• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ohio 'heartbeat' bill banning most abortions passes legislature, on Governor's desk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. As I've said, I've seen plenty of people express opinions very much like his before. Do I vehemently disagree with them? Absolutely. Would I ever vote, or even allow a person with views like that to take office? I would not. Apostates like me would be the first ones against the wall in a regime like that.

However, after the crushing defeat we all just suffered this election cycle because we didn't want to listen to anyone we didn't like, we're now getting 50 replies of "BWUH HOW CAN YOU BE SO AWFUL AND STUPID?!" instead of listening and understanding. You don't need to like it, you don't need to be cool with them, you don't need to let them have their way legally. But you should absolutely try to understand what they ACTUALLY BELIEVE and not just whatever shit you want to fill in. Like all of the hypotheticals about "What about infertile people HUH?!". Like, there's an answer to that. It's out there. Know who you're talking to.
Again with this huh? People tried to get him to explain his positions and he conveniently ignored about half of the points people were making even if he was replying to them beforehand and then doubled down on his hate when pressed further. There's no convincing people like that, period. They have to come to that conclusion on their own.

There are people who might have been shockingly ignorant about Hillary's true intentions or the suspected fallout of a Trump presidency and they might be convinced, but I doubt you'd be able to convince someone who thinks a sizable chunk of the world's population doesn't deserve equal rights because they have a different sexuality than him.
 

HotHamBoy

Member
Again with this huh? People tried to get him to explain his positions and he conveniently ignored about half of the points people were making even if he was replying to them beforehand and then doubled down on his hate when pressed further. There's no convincing people like that, period. They have to come to that conclusion on their own.

There are people who might have been shockingly ignorant about Hillary's true intentions or the suspected fallout of a Trump presidency and they might be convinced, but I doubt you'd be able to convince someone who thinks a sizable chunk of the world's population doesn't deserve equal rights because they have a different sexuality than him.

No doubt he will misattribute his ban and learn nothing.
 
OH ANOTHER THING

and then going on to blame the people who were outraged because they were offended that someone here didn't think they were deserving of their civil liberties

lol
 

Aristion

Banned
Why was Mr Waluigi banned? Serious question.

He simply expressed his view that homosexual relationships (I'm guessing he's focusing on the 'sexual' act) are unethical and immoral.

So far as I know, Christianity teaches this very thing. Are Christians not allowed to express their beliefs on this forum?
You don't want gay people to have the same rights as you because of the way they are born. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of prejudice

He believes that sexuality is essentially tied to the intention (or even possibility) to produce children. It's more a matter of whether what two men or two women do in the bedroom counts as sex in the biological sense. I'm assuming (I don't want to put words in his mouth) he believes that the intentional misuse of one's biological faculties is immoral.

I'm not sure how that relates to whether he's being bigoted toward those who are gay. He's simply reiterating a general ethical principle relating to the use of one's biological faculties.
 

Bolivar687

Banned
Why was Mr Waluigi banned? Serious question.

He simply expressed his view that homosexual relationships (I'm guessing he's focusing on the 'sexual' act) are unethical and immoral.

So far as I know, Christianity teaches this very thing. Are Christians not allowed to express their beliefs on this forum?

There's nothing wrong with bringing religious philosophy into political debates, so long as you can support it honestly with reason or science.

He called gay relationships unethical in a thread about abortion, and subsequently admitted he derailed the thread.
 

SaganIsGOAT

Junior Member
Why was Mr Waluigi banned? Serious question.

He simply expressed his view that homosexual relationships (I'm guessing he's focusing on the 'sexual' act) are unethical and immoral.

So far as I know, Christianity teaches this very thing. Are Christians not allowed to express their beliefs on this forum?

I have nothing but empathy for that guy because religious brainwashing is not easy to overcome. I will speak from experience, when your entire world view is pushed and shaped upon you from the moment you are born. breaking free of that is not easy, in fact, it is terrifying. Your entire reality has to either fundamentally change to break free or you can choose to stay where you are because it feels safe and right. It isn't just, "use common sense" when it comes to these issues, you are really saying, "abandon your world view, abandon everything you've been taught, and abandon your sense of self" and that is NOT easily done. I will tell you one thing, I still get anxiety and a thought in the back of my head questioning my leaving of the Catholic church. These things aren't easy to overcome. When as far back as you can remember your world is defined by the teaching passed to you, looking beyond that bubble can be nearly impossible. And especially in my case, when you have a family from just one set of grandparents that is now hundreds strong in their Catholic beliefs, leaving makes you feel like you have been alienated. You feel like you have lost more than just your world view, but also your family...
 
OH ANOTHER THING

and then going on to blame the people who were outraged because they were offended that someone here didn't think they were deserving of their civil liberties

lol

I'm pretty sure you're actually a robot that looks for certain phrases and then spits out a canned response instead of a sentient being that can actually read.

I'm not blaming anyone for being offended or outraged, I'm disappointed and surprised at so many who get apoplectic over beliefs that I feel are not very rare and exist out there in the scary real world of Everywhere But Neogaf. You actually need to learn to have a conversation and debate instead of throwing out sputtering indignation and easy hypotheticals. These people are real and they managed to appear more reasonable this year to the moderates so where the fuck are we?

P.s. liberties and rights aren't real. There is what you will fight for and what others will acknowledge. Kasich will be able to defacto outlaw abortion for a while at least because we expect some nebulous idea or piece of paper to keep us safe. It won't.
 

Aristion

Banned
There's nothing wrong with bringing religious philosophy into political debates, so long as you can support it honestly with reason or science.

He called gay relationships unethical in a thread about abortion, and subsequently admitted he derailed the thread.

He admitted to 'accidentally' derailing the thread and then he posted once more to respond to someone and that's all.
 

Jzero

Member
The right of a woman to terminate a human life?

Also, there are many born unwanted children that are unloved and currently in the DCS system, some of which have mental issues and have tax-payer money spent on them. Theoretically, we could expel them from our country and yet we don't. Why is that?

Also, whether it directly affects me isn't relevant. Children being given illegal substances by their parents isn't directly relevant to me, but I would definitely want to minimize that occurrence.
Does a siamese twin have the right to terminate her sister if the latter is considered a burden upon the former?
Your arguments are fucking terrible dude.

Huh.

Homophobia is "dislike or prejudice against homosexual people" according to Google. Not wanting equal rights to marry does not mean prejudice. That is like saying that not letting people in wheelchair run the marathon is prejudice.

That is not like saying black people cannot sit on white people seats. Nothing in their nature prevents them from doing such a thing but social rules. In comparison, homosexual people should not marry because they cannot have children together.

God damn, this guy is even worse
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
Why was Mr Waluigi banned? Serious question.
You'll want to PM a mod about that. But I would venture it's his raging homophobia, and his idea that women should risk their lives to carry a pregnancy to term in case it can maybe save the fetus, that were deemed too regressive and offensive. Just my speculation though.

He simply expressed his view that homosexual relationships (I'm guessing he's focusing on the 'sexual' act) are unethical and immoral.
Yeah, he only simply expressed his views that a large section of the population doing acts that harm absolutely no one is "immoral". What's wrong with that? >_>

So far as I know, Christianity teaches this very thing. Are Christians not allowed to express their beliefs on this forum?
They'll be OK if they are the liberal types who cherry pick just a bit more than the bigoted types who cherry pick a bit less (but still do cherry picking, since most of them still eat shellfish or don't think it's immoral to do so, for some reason).
Like, if you cite Biblical scriptures that support slavery or rape to promote your pro-slavery or pro-rape POV, or you'll probably get banned, too. If you cite Biblical scriptures to say "I believe in God and Jesus is a cool dude", you'll probably be OK.

Expressing bigoted beliefs is frowned upon on GAF and often bannable, whether they are sourced in religion, political ideology, pseudo-science, or whatever else.

I'm not sure how that relates to whether he's being bigoted toward those who are gay.
He wants to deny civil rights to gay people. How is this not bigotry?

He's simply reiterating a general ethical principle relating to the use of one's biological faculties.
There's no such thing as ethics based in "biological faculties". It's 100% made-up bullshit.
 
He admitted to 'accidentally' derailing the thread and then he posted once more to respond to someone and that's all.

I didn't pull the trigger on the ban, but suffice to say despite whatever your reason might be for believing such a thing (i.e. religious/political/societal upbringing), we really are not interested in responding to a view like this as though it warrants a thoughtful response.

"Abortion, contraceptives, divorce, same-sex relationships, etc. all should be considered unethical and immoral."

Abortion? I get that there's going to be disagreement there. But the rest are not really something that we're interested in entertaining as worthwhile viewpoints.
 

pigeon

Banned
Why was Mr Waluigi banned? Serious question.

He simply expressed his view that homosexual relationships (I'm guessing he's focusing on the 'sexual' act) are unethical and immoral.

So far as I know, Christianity teaches this very thing. Are Christians not allowed to express their beliefs on this forum?

I am a Christian. I don't believe that homosexual sex is immoral.

Stop trying to use my religion as a shield for bigotry. Get your own religion.
 

Red

Member
I didn't pull the trigger on the ban, but suffice to say despite whatever your reason might be for believing such a thing (i.e. religious/political/societal upbringing), we really are not interested in responding to a view like this as though it warrants a thoughtful response.

"Abortion, contraceptives, divorce, same-sex relationships, etc. all should be considered unethical and immoral."

Abortion? I get that there's going to be disagreement there. But the rest are not really something that we're interested in entertaining as worthwhile viewpoints.
Really strange how these folks can't recognize their own hate speech.
 

Reeks

Member
I'm pretty sure you're actually a robot that looks for certain phrases and then spits out a canned response instead of a sentient being that can actually read.

I'm not blaming anyone for being offended or outraged, I'm disappointed and surprised at so many who get apoplectic over beliefs that I feel are not very rare and exist out there in the scary real world of Everywhere But Neogaf. You actually need to learn to have a conversation and debate instead of throwing out sputtering indignation and easy hypotheticals. These people are real and they managed to appear more reasonable this year to the moderates so where the fuck are we?

I find this interesting. I've been thinking about this for a while now. I come from an evangelical family, members of which hold many of the same views I find abhorrent. But in many ways, I think Christianity has been positive and instrumental in their lives. They are genuinely amazing people, just very, very misguided. Anyways, in the past, I've generally just avoided these conversations. But more recently I let them speak and reply calmly without listing the reasons why they are wrong. I try to inch them towards thinking more critically. The process of listening to them is very difficult to do, but honestly letting them speak and responding with breadcrumbs (often questions) is the only way I've been able to penetrate their knee jerk responses. It's laborious, but the only way I've come out having a fruitful conversation has been to avoid conflict at all costs- the key is to not let them feel defensive (which requires a lot of restraint). All in all it's been somewhat effective.. certainly more effective than my sister's borderline flippant remarks, which only serve to shut them down and has the bonus effect of the ol' double down. I don't know what the answer is. But I think I see what you're saying. I guess I've been trying to navigate between two sometimes opposing motivations: being right vs. finding the most effective way of communicating.

It's not right that the onus is on us. But perhaps it is. We are educated in different ways, so maybe it is our thankless job to help people understand, period. And unfortunately, the way to do that is not what people want to hear...
 

Aristion

Banned
You'll want to PM a mod about that. But I would venture it's his raging homophobia, and his idea that women should risk their lives to carry a pregnancy to term in case it can maybe save the fetus, that were deemed too regressive and offensive. Just my speculation though.

I am of course not saying abortion must be illegal even when the woman's health is in danger. That would be ridiculous. Or that the woman must be kept alive by any means even if there is no actual way for the fetus to survive, that would be ridiculous too, and a fanatical interpretation of the fundamental right to live.

From what he seems to have said, I don't think he wants women to risk their lives for the life of the fetus.


Yeah, he only simply expressed his views that a large section of the population doing acts that harm absolutely no one is "immoral". What's wrong with that? >_>

You can perform an immoral act that doesn't harm anyone else. I could, for instance, steal $1 from a millionaire without him ever noticing, but it's still immoral.

The subsequent physical (or emotional) harm shouldn't be the standard by which we judge the ethics of an action. There are tons of examples where immoral actions have no discernible negative consequences.

They'll be OK if they are the liberal types who cherry pick just a bit more than the bigoted types who cherry pick a bit less (but still do cherry picking, since most of them still eat shellfish or don't think it's immoral to do so, for some reason).

A Christian that doesn't eat shellfish isn't cherry-picking the Bible, but that's not something I want to explain in detail in this thread.

The point I'm making is that you seem to be intolerant of what the vast majority of Christians and Muslims believe. You don't have to agree with it, but supporting the silencing of these views is incredibly regressive in that it doesn't foster an atmosphere of dialogue.

Like, if you cite Biblical scriptures that support slavery or rape to promote your pro-slavery or pro-rape POV, or you'll probably get banned, too. If you cite Biblical scriptures to say "I believe in God and Jesus is a cool dude", you'll probably be OK.

Expressing bigoted beliefs is frowned upon on GAF and often bannable, whether they are sourced in religion, political ideology, pseudo-science, or whatever else.

The immorality of chattel slavery and rape are widely accepted as being immoral, and we have well-developed arguments (spanning centuries, in fact) for why we take these acts to be immoral. One would have to provide some ethical arguments for why chattel slavery and rape are ethical.

In the case of homosexual relationships, there are well-established philosophical traditions that span many centuries (if not millennia) that have their arguments against the practice. In fact, the vast majority of the human race finds something intuitively wrong with the practice. I honestly think it's an issue worth discussing.

He wants to deny civil rights to gay people. How is this not bigotry?

Did he say he wanted to deny civil rights, or did he say that he believed in the immorality of certain actions? If the said the latter then it's up to his debate opponents to show that he's doing the former.

There's no such thing as ethics based in "biological faculties". It's 100% made-up bullshit.

Nah, actually it's a pretty respectable view in ethical theory (Aristotelian naturalism/Natural law ethics). Just calling it bullshit doesn't make it go away.


I am a Christian. I don't believe that homosexual sex is immoral.

Stop trying to use my religion as a shield for bigotry. Get your own religion.

Was the Apostle Paul a bigot? Should he have gotten his own religion?
 

Steel

Banned
There are centuries of philosophy for slavery, that are from some perspectives "well-developed", or at least as "well-developed" as the ones against gay intercourse. Not to mention there are classical cultures that were fine with homosexuality.
 

pigeon

Banned
The point I'm making is that you seem to be intolerant of what the vast majority of Christians and Muslims believe. You don't have to agree with it, but supporting the silencing of these views is incredibly regressive in that it doesn't foster an atmosphere of dialogue.

The vast majority of Christians and Muslims in America don't believe that gay sex is immoral. This claim is without evidence. Your extremism is not representative.

It is not regressive to suppress viewpoints that seek to harm the human rights of others. It is a moral responsibility. In fact, it is a Christian responsibility.
 
I honestly think it's an issue worth discussing.

I'm just going to answer this bluntly and succinctly by stating that it's not an issue worth discussing here. To be even more blunt, I want to note in advance that I have no interest in reading a thoughtful response to this. There's not a debate to be had here. This is a forum where we celebrated the national legalization of gay marriage with a Pride banner.
 

besada

Banned
The ToS bans racism, homophobia, and sexism. It does not make an exception for any of those if your god tells you it's okay. If you have a problem with that, you're on the wrong forum. There will be no religious exemptions for any of them here. Just in case anyone was confused on the subject.

And yes, we'll be the ones to decide what's homophobic.
 

ultron87

Member
Wow. This thread turned out a lot worse than I thought it would.

Yeah, upon making it I naively thought it'd mostly be about the political issues regarding it instead of it becoming "abortion? yes/no".

I put in a call to the Governor's office today to urge him to line item veto it the abortion portion of the bill. Just went straight to messages so I assume he's getting a lot of it.

If any other Ohio residents, or anyone really, want to put in a call, Kasich's office number is: (614) 466-3555

Or there's a contact form here: http://www.governor.ohio.gov/Contact/ContacttheGovernor.aspx
 

pigeon

Banned
Was the Apostle Paul a bigot? Should he have gotten his own religion?

Paul was literally famous for being a bigot. That is the one story everybody actually knows about him!

I am happy to admit that, even since the apostles, there have been bigoted and reactionary strains of Christianity. There are bad people everywhere. They don't control or define Christianity. They are simply bigots who happen to hold the same creed as I do, but interpret it incorrectly.
 

Aristion

Banned
There are centuries of philosophy for slavery. Not to mention there are classical cultures that were fine with homosexuality.

It'll depend on what kind of slavery you're talking about. Indentured servitude was widely accepted (and there's nothing theoretically wrong with it, but in practice it gets terribly abused and shouldn't ever come back).

Chattel slavery was heavily criticized (especially after the advent of Christianity).

And yes, there were cultures that were tolerant of homosexuality, though the homosexuality was often tied to some other illicit practices that we need not go into here.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
From what he seems to have said, I don't think he wants women to risk their lives for the life of the fetus.
You must have missed this:
As for complications, taking the chance of a person dying during childbirth is certainly preferable to definitely ending a person's life before they can be born.
.

You can perform an immoral act that doesn't harm anyone else. I could, for instance, steal $1 from a millionaire without him ever noticing, but it's still immoral.
Huh? Stealing from a millionaire does harm them. You can harm someone even if the victim does not notice the harm.

The subsequent physical (or emotional) harm shouldn't be the standard by which we judge the ethics of an action.
...............

The point I'm making is that you seem to be intolerant of what the vast majority of Christians and Muslims believe. You don't have to agree with it, but supporting the silencing of these views is incredibly regressive in that it doesn't foster an atmosphere of dialogue.
Hahah, sure, I'm the regressive one. "Be tolerant of my intolerance!". No.

The immorality of chattel slavery and rape are widely accepted as being immoral, and we have well-developed arguments (spanning centuries, in fact) for why we take these acts to be immoral. One would have to provide some ethical arguments for why chattel slavery and rape are ethical.
That's not the point I was making, which is that there is Biblical/scriptural justification for these things. You cannot deny that, especially slavery in the US was justified by Biblical scriptures for a long, long time.

In the case of homosexual relationships, there are well-established philosophical traditions that span many centuries (if not millennia) that have their arguments against the practice. In fact, the vast majority of the human race finds something intuitively wrong with the practice.
So? There are centuries, nay, millennia-old traditions that defend slavery, too.

I honestly think it's an issue worth discussing.
From a historical analysis point of view, maybe. From an ethics point of view? No. Arguments from tradition, as well as arguments from an ick factor, are fallacious and not even worth discussing in a progressive society.

Did he say he wanted to deny civil rights, or did he say that he believed in the immorality of certain actions? If the said the latter then it's up to his debate opponents to show that he's doing the former.
Huh? He said all these things should be illegal, and that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Was the Apostle Paul a bigot? Should he have gotten his own religion?
lol? Yes, very much so.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
I'm just going to answer this bluntly and succinctly by stating that it's not an issue worth discussing here. To be even more blunt, I want to note in advance that I have no interest in reading a thoughtful response to this. There's not a debate to be had here. This is a forum where we celebrated the national legalization of gay marriage with a Pride banner.
The ToS bans racism, homophobia, and sexism. It does not make an exception for any of those if your god tells you it's okay. If you have a problem with that, you're on the wrong forum. There will be no religious exemptions for any of them here. Just in case anyone was confused on the subject.

And yes, we'll be the ones to decide what's homophobic.
Thank you!
 

norinrad

Member
So let me get this straight, its 2016 and majority of the men en some few women have managed to impose their will on the rest of the population?
 

Aristion

Banned
Paul was literally famous for being a bigot. That is the one story everybody actually knows about him!

I'm referring to post-conversion Paul.

I am happy to admit that, even since the apostles, there have been bigoted and reactionary strains of Christianity. There are bad people everywhere. They don't control or define Christianity. They are simply bigots who happen to hold the same creed as I do, but interpret it incorrectly.

So all those times when Paul spoke of having intimate communion and conversation with Jesus and God, those times when he told the churches to be imitators of him, whenever he said that it is no longer he who lives but Christ who lives in him, all those verses should be reinterpreted?
 

Reeks

Member
Nah, actually it's a pretty respectable view in ethical theory (Aristotelian naturalism/Natural law ethics). Just calling it bullshit doesn't make it go away.


Homosexuality appears throughout nature, not just humans. Plenty of species. And if we want to get into it, many fish and sea horses change their sex (sequential hermaphroditism). Abortion also occurs in nature: the Bruce effect. My point is, many people love to cherry-pick biological features without understanding biology or consulting a biologist. Just because a school of thought claims a biological basis, doesn't mean it is well-informed.
 

pigeon

Banned
I'm referring to post-conversion Paul.



So all those times when Paul spoke of having intimate communion and conversation with Jesus and God, those times when he told the churches to be imitators of him, whenever he said that it is no longer he who lives but Christ who lives in him, all those verses should be reinterpreted?

Do you believe that people are saved by faith alone?
 
One thing I noticed that has really been looked over this thread is that deformities and illnesses in the fetus aren't detectable until much later in the pregnancy, at the 20 to 22 week mark.

Why do pro lifers want to ake this choice away from families?
 

Reeks

Member
One thing I noticed that has really been looked over this thread is that deformities and illnesses in the fetus aren't detectable until much later in the pregnancy, at the 20 to 22 week mark.

Why do pro lifers want to ake this choice away from families?

Thank you.

Edit: After Tiller does a great job of shedding light on these issues.
 

Not

Banned
You essentially said: "If an abortion can save a woman's life, let's not save her life because life is sacred."
Take a moment to realize just how hypocritical that statement is.

Yeah, thanks to that guy for unwittingly outlining how abortion benefits the patriarchy in very plain terms

Women aren't important. The baby is. It could be a man someday!
 

Aristion

Banned
I'm just going to answer this bluntly and succinctly by stating that it's not an issue worth discussing here. To be even more blunt, I want to note in advance that I have no interest in reading a thoughtful response to this. There's not a debate to be had here. This is a forum where we celebrated the national legalization of gay marriage with a Pride banner.

The ToS bans racism, homophobia, and sexism. It does not make an exception for any of those if your god tells you it's okay. If you have a problem with that, you're on the wrong forum. There will be no religious exemptions for any of them here. Just in case anyone was confused on the subject.

And yes, we'll be the ones to decide what's homophobic.

Thanks for being clear about it at least.
 

pigeon

Banned
As an atheist, I'm going to ask you how you can possibly make these absolutely contradictory claims?

I don't have time to argue with dominionists and atheists at the same time :p

Plenty of Christian churches believe that homosexuality is moral. Go tell the Episcopalians their belief structure is inherently contradictory.
 
Also, most of the recent discussion has had little if nothing to do with the Ohio heartbeat bill. Not to try and sound menacing or anything because this isn't a severe threat, but I just wanted to note that if it stays off topic we're just going to lock it.
 

sflufan

Banned
Go tell the Episcopalians their belief structure is inherently contradictory.

Again? I did that last Tuesday.

The fact of the matter is that it's all very well and good for leftist "Christians" to pick and choose as they please (and we thank you for it most sincerely!), but please -- we beg of you -- don't insult our intelligence by pretending that such views are logically consistent or not contradictory.
 

pigeon

Banned
Again? I did that last Tuesday.

The fact of the matter is that it's all very well and good for leftist "Christians" to pick and choose as they please (and we thank you for it most sincerely!), but please -- we beg of you -- don't insult our intelligence by pretending that such views are logically consistent or not contradictory.

Thanks for your condescending and insulting responses! I appreciate your solidarity as well.
 

Not

Banned
Thanks for your condescending and insulting responses! I appreciate your solidarity as well.

Everyone picks and choose from what they want to believe. Atheists, Scientologists, Christians, humans.

You can do that and call yourself a Christian, Jesus said some progressive shit for his day. Absolutely no problems from where I'm standing.

On topic: I'm not hopeful Kasich won't sign this. Everything has been falling apart lately; won't be surprised if he backs down against the rising shithead tide.
 

ultron87

Member
What's the deadline for him to sign it? Could he wait until Trump sorts the Supreme Court to his favor? I hope not

He has ten days. If he does nothing it becomes law.

No matter when he signs it would take quite awhile for the case to get to the Supreme Court (like years I think), so timing that out with Trump appointees isn't a concern.
 

PK Gaming

Member
In the case of homosexual relationships, there are well-established philosophical traditions that span many centuries (if not millennia) that have their arguments against the practice. In fact, the vast majority of the human race finds something intuitively wrong with the practice.

You share a forum filled with countless individuals who are homosexual. Is that really how you feel about them? That they're unnatural?
 
I don't have time to argue with dominionists and atheists at the same time :p

Plenty of Christian churches believe that homosexuality is moral. Go tell the Episcopalians their belief structure is inherently contradictory.

Most Christians and Muslims believe it is immoral as stated in the holy texts however to place one's beliefs on another parties is wrong.


I what I personally believe should not be placed upon others who believe something else.

People can believe different things but to be intolerant of another's belief is wrong as stated in the same holy texts..


Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to be religiously intolerant.



This is why Obama, while having different views, pushed for Gay marriage rights. It was the right thing to do.
 
well-established philosophical traditions

Also known as: religions

Though I do find it amusing how many people want to present their case like there's some profound secular argument for being anti-LGBT, but for some reasons never seem to want to go down the path of actually fleshing it out and defending it properly. They just want the additional credibility of appearing to be areligious in their position, but without the actual work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom