[ArGee]

Your reasons are highly subjective, not clearly defined, and amount to "might makes right". I don't think that's very logical.

OK, this has taken more time than I wanted, but I have gone through this thread searching for my posts and have collected my arguments. I'm using numbers so you can refer to them by number. Tell me which ones are subjective. Tell me which ones amount to "might makes right."

1. Biologically, sex is about reproduction. Therefore, homosex is not about sex.
2. Humans can and must control their appetites to be fully human.
3. For someone to say they can't love someone else based on physical appearance indicates an arrested state of development.
4. Our culture is a heterosexual culture. Homosex is maladapted to it.
5. Homosex is immoral. No religious code recognizes it as moral or even neutral.
6. All laws are based on a moral position.
7. Normalizing homosex is a change from what was without any contributing positive justification.
8. No society which has accepted homosex has survived. While this does not prove acceptance of homosex as the cause, it is not an endorsement of acceptance of homosex.
9. Black slavery was wrong because it presumed blacks themselves were sub-human. Once this was discovered to be untrue there was pursuasive reason to abolish it. There has been no claim that homosexuals are sub-human and there has been no pursuasive reason to normalize it.
10. The APA removed homosex from its DSM because it decided that maladaptations that the person was willing to live with were not to be considered diseases. The appropriate response to homosexuals moved from curing them to helping them get used to being homosexuals.
11. The moral laws on sexuality are as universal as the laws on the right to life and are based on heterosexual marriage being the proper expression of sexuality.
12. The moral law is a fundamental law of the universe, like physical laws. It may be difficult to determine, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
13. Individuals are impacted by the moral claims of their culture.
14. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have not always been recognized. They were first posited by the Judeo-Christian faith based on the fact that man is an image-bearer of G-d.

    Shalom.

[tdadams]

1. So infertile couples should be barred from having sex? Sex that doesn't lead to procreation should be barred? If no, why not, if sex is about reproduction?
2. Quite a nebulous and loaded statement. Are you the one to decide what's right for someone else? Are you going to examine my habits and dictate to me which ones I need to give up in order to be fully human? Isn't that a bit subjective if someone else would give me an entirely different answer?
3. Not even sure where that came from or what point your trying to make with that.
4. That's a convenient position to take if you're heterosexual. What about the people who aren't. What if homosexuals made up the majority and said, "Sorry, ArGee, you're going to have to be gay. This is a gay culture." Then I'm sure you'd disagree with this position.
5. Some people don't subscribe to your religion or any religion. To them it's not immoral. It's who they are.
6. Sorry, but that's not true. A lot of laws are based on what will get a politician elected and make him look good during a campaign.
7. Homosexuality is not new. Societal and culture awareness and recognition of it may be fairly new, but it's been around forever. Our society increasingly affords more liberty to homosexuals than you're willing to, but you're simply swimming upstream and making a status quo argument.
8. Blatant fallacy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I can state there's a correlation between cigar smoking and a high income, but it doesn't show causation. I won't become rich if I start smoking cigars.
9. Redundant. I addressed that in the thread.
10. You want to second guess medical science? Should we go back to blood letting?
11. You're badly mistaken. The law of gravity is universal. You jump out a window, you'll hit the ground. Laws on sexuality are anything but universal. The very existence of variations disproves your premise. There may be a dominant majority, but even among those in the dominant majority is a great number who accept and coexist with the variations.
12. Now you're getting silly. Again, try to understand what the words immutable and universal mean. The physical sciences, such as astronomy, can be said to be absolute. Human sexuality is not.
13. Whatever that means.
14. But they have existed prior to be statutorily enshrined. How does this point do anything to mitigate, rather than affirm, the rights of individuals to be self-directed and free from the arbitrary dictations of those who claim a spurious authority over them?

I do agree though, that this is a pointless excercise. You simply see things very differently than I do. We will not agree on these things.

[brownie]

14. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have not always been recognized. They were first posited by the Judeo-Christian faith based on the fact that man is an image-bearer of G-d.

Moreover, it was originally Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of property . . . but was changed by the founders to the "pursuit of happiness" to gain general support from the masses. The founders did not actually believe in a general right of "the pursuit of happiness", which is impossible to define other than on an individual basis - and thus impossible to use to grant "rights." For instance, pedophilia makes some people happy. Does that therefore give them the "right" to do it?