Welcome back Istanbul. First off name calling means you already lost. Secondly no, you didn't sum it up correctly. The underlying problem here is that everyone is working under the assumption that homosexuality is a genetic quality. And without seeing any evidence for it. I don't see why you all do. Secondly, I haven't oppresssed anyone. If given the oppurtunity I would vote against it. I don't agree with it, just like you would all vote against higher magic card prices if you ever got the oppurtunity to vote. I don't protest or get in homosexual peoples faces. Heck I hang out with some homosexuals and they don't even have a problem with me the way some of you people have.
Apparently I can have any view as long its the same view as you. You are being a hypocrite because you are saying who can give consent and who can't. By your arguement, I can say homosexuals can not give consent because they are of ill mind. You can't prove an animal doesn't give consent. You can't say a child can't legally give consent. By your own logic you are discriminating.
No. It is important to prove, in the specific instance, that they do give consent. A child is not legally permitted to make decisions on its own without the consent of a legal guardian. If proof is impossible to prove, then the benefit of the doubt is not granted.
sexual perversion is not a group of things - it is a term - whose definition is differed by perspective...
I agree - and what shall you do if your children change their thinking on this issue...
I have no problem with this what-so-ever... seriously... It's no different than itemizing for tax purposes now anyhow...
Man, you really are seeing only what you want to see, and not what I'm actually saying.
I am so afraid to say that "self-evidence" is, like anything else, a matter of opinion. No, not at all in fact, is it self-evident that it is only "fair and just" to have equality for all people. How is it fair? How is it just? I am asking, apparently I am a little naive and also a little stupid. But I am asking. It is so self-evident, then please, let me hear this simple evidence. Nevertheless, I do concede that there are indeed some things that are, perhaps, more "appropriate" than others - to judge a man based solely on his skin color or sexuality is not as "fair and just" as judging him based on his mental capacity, dreams, and desires. On the other hand, to simply hand-out rights here and there just because they gave become necessary or "appropriate" or "common" is just as discriminating and ignorant as any prejudiced act.
This is simply outrageous. Let me get this right - to refuse other people rights based on my own personal beliefs and principles, ideals and values is oppressive? So I guess a better, more suiting and appropriate scenario would be this: me having principles, albeit, without actually acting upon them; perhaps you are right - in our modern world it is in fact better to have no opinion, much less, no principles or values; at the end, having no personality gets you everywhere these days - the inability to discriminate is just as bad as the attitude to discriminate strictly and constantly against anything and everything that does not fit into one's own paradigm; the inability to say Yes and No, and mean Yes and No, is just as bad as saying No to everything, or Yes to everything. At the end, the inability to make a preference in regards to people, their morals, their values, the inability to set some as superior and others as inferior, is rather poor, and indicative of a poor character, amongst many other poor things.
I can agree with that part, at least, as Istanbul, in concept, stated a paradox of sorts. Someone believing that he has the right to refuse something to someone, out of his own beliefs, is not always illegal. However, when rights are introduced, this changes.
(Notice, not taken out of context.)
Discrimination based upon prefrence isn't discrimination. We discriminate and make laws against poor decisions all the time. We discriminate against druggies, alcholics, violent criminals. As long as any thing you do is a decision, we can "discriminate" against it. The government makes rules against poor decisions all the time. Jay walking, Drug intake and possession. Criminals can say your oppressing them by not letting them steal. Ted Bundy can say you are oppressing him by not letting him eat human flesh. This is of course an extreme end. It's not discrimination if its a choice. Everyone can understand this, even the homosexual community. That's why they fight so hard to say it is a genetic trait. That's why their opponents fight so hard to say its not. Why is it that people on this site can't seem to understand that?
I wouldn't say religions are oppressive. I would agree that religious orginizations are somewhat oppressive.
Your why here is the fact that it is self evident. Apparently, it isn't. That's your "faith". Because it's not self evident to me or to the countless others who don't see it your way. I could say the same for my arguement and we would be spinning in circles for hours.
That won't help your argument, as many people have a very pessimistic view of humanity as a whole.
Do you realize what you're saying? Everyone can marry whoever they would like to as long as I would like them to. Homosexuals might not want to marry members of the opposite sex, so that right to marry the opposite sex is a moot point.
*snicker* Uh, mythosx? I'm afraid that argument doesn't exactly help your case. Falls under the same category as "everyone's equal, as long as they're white" or "every man was created equal, sorry ladies".