I am glad we've found some common ground and can agree on some points, that is the mark of a good debate. I agree that, to continue our example, a bakery is not a religious institution. But protecting the exercise of free religion goes further than that. While the Bible does not say that one must refuse service to homosexual persons (in fact, I daresay it ENCOURAGES it), it does prohibit homosexual relations. Consider that baking a wedding cake has a lot to do with that union. If it were a McDonald's not providing service, I'd understand the outrage because they has nothing to do with that union, but wedding vendors are essentially pledging their support for that union though their services and therefore encouraging it. Honestly though, if my wife and I encountered a company that was against our marriage, we wouldn't be keen on using that vendor. Or how about marriage counselor. Some services are directly related to the furtherance of those unions and businesses like that must have their rights guarded. Christianity calls its followers to hate the sin, not the sinner. I think Iran's wrong for any religious person to have to do something their faith condemns. Though we have strayed pretty far off topic- mostly by my doing an for that I apologize. I should like to see evidence of widespread denial of rights to homosexual persons.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/
Many more heterosexuals are murdered here. It's a statement that is utterly twisted and can be molded to suit your mood. Fact: a very small number of homosexual people are murdered because of their sexuality in the United States. I don't blame homosexuals or women for my country's problems, merely liberal politicians and policies. Now could you please post an argument that contains more information than your personal feelings.
Sanity is a legal/social term, not a psychological one. Also, having a disorder does not make one insane this is a flawed misconception. No one is forcing churches to marry them, but businesses (like bakeries) are being sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for them. Small businesses can't survive a civil suit even if they win and that is surpressing someone's ability to exercise their first amendment rights. Furthermore if these suits fall in favor of the homosexual couple, it often forces the state to recognize those unions- sometimes against that state's constitution. Even if you agree with their "marriage" you must understand that ends do not justify the means.
I never said it was intolerable, merely that there's a fault in the wiring. I don't hold with the idea of alienating or even rehabiltating homosexual persons, I just provided factual information that proves the homosexual drive for marriage isn't a matter of civil rights- it's just plain misguided and used to manipulate the masses into supporting liberal agendas without having to address actual policy issues. I do hold that transgendered people are undergoing and supporting a delusion and should seek help for their identity crisis. Homosexual persons, however, do not face oppression in the United States, but there are same-sex marriage advocacy groups that actively seek to (albiet unintentionally) rid other persons of their first amendment rights. I agree there are distasteful things said of homosexual persons, but these issues are not the realm of legislation.
There's nothing wrong with having a mental disorder, it sounds like you're the prejudiced one.
1.) The Gay Rights Movement is in no way related to the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s. Race and sexual orientation are not comparable as one chooses to act on sexual impulses and one does NOT choose to be born into a race. Furthermore, homosexual people aren't being lynched, they're being elevated.
2.) Marriage: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/
3.) I do not disagree with homosexual couples being afforded the same tax breaks and employer benefits afforded to married homosexual couples pending a legal contract. I do, however, have a major problem with homosexual individuals forcing businesses and churches to forego their religious beliefs and recognize this union as a marriage or to perform services related strictly to the union of such homosexual couplings against their will or faith- as protected by the first amendment of our constitution.
4.) Ironically, the APA does not consider homosexuality a mental disorder and yet it fits the bill by their definition as homosexuality renders the biological process of reproduction inoperable without external influence (artificial insemination, for example). Also, it should be noted that the APA changed its stance on homosexuality as a result of pressure from the movement, NOT scientific breakthroughs or evaluation.
http://www.saybrook.edu/
5.) Slightly off-topic, I believe that transsexual individuals are suffering from an identity crisis that may be brought on by delusions, hormonal imbalance, or simply bad parenting and should not be treated as the sex they are masquerading as (i.e. can't use the opposite sex's restroom). These persons are akin to people who believe they are super heroes and are given a cape instead of proper psychological evaluation and treatment.
Agreed. It's worked so far. The failure of bad parenting is solely on the parents and does not fall within the realm of government control.
We don't KNOW that, we theorize that. That's not even correct, because the scientific term for theory requires repeated testing (which cannot be done). The theory of evolution has a thousand holes in it, and ADMITS to those holes which "need to be discovered." If any creationist were to suggest a theory that needed missing links to fill in the data, they'd be the laughing stock of the scientific community. Why is it then okay to have these admissions for Mr. Darwin? Why is it that this theory gets a pass without data? Data that, I might add, is STILL incredibly inconclusive.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/
Definition two qualifies. Atheists believe there is no God or supernatural agent in the universe (actually, some of them do believe in supernatural agencies of other kinds but that's a debate for another day). Atheists cannot indisputably prove their claims and therefore it is a belief, negative or not. Some of them even take it to an extreme mindset. There are, I kid you not, atheist churches...
Now hold on just a moment. Put yourself in an almighty God's shoes for a minute. Would it really be interesting or impressive at all to MAKE people worship, believe in, and follow you? What would you have proven of your power? Wouldn't God be a tyrant if He just MADE you believe? The choice to do so is incredibly important. The moment anyone is granted with choice, they will inevitably make wrong decisions. The beauty of the whole thing is when someone CHOSES, of their own volition, to do the right thing.
By that same admission, you can throw Christianity out the window because there isn't a whole lot of solidarity there either. There are THOUSANDS of denominations, just like there are THOUSANDS of atheist organizations that band together for the purpose of furthering their mindset. Solidarity has little to do with what classifies as a religion, though I do see your point. I think there must be a better qualifier than that.
Your assertion implies that a member of a species has an advantageous mutation ,which increases its likelihood to breed. Okay so far. But then its offspring (which may or may not carry the mutated gene, does the same until the mutation becomes the dominant norm of the species. Furthermore, this must keep happening until different bands of the species become different species, albiet with a common ancestor. You further assert that this same excessive rarity happens to a great majority of Earth's life. Even with millions of years, that's a long shot.
Do you then propose that you, or I for that matter, are alone in our existence? If you prove your own existence but nothing else does and all around you is illusionary or false, then it would all surely be within your own consciousness. If you exist by yourself and nothing else does, then you would be capable of influencing reality. Since you cannot, you have only to conclude that an existence exists apart from your own (or else you would be able to control all of reality). You may be incapable of proving that I specifically exist, but because you can't spawn a giant snow man to destroy Detroit, you must conclude that some other reality contains you at least-independent of you.
You can see the growth of the cells from point A to B. You cannot see, in the fossil record, evidence that lifeform A became lifeform B. With the tumor, we know it's just ONE tumor. Not the decendants ofan older tumor. On that note, tumors are an example of how mutation in nature rarely becomes something advantageous.
Do YOU think that is literally ALL the Nazis were about? You have an very acute vision of history. I DON'T think it's the BEST comparison, no one said that. It IS a valid comparison though, albiet an uncreative one. History, my friend, is there for us to compare to anyway, if you don't firmly believe that, then you don't have a firm grasp on what history is for.
This part of the argument is linguistic in nature."Like" indicates a simile, therefore it is a situational comparison, NOT a blantant 'Democrats are Nazis' statement. Either way, the creativity (or lack thereof) of a comparison doesn't take away from its validity, only its creative flourish.
Not at all. Drop the rhetoric. Show me the actual evidence of an evolutionary progression. Tumors can be traced from point (in time) A to B to C. Evolution cannot. Let's see your glorious fossil record that "supports" evolution.
Multiple truths do exist, but NEVER in contradiction to one another. Mathematics is defined in human terms to be more easily understood, but that does NOT mean mathematics was created by man.
Let's see the quote. Point out where someone was called a Nazi.
No, but cancer has been observed through progressive observation with clear and quantitative evidence. Cancer is also not claimed to be adequately understood (or it would be cured). Evolution has, contrary to many claims, NOT been observed in its number one claimed ally- the fossil record.
Examining something only gives qualitative evidence that can be interpreted through a lens of your choosing, influencing the conclusions you draw from the evidence. Genetics proves very little in the way of evolution. I'm not a scientist but I HAVE researched it. There's no solid evidence, merely conjecture- no matter how highly praised. I used to believe in Evolution, but even then I knew it was only conjecture based on the observation of evidence, NOT hard proof. The ONLY accurate way to "test" evolution, is to witness it occur. Too bad we won't know in our lifetime.
The point still stands, no one was called a Nazi. He was using an obviously well-known portion of history to convey a message. What's wrong with using what's well-known? It's effective to use as an analogy BECAUSE everyone knows about it. You, for instance, know more about it than you care to know. Even if he were calling someone a Nazi (which he did not) the day we STOP talking about atrocities, is the day they occur again. It may not win any points for creativity, but everyone can understand it... Well everyone SHOULD be able to.
I hate volunteering, I sometimes do it. Hate every moment of it, it's not gratifying in any way, it's just sometimes the right thing to do. A selfless act is not impossible, but being entirely selfless certainly is.
