- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...