe it's wrong in so far as the Bible says it's a Sin.  I'll explain how I arrive at this conclusion.  

    I don't personally subscribe to subjective Morality nor do I believe that it truly exists.  All morals begin somewhere and, more specifically, in the United States we live in a Christian Nation (As declared by the Supreme Court of The United States) and therefor our morality ultimately originates "Under God" because "In God We Trust".  You can argue all day long until you're blue in the face but the undeniable fact is that "He" is there.  He is built into everything about this Country and despite the separation of Church and State, He and His teachings remain a fundamental principle of our Country.  

    Because He is the basis of our Morals and subsequently our Laws then when referencing whether or nothing something is Moral I ultimately defer back to the person in which our National Motto refers to, and He says it's immoral.  

    Now, what do I think should be done about it?  Nothing mostly.  I don't think Homosexuals or any other alternate sexual person should be cast out, vilified or punished.  I don't much care what they do amongst themselves, my stance on the matter is mostly indifferent until it comes to the new-age model, the "You must celebrate my lifestyle or you're a bigot" model.  Anytime anyone suggests that artificially influencing public opinion is necessary...I'm immediately suspicious.  Forcing people to be accepting of your lifestyle is disingenuous and therefor constitutes a reason to be wary of it.    


    I agree with you. i myself am bisexual, and any mental health professional knows, that sexual orentation is innate, and not a choice. Of course I am not calling any sexual orentation an issue, i am just trying to make a point. i am sorry for how some of my Christian brothers and sisters act hateful. i used to do that too, but the love of Christ got through my self hate, and fear. I truly don't believe Jesus is the God of terror, and hate. i believe Jesus loved humanity so much, that He paid the price for our sins. If you want or need evidence, let me know.
  • Vaulk said:
     All morals begin somewhere and, more specifically, in the United States we live in a Christian Nation (As declared by the Supreme Court of The United States) and therefor our morality ultimately originates "Under God" because "In God We Trust".  You can argue all day long until you're blue in the face but the undeniable fact is that "He" is there.  He is built into everything about this Country and despite the separation of Church and State, He and His teachings remain a fundamental principle of our Country.  

    Because He is the basis of our Morals and subsequently our Laws then when referencing whether or nothing something is Moral I ultimately defer back to the person in which our National Motto refers to, and He says it's immoral. 
    I will not deny a majority of this country is christian. However, separation of church and state (as you have said) and the first amendment deny the government to favor one religion over another in many cases. It disallows the establishment of a state church. I don't imply you made a point against this but I just wanted to make this clear. The government can never declare itself a christian government but can declare a christian nation from its majority.

    "In Zorach v. Clauson (1952), the Supreme Court also wrote that the nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and that government recognition of God does not constitute the establishment of a state church as the Constitution's authors intended to prohibit." (Wikipedia)

    "Under God" in 1954 and "In God We Trust" in 1956 were put in, by of course, christian members of the government from the majority christian nation. During the communist scare, Americans wanted to remain different from communists and the proposed idea from christians was to simply encourage religion.

    "In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today."

    Before 1956 the national motto was "E pluribus unum" which symbolized the union of the thirteen colonies into the nation we know today. This remained the motto for a majority of America's existance and was only recently changed to the motto you look back on. I don't tend to regard the national motto or a part in the pledge as proof that religion is a part of everything in this country when christian members were the ones who put them there, and was not placed by the people who created this country and designed the constitution.

    In fact, being a christian is almost synonymous with becoming the president. A publically declared athiest president has never been elected into office. The presumed christian majority of the country will, of course, give a bias to christian ideals. Christianity is a fundamental ideal, but only because of its members. Despite christianity being involved, members of any other religion or atheists can never have christian values forced into them, that is what matters to me the most.

    Vaulk said:
    Now, what do I think should be done about it?  Nothing mostly.  I don't think Homosexuals or any other alternate sexual person should be cast out, vilified or punished.  I don't much care what they do amongst themselves, my stance on the matter is mostly indifferent until it comes to the new-age model, the "You must celebrate my lifestyle or you're a bigot" model.  Anytime anyone suggests that artificially influencing public opinion is necessary...I'm immediately suspicious.  Forcing people to be accepting of your lifestyle is disingenuous and therefor constitutes a reason to be wary of it.   

    I am glad that you think homosexuals should not be harassed. That is all that matters to me, as a homosexual, when regarding the law and separation of church and state. I am sorry if the new wave of acceptance for homosexuality has caused you harm, I sometimes think it has gone too far at points when watching people being yelled at and silenced because of different views. The original message of acceptance seems to have been lost. I would never want to make you feel less. I will never "force" your acceptance of me, I will only encourage that I am not discriminated against. You are entitled to your views.
    why so serious?
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts
    @smoothie @YeshuaBought

    Awesome, and thanks for the civil discourse.  

    I grew up with a gay Uncle and his lifestyle was mostly obscured from me until after he died from AIDS and since then I've worked alongside many Gay Soldiers who, at the time, had to keep their lifestyle a secret and subsequently I never knew.  I can honestly say there was never anything off about them and I honestly don't think that homosexual lifestyles can ultimately cause you to be a bad person.

    Like most movements though, the movement to bring about fairness for alternative sexual lifestyles has gotten a little out of hand.  I've never personally been slighted by anyone but it's unmistakable at this point...if you don't think that homesexuality is beautiful...you're a racist, homophobic bigot who needs to be taken out behind the shed and castrated.  I'm still firmly rooted in the idea that this is mostly a minority idea, I don't think the majority of homosexuals think that way.
    smoothie
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3409 Pts
    edited February 2
    @Vaulk

    I have met many LGBT folks, and I concur: there is nothing special about them, and unless they actually tell you they are LGBT, you would never guess on your own (well, might be a bit more obvious with transsexual people at an early stage of transitioning, but even then you have to be very attentive to notice that something is off). Yes, some get a little overexcited and start to identify their personality with their sexuality, but it seems to be quite uncommon.

    The reverse is also true. Several people have told me that I look like a gay, because I wear very bright clothes, light makeup and such; but I am as heterosexual as one can get, and I just have a strong feminine side in me and like looking cool/unusual. Stereotypes about what gays look like are just that, stereotypes, and they very rarely manifest themselves in real individuals.

    The identity politics movement, of course, is a different matter entirely. Those people get out of their way to make an issue of everything. If someone is gay, they will emphasise this fact and talk about it repeatedly, even if the gay himself does not care that much and just wants to be left alone. Authoritarian folks like that give all minorities a bad name and should be met with prejudice.
    smoothie
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch