I’m talking about universal morality which is theistic based. Not blind this or that. That is a silly fake argument you are using merely to make my position look fanatic.
But funny thing - science, reason, health, common sense and Nature all support theistic morality. Odd, hunh.
Empiric data would mean putting homosexuals in the military, seeing how it worked, comparing everything (otherwise all the same) with none, etc. No need for that. The above mentioned reasons are all that is needed. In fact, it would be irrational and cruel to experiment with putting homosexuals in the military to “see what happens”.
The bottom line is that homosexuality is NOT normal, NOT natural, IMmoral, deviant, and ruins society when it is promoted and accepted as equivalent to normal sexual relations and orientation. That’s it in a nutshell. Therefore, homosexuals should not be in the military, nor in the priesthood, nor in positions where they interact with youth.
Homosexuals need help, not flattery and obeisance.
“...to make my position look fanatic.” No, just to make your positions look religion based, which it appears to be.
WIthout getting into a complete and total discussion on rights as discussed by the Constitution/Dec of Ind/Fed Papers/etc, we differ from, let’s say Iraq which has in Art. 2 of it’s constitution: “First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation.” We have a freedom of religion. Say, if a religion accepts some belief you do not accept, are we not to bound to afford them the same freedoms and protections?
If not, how do you make the determination. Based will of the majority? Cultural history? Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?
You say “ The bottom line is that homosexuality is NOT normal, NOT natural, IMmoral, deviant” — based on?
These are arguments that occur in the public forum. Is it important to persuade those who don’t agree with you?
Hoping to just move the dialogue and reasoning forward (here and in my mind).