You do realize that in your belief system, all humanity is genetically derived from just two people, serpents are capable of human speech, two of every animal survived on a massive ark, and people can walk on water, can turn water into wine, and make food appear from nowhere?
Like when society wanted to stop the movement for blacks to become equal in society, and it eventually erupted when the oppressed minority group said enough is enough?Society must be made to feel that their wishes and wants have value. If they do not, you see large scale unrest. Like we saw in the US in 60s.
If it doesn't cause any real harm, then why should it not be made law, even if it is a choice?I don't know that it does any real and imminent harm, that's why my opposition would be easily reversed with scientific evidence. More religious, conservative, people than myself won't be as easily swayed.
If there's a god, damn it she won't mind.
If there's a god, baby she won't mind.
Premise 1: I believe the bible to be accurate about what it describes as immoral
Premise 2: The bible describes homosexuality as immoral.
Conclusion: Therefore I believe that homosexuality is immoral.
At least you'd have valid logic.
The arguments you do present about normal and natural are simply not valid logic. They are attempts to use things other than the bible to justify your beliefs. You don't need anything more in order to justify your beliefs about morality, though.
Where you would need more than just the bible is when you take your own moral beliefs and attempt to influence legislation with it. This is why so many arguments against gay marriage are fallacious. Those who oppose gay marriage, in many cases, do so based entirely on their moral views which stem from the bible or religion.
Yet they know a biblical basis will not be accepted for legal purposes, so they try to come up with other arguments, even though these arguments are not the one's which convinced them that homosexuality is immoral and "wrong". This is why those arguments are often illogical.
But if your views are based on the bible and religion, just stick with that. Say "I believe homosexuality is immoral because of my religion. I don't really care if it is normal or natural. As long as it is considered immoral by my religion, I will always believe it is immoral."
That's an honest argument because, ultimately, that's what's going on. Your views are fixed on this. I would guess that it would take nothing short of the Pope himself saying that homosexuality is morally acceptable for those views to change.
I do realize that's how you see it, sure.You do realize that in your belief system, all humanity is genetically derived from just two people, serpents are capable of human speech, two of every animal survived on a massive ark, and people can walk on water, can turn water into wine, and make food appear from nowhere?
The only reason you find it offensive is because you are ashamed of it. This was your choice. You chose to intuitively accept a religious doctrine as absolute and to expect others to live in accordance with it. If you find your lifestyle insulting then maybe you need to reconsider your lifestyle. I'm not responsible for you feeling guilty about your choice of lifestyle.I find it offensive because you mean it to be. You are being insulting.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
It erupted when far more than the minority group said enough is enough. But, otherwise...yeah, I agree with that statement. Change society.Like when society wanted to stop the movement for blacks to become equal in society, and it eventually erupted when the oppressed minority group said enough is enough?
Because it's contrary to societies wishes, at least for now.If it doesn't cause any real harm, then why should it not be made law, even if it is a choice?