Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
It could be debated about the clarity of GOD (at least through biblical interpretation). Also, you can hate the sin, and not the sinner. I explained before how civil unions for homosexuals forces a burden on society. There are no beliefs being forced anywhere by not allowing them.
|
Civil unions for homosexuals force a burden on society. That's interesting. I'll have to read up on that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
Besides, the whole "forcing beliefs" thing is useless to argue about anyways. Society constantly forces beliefs on people. That's what the whole legal code is about-forcing beliefs on people.
|
"Society"is not supposed to force beliefs on people, it is more of a buffer between those of differing beliefs. It is wrong for one group to assume their code of morals is more or less valid than another group in taking action. You are welcome to think that homosexuality is wrong. You are free to say that it is wrong. It is in the action that the morality is foreced. You wanna know something strange? I believe that homosexuality is totally morally wrong. My morals tell me that it is unnatural and that God, my creator, condems the act. But do I go out and try to force my belief on homosexuals? Absolutely not. They have as much of a right to have beliefs as I do. Nothing really makes my beliefs any better than theirs, so it would be wrong for me to take action based on my beliefs that teamples on theirs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
You tried to explain contradiction to me earlier. Maybe I can show my new grasp of the term. Here we have one statement:
How can wrong be absolute and relative? How can you determine which of the current (or past) wrongs are (were) relative or absolute?
|
My point is that morality is relative. I never said it was absolute (at least I never meant to, if I did, than I totally apologize for the confusion). It can't be absolute because different people have different moral codes. Universal morality is the stuff of dreams or nightmares, it has no place in reality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
If they are all wrong, you shouldn't be arguing for "gay rights" you should be arguing for an end of violence period. And my point was that just showing a group is picked on doesn't mean it should get special treatment or labeled a minority. Just because people might dislike them doesn't mean their lifestyle needs government subsidization or special government protection. Unless you are willing to expand the same protections and benefits to the other groups I mentioned.
|
Okay. There should be an end to the violence period. No one should be picked on or be hurt because of who they are. This big group happens to include homosexuals. No elevation, just specification.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
But (as is the case with a lot of things) I don't see any agreement possible. You will either see the triumph of civil rights over bigotry, or a setback in the continuation of past civil rights struggles. I will see either immorality further diverting energy away from true civil rights struggles, or society making a stand for morality. Neither is absolute right or wrong.
|
Makes sense. There is no solution without one group forcing something on the other. So what can be done? Compromise. We can go from there.