@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:
Okie - The debate on whether or not homosexuality is nature or nurture is certainly a large one. The statement about the lifestyle being a choice is true, however, irrelevant. Do you think that you should have to defend your choice of lifestyle? Should a Christian have to defend their beliefs in what is unproven while a homosexual has to prove a gender identity? You'd have to prove that a gay lifestyle is invalid. I'm sure you think you could make that argument, but I don't think you can. (I'd love to hear it if you think you can. Start another thread, I would follow you.) You say it's not about happiness, but the pursuit of it. I agree, and that's why things like defining marriage (a power unrelated to governing), serving in the army, inheritance to a partner should be allowed. They don't make some guarantee of happiness, but to deny someone the opportunity to pursue these things is just discrimination.
As for Bush, I made no mention of him. He certainly was a part of the things that I listed, but I don't give him the full blame. Perhaps we are ore safe today. I cannot pretend to know an alternative to history, nor can you. Perhaps we are more in danger because of our choices. Either way, what I do know is that we have shown we are willing to trade civil rights for a sense of security. You may be okay with that trade, but it wasn't your civil rights which would have ever been challenged.
T
K
O
I'm not interested in any thread about homosexuality. The argument would never reach a resolution.
Basically in a nutshell, I don't think establishing a right based on a dysfunctional behavior is a wise move for society. Marriage is not magically going to make the lifestyle any more functional than it is now. I think other laws can be reformed to allow the things they claim they are denied now, such as matters with estates, visitation in hospitals, and so on.
I happen to believe they can continue to do what they do, nobody is stopping them, but it is alot more about things than rights. I am convinced they will not be satisfied until they feel that society has legitimized the behavior, and I don't think that is appropriate. Once it becomes a right, you will have the government placing restrictions on religion or on people from expressing an opposing view. Instead of rights, this will ultimately end up being the denial of rights, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, etc. Bottom line, this is a behavior that some homosexual groups are pushing for acceptance, not a condition to be compared to civil rights, such as the black minority community.
That is my personal opinion. Rubber stamping homosexual marriage would lead to many unintended consequences that would be negative to society. Otherwise, I would have no objection, people could do what they want. They still can as far as I am concerned, as they do now, but when I see the liklihood that such will encroach upon my God given rights in the future, I draw the line.
