How Does One Justify Being Anti-homosexual Rights?

Well, how does one?

 

Oh goody, a thread that invites every condemnation of homosexuality known to mankind to be spewed.

It's not so much a question of how one justifies it, but whether those 'justifications' have any validity. I expect this will get heated quickly.

 

More like they will just side-step the issue and say that gay people all have the same rights as straight people and blah blah. You know...the usual bull crap.

 

Oh believe me, I love the heat and I have heavy arguments up my sleeve for gay rights, just watch.

 

I don't think anyone should condemn someone for their beliefs or the way they live their lives, but by the same token everyone has a right to disagree with anothers beliefs or life style. So if someone voices their views in opposition of homosexuality, their view should be accepted just as homosexuals have a right to their views and life style.

Gays have rights and so do those that are heterosexual. There is a right to disagree but IMO not a right to condemn anothers view.

Unfortunately, instead of "individual rights" as promised by our Constitution and Bill of Rights we insist on breaking it down by groups of individuals. It should be individual rights, not gay rights or womens rights and so on.

 

This is a very well thought out post. (imho)

I'm completely fine with someone disagreeing with me in any matters concerning being gay, having access to the same rights as others (in similar situations etc...) or even someone disagreeing with me that I am Christian and gay all at the same time.

I think a healthy, civil debate/discussion can create a lot of opportunities for each party to learn something.

But when/if someone threatens me, "simply" b/c a gay---wants me to have to sit down, shut up and just take what's dished out?

Yep.
Have a bit of a problem with that.

 

Leviticus 18.22

 

I have every right to condemn another's view. I CONDEMN the view of the Nazis that certain groups of people should be killed. I'm not going to take a, "They have every right to that belief," stance.

 

I don't know why but every time I see that smiley with the sunglasses on I start singing in my head, "They see me trollin' they haaatin' patrollin an' tryna catch me ridin dirty." rofl

But yeah. So Leviticus says we should murder people who have homosexual intercourse. Shall we all start killing them based on that bible quote?

I have a feeling you may be posting this jokingly but for those who do use this part of the Bible to justify being against homosexual rights I ask this question.

 

And in the next chapter Leviticus says anyone who wears blended material clothing should be put to death.

Kinda invalidates that whole biblical law thing.

 

Pretty sure there's something close to those verses about eating pork too.

And killing people who work on Sunday.
(preachers are in trouble I guess)

 

Killing children who talk back to their parents.

Selling your daughters into slavery.

Offering your daughters for sex to appease someone.

The Bible is nothing if not full of love.

 

Saturday.

 

They don't need to, it's one of the benefits of being a neoliberal scumbag.

 

This says you shouldn't be homosexual, right? But doesn't the bible also say that you should allow sin to happen?

"So the perfect plan from our perfect God was to allow sin. Our minds are not God’s mind, nor are our ways His ways, as He reminds us in Isaiah 55:8-9."

 

Well lifes all about choices. Homosexuality is a poor choice.

I oppose it because its evil and filthy.

Read my signature to get yourself some help.


*cheers*

 

Well by the bible you have to allow it. Wasn't it Satan who wanted to force everyone not to sin?

 

I have no choice but to 'allow' it.

I will however speak out against the filth and perversion. When the time comes, God himself will mete out judgement on ALL of the unrepentant sinners amongst men. (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s and otherwise.

 

Thats a loaded question. And vague. Exactly what do you mean by "homosexual rights"?

If you mean tax and spousal benefits, then choice of sexual orientation should not convey special rights. No special tax benefits for marriage status or for having children. Spousal rights/benefits can be handled as a legal/contract matter and does not need any govt legislative involvement.

If you mean employment, in the private sector a person should be able to hire who they choose. If a gay man sets up a company and hires only gay men, fine. Its his company. If a company hires the best for the job and doesnt care about sexual orientation, fine. Let the best company win.

If a church believes homosexuality is a sin and no gay people can hold any office, fine, if it bothers you then go to a different church.

If you mean social acceptance, forget it. Tolerance is one thing, acceptance is something else. I can tolerate a gay lifestyle, I can be respectful, I can live and let live, as long as its reciprocated. But if you want to force acceptance, and teach my children that the gay lifestyle is "normal", then we have a fight.

 

How can some Mexican cure something that isn't a disease?

 

that depends on what particular rights exactly you think they should have.

 

Should we accept that opponents have a right to their views? Sure.

Does that mean we have to treat their reasoning as valid? Not in the least. There is no obligation to treat crap arguments as if they had equal value to good ones.

And it's not a 'lifestyle'. I suggest you stay away from the buzzwords of bigots lest you give us the wrong impression of your positions on the issues.

There is however a right to express criticism of a view's flaws.

I agree. When the law creates a class of people to target them for the suspect purpose of undue discrimination, this is a miscarriage of justice.

 

My thanks to the OP for posting this thread. Bringing out the worst of the trolls lets me get the task of adding them to the ignore list out of the way more quickly than if I had to wait to encounter them thread by thread. Collecting them all here was a good idea.

 

I think this is the most logical choice for a religious person, to allow homosexuals to have rights but to try to reform homosexuals.

 

The right to marry each other.