BT,

I posed a hypothetical question. No slander at all from me. I began the question with the word, "IF".

It's the same question if the words, "Matthew Shephard" is replaced that with "If a homosexual guy has AIDS..."

I think given the discussion it's a relevant question. Care to respond?

I don't approve of homosexuality.   For that, you resort to name calling. 

Back to you.

"A red herring worth addressing at the outset is the failure to distinguish between homosexuality and pedophilia, which creates a false parallel at the core of the Washington Times argument. But sex with children is a crime regardless of the sexes involved, and is not synonymous with homosexuality.”  

Who do you think it was who argued against making this distinction … Mickey Mouse?

I highlighted your first sentence to show why I did not repeat myself.  There are huge differences between the suffragette movement and the cry of gays for equality of outcome.  Gays have the same rights.  There has never been laws that said "if you are gay, you lose XYZ".  But there were (and as you point out are) laws that affect women that way.

Gays claim they cannot marry those they love - but then neither can incestful people.  Society does not care if you are straight want to marry your sibling or if you are gay and want to.  So they live by the same laws.  They do not LIKE those laws, which is fine.  That is why they can be changed.  And have been in some places.

But they are not different laws.  They are the same.  That cannot be said for women or slaves.

All though some may simply want to "change" laws and in some states that is the case, it is actually about whether some laws are constitutional to start with. DOMA specifically excluded gay couples from certain federal benefits and Prop 8 in California specifically excluded gay couples from marriage and the privileges and benefits tied to civil marriage in that state. It is a "game" and  people have been had because by creating laws that specifically exclude, the issue has been given two paths to the Supreme Court on very specific constitutional grounds. One that will affect federal law and one that will affect state laws and constitutions.

Be careful what you ask for will be the moral of this story.

Oh Hello BoobzTwo, welcome back to the forums, good to see-yah.

So there are two basic ways to achieve power over others in terms of rights in a society.  The first is offense by directly attacking the rights of others like what happened in 1940s Germany for example.  The other is defense or what we call today as special rights or super rights.  Things like Hate speech meant to give one group unequal protections to the point of relatively reducing rights of others by comparison.  Crowding out others by invading their very own personal space via an unlevel playing field so to speak.

What the gay activist community is pushing for the second method.  You can't directly attack other people's rights in America (thank God) but you can elevate yourself into a concentrated leveraged elitist class over others thus eroding and diminishing the value of others' rights.

Now let's try to break things down to the common denominator.  Probably safe to say the gay activist movement is not accepting of Christian teaching and Christian teaching states that you are a child of God regardless of your sexual orientation.  The atheist teaching being the polar opposite that Evolution and Darwinism is the only truth of homosexuality.  If that is true then under Darwinism concerning natural selection, the existence of homosexual attraction is a dead end and has no place in the natural order according to Darwin.

Hi Captain, nice to hear from you too. I do not think the gay community (who cares about the activists - same for the Churches’ equivalent) hates god per se ... they hate the 'religions and Churches' that promotes jihad on their way of life (right, wrong or otherwise) ... which seems reasonable. It doesn't matter if an evolutionary path is a dead end or not ... just one of millions who never made it ... but they all had their chance at survival and failed. Darwinism for lack of a better word doesn't pick the winners; they pick themselves through the trials and tribulations of survival in the natural world. We now have the technology to allow 'losers' a chance at survival which is not absolute Darwinism at all (whatever that is).

Sorry, folks; my father-in-law passed away here a couple weeks or so ago, and I haven't gotten back here. I'll get to it. Sorry.

But you know what? Screw it....I've been scrolling through the posts, and this has turned from a discussion about my original topic into a hateful flame war, the lion's share of that hate coming from the supporters of homosexuality. Big surprise there; we all know how tolerant and respectful liberals are. The righties on here have all been respectful, from what I can see. Forget this.

You lefties are so hatefully intolerant in your tolerance, but you can't see it; it's hilarious. And hypocritical.
Thanks for once again reaffirming why I'm thankful I'm a conservative. When Western Civilization collapses, it'll be your fault, liberalism, not mine.

Rightwinger; Let’s recap then … The lion's share of hate always appears to come from the 'other side’; otherwise there wouldn't be another 'side'.

And because of the above, I can hardly believe this.

"You lefties are so hatefully intolerant in your tolerance, but you can't see it; it's hilarious. And hypocritical. Thanks for once again reaffirming why I'm thankful I'm a conservative. When Western Civilization collapses, it'll be your fault, liberalism, not mine."

No, thank you … for clearing this matter up.

Now what were you saying about those rascally homosexuals and their nasty demeanor ... and their pesky atheist supporters?

Good job derailing the thread by bringing that subject up but since you got such a good memory if you want to continue that debate then move it to another thread.  Just how long did you have that video bookmarked?

This is a joke, right?  Remember my words on hypocrisy?  Our last discussion on Atheism and Religion you specifically linked up an article on Homosexuality and genetics and now you're dodging this by telling me you don't know anything about that in an Atheist context after previously discussing it under that subject. https://forums.joeuser.com/408056/page/2/#replies  As for the God made them that way let me clarify.  There are numerous variables that lead to homosexuality like Bisphenol A (BPA) or hormonal imbalances while still in the womb such as WW2 babies from pregnant mothers directly exposed to the war over a long period of time.  Those causes are man made.  Also the scientist who did the genetic research is gay himself at a politically charged time so the jury may or may not still be out on that one.  http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/major-producers-to-ditch-bpa-from-packaging-2121837.html

Understand this, homosexuality is behavioral.  If you are in fact genetically predisposed to it then that is no different from being genetically predisposed to alcoholism, another behaviorism.  One does not make you entitled to the behavior of drinking alcohol and the other does not entitle to redefine marriage.

Ok time to play pseudo devil's advocate.  From an atheist point of view the best interest in the state and humanity is not to have gay couples because they would ultimately weaken and cripple the human resource element through abnormal (non)procreation and be forced to resort to extreme medical measures in a hopeful attempt to stabilize itself.  Couples serve to provide for the state and gay couples cannot procreate.  If they somehow manage to do so then they are doing the state a long term disservice by propagating the gay gene making far greater problems for the state, an evolutionary dead end.  Another key problem is the effects of society when the family is redefined.  For many years I myself have seen households where the father is replaced by the state under the welfare system in the USA.  The destructive effects done to the black demographic is particularly negative.  Do we really want to do try another social experiment to redefine marriage and the family on a mass scale?  Complete madness.

The Christian point of view states that all people are children of God and that makes them sacred and valuable regardless of sexual orientation.

It is complete madness. Homsexual "marriage" is an absurdity. 

This reminds me of Ecclesiastes 1:15, "The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite."

"sexual orientation" is a theory, a marketing theme, devised by homosexual movement  to promote their idea that homosexuality is not a behavior but an "identity".

Here's to making your point! 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-protesters-call-cardinal-arch-bigot-for-opposing-same-sex-marr?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=1426490d38-LifeSite

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, February 13, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – As parishioners gathered for Sunday Mass, a radical group of homosexual activists protested outside Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral, calling Francis Cardinal George the city’s “arch-bigot” for defending marriage.

Carrying placards and spouting slogans on the sidewalk as worshipers entered the sanctuary, members of the Gay Liberation Network instructed Catholics to"give up hate for Lent."

Lula; disagreement breeds arguments which breeds grudges and end up becoming feuds … I am not going to participate in your feud of homosexual bigotry. Until you are made to understand that homosexuals are people too … you will never be qualified to call yourself one (a person). Your unjust hatred is clear even if your reasons aren’t. When you hate a people as you do … not because of whom they are … but just because you don’t like what they do … well what name would you put in here because it just seems obvious to me? Everything is about you, always just about you, so you can add selfish pride here too. You just don’t get it … how many homosexual Christians there are … to you, it’s just another convenient group to hate. Just ask yourself the difference between what your bible has to say on the subject … and what your Catholicism says … I think it should become apparent at least to another human being anyway.

You hold yourself aloft from the rest of society because you of course have all the answers that have eluded the rest of mankind from the dawn of time.  You have nothing but excuses for the atrocities committed in your GOD’S NAME and by your church, and you have nothing besides condemnation for anything man made or any mortal cause for that matter … because you just know better. You are biased beyond any reasonable need and everything you try to bend to support the impossible is just another sign of your insecurity, your insanity and your betrayal of our living species.

What you do not seem to understand is that there is no place in your fabled heaven for real people, even so you seem to care little if any for those who have to live on this imperfect world. As far as I am concerned, you can take your perfect human rule book , your perfect human (godly) laws, your perfect human interpretations from your perfect human fables and your perfect human religious leadership and stick them where the sun doesn’t shine … because that is where all that kind of shit belongs. Simply, if there really were a true and just god who actually needed people like you to be his human representatives … well then you can stick him in there too because I have no use for such human mockery.

You Lula are a hater because that is all you know how to be. As far as I can see you hate EVERYONE outside your inner circle of religious haters and you have no concern or compassion for the truth of anything ... only for what someone else crammed inside your head for you … your imagination … upon which you base your whole life … and you would foist that folly on everyone else on earth under penalty of eternal damnation. You are as ethically and intellectually dishonest as a person can become. And I suppose Rightwinger is a hater for about the same reasons as pointed out in reply #85.