How does homosexual activity benefit society?

[CynthiaCypher]

Butthurt atheists who take "seperation of church and state" to a ridiculous extreme, by keeping anyone from expressing religious views in public, especially in public schools.

Socialism

Many examples. Fairness Doctrine, and the threats to religious freedom.

I'd rather be a paranoid frog than to be a frog that gets boiled alive.

Do you even know what socialism is? 'splain please.

 

[nekoboy]

A minority of homosexuals who try reparative therapy are able to become sexually attracted to women, but the best that many religiously motivated homosexuals can do is become celibate for life, and live the rest of their lives in lonely, sexual frustation.

Zoophiles and pedophiles are expected to put up with that misery. Homosexuals have a choice not to do that, but I will not support them either.

The only evidence that you really appeal to is "the Bible says so," certainly not to any scientific evidence. Your scientific evidence is a red herring since you even oppose homosexuality among homosexuals who have excellent physical and mental health.

You don't have to believe it, just understand.

 

[waitasec]

well if the bible says so....it's good enough for me...
i don't know why and i don't care to find out why...it just good enough for me so there :ignore:

 

[nekoboy]

Do you even know what socialism is? 'splain please.

It is a mild form of communism. It involves running government programs by confiscating wealth from citizens. These programs should exist at the state level if they are to exist at all.

 

[waitasec]

It is a mild form of communism. It involves running government programs by confiscating wealth from citizens. These programs should exist at the state level if they are to exist at all.

you realize that the rich in this country were being taxed well over 50% when we were building highways, tunnels railroads hospitals, jails police and fire protection....
you are living off of that system... hypocrite.

 

[nekoboy]

you realize that the rich in this country were being taxed well over 50% when we were building highways, tunnels railroads hospitals, jails police and fire protection....
you are living off of that system... hypocrite.

Some of those you listed are rights that the federal government has. Some of the others, and everything else is up to the state.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Zoophiles and pedophiles are expected to put up with that misery. Homosexuals have a choice not to do that, but I will not support them either.


You don't have to believe it, just understand.

There is a huge difference between consenting adults and minors. You may want to keep that in mind when attempting to support your position.

 

[nekoboy]

try using your brain for a retort instead of regurgitating tripe

I think you are just butthurt.

 

[Father Heathen]

Butthurt atheists who take "seperation of church and state" to a ridiculous extreme, by keeping anyone from expressing religious views in public, especially in public schools.

Again, either the government nor anything else tax funded can be used as a platform to promote religious or political ideology.
Besides, you know damn well that you would cry your eyes out if they held a buddhist, hindu or Islamic prayer on the congress floor before proceedings.

Socialism

The "Red Scare" lives on. How is this a realistic threat?

Many examples. Fairness Doctrine, and the threats to religious freedom.

What, this? Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you see as "threats" to religious freedom?

The reality is that religious conservatives are the biggest threat to our rights and freedoms in this country.

 

[no-body]

My case is the most harmless form of vore possible (swallowed alive and being let out later alive) It's still immoral, so I avoid it.
[/url]

What the hell. Have you regularly engaged in eating others and being eaten in the past? Did you have to get therapy to control your urges?

 

[Agnostic75]

Butthurt atheists who take "separation of church and state" to a ridiculous extreme, by keeping anyone from expressing religious views in public, especially in public schools.

But many of the supporters of the separation of church and state are Christians, and the majority of people who support the separation of church and state are heteroseuxals, not homosexuals.

Of course, we have yet another red herring here since you even object to non-Christians who agree with you about people expressing religious views in public. The simple truth is that the only thing that would make you happy would be if everyone became a Christian, and preferably a Mormon Christian. Surely you believe that God is displeased even with the nicest, kindest, most forgiving heterosexual non-Christians in the world.

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html\

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

(arranged by date)

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)
Court finds that the federal antibigamy statute does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

It is reasonable to assume that all, or almost all of the judges who made those rulings are Christians or Jews.

We live in a democracy. Judges are appointed by Presidents who are elected by the people. Do you object to democracy?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Some of those you listed are rights that the federal government has. Some of the others, and everything else is up to the state.

So socialism is ok when it benefits you.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think you are just butthurt.

You like to mention hurting butts a lot.

 

[nekoboy]

Again, either the government nor anything else tax funded can be used as a platform to promote religious or political ideology.

Doesn't mean they have to silence it. they don't have to promote it, but censoring it is ridiculous.

Besides, you know damn well that you would cry your eyes out if they held a buddhist, hindu or Islamic prayer on the congress floor before proceedings.

They don't have to do that, but I wouldn't be too offended if it did.

The "Red Scare" lives on. How is this a realistic threat?

You have never heard of the boiling frog syndrome, have you?

Socialism is a massive threat to property. The mere fact that there is no guarantee of being able to take home every cent that you earn. It's taken by the government before you even see it. There are other ways to raise money instead of an income tax, and it provides just enough money for it to do it's proper job, not some program granting entitlements.

What, this? Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's affirmative action for liberals. It is not up to the government to make it equal, the invisible hand does that by itself. The fairness doctrine was even condemned by LIBERALS.

The reality is that religious conservatives are the biggest threat to our rights and freedoms in this country.

Nope. We only threaten entitlements. The only entitlements anyone has is to be born and to die.

 

[nekoboy]

Of course, we have yet another red herring here since you even object to non-Christians who agree with you about people expressing religious views in public. The simple truth is that the only thing that would make you happy would be if everyone became a Christian, and preferably a Mormon Christian. Surely you believe that God is displeased even with the nicest, kindest, most forgiving heterosexual non-Christians in the world.

EPIC FAIL

I don't object to non-christians who agree with me about expressing religious views in public. What the hell gave you that idea? I don't object to non christians unless they start threatening my freedom of religion, or spread slander about a person's religious beliefs, mormon or otherwise. And if atheism is not a religion, I have every right to venomously attack it, even if I spare other religions the tongue lashing.

I can tolerate other people's belief system, but my own views on right and wrong won't change. Hell, you don't even have to agree with them.

 

[waitasec]

I think you are just butthurt.

well we all know what that means now don't we...
and clearly it's a self defeating tactic.
:clap

 

[connermt]

But I'm at least happy with the fact that I am doing my best. I will likely have it for the rest of my life, but I don't care.

And that's great.
But that doesn't mean any deity exists. Your desire for it to exists is fueling you quest. If it wasn't for that need, you'd likely be much happier than you are now.

 

[nekoboy]

And that's great.
But that's mean any deity exists. Your desire for it to exists is fueling you quest. If it wasn't for that need, you'd likely be much happier than you are now.

Without any real drive in life? I don't know about you, but the atheistic world view is boring. The alternative you suggest is boring. Like Puddleglum, I prefer my religious beliefs to your depressing, purposeless "reality". My religion gives me more hope than yours could ever give me. You don't have to agree, though. I'm not really trying to persuade anyone.

 

[Jainarayan]

Butthurt atheists who take "seperation of church and state" to a ridiculous extreme, by keeping anyone from expressing religious views in public, especially in public schools.

Schools cannot promote prayer because they are state institutions. It is forbidden by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

You can express your religious views in any venue, except a state institution. Your freedom of expression and religion is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

"Congress shale make no law with respect to the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof;"

 

[Agnostic75]

A minority of homosexuals who try reparative therapy are able to become sexually attracted to women, but the best that many religiously motivated homosexuals can do is become celibate for life, and live the rest of their lives in lonely, sexual frustation.

Zoophiles and pedophiles are expected to put up with that misery.

Most people, including you and me, hope that zoophiles and pedophiles will refrain from those activities. Can you provide any good reasons why homosexuals should avoid same-sex behavior? Courts, and public opinion, have judged that zoophilia, and pedophilia, are harmful, and illegal. Are you suggesting that homosexuality should be illegal?

Homosexuals have a choice not to do that, but I will not support them either.

What does your support have to do with this thread? Quite obviously, people are free to support whatever they want to support.

If free will exists, most homosexuals would be able to avoid same-sex behavior under certain conditions if they wanted to, such as a threat to murder them, but not same-sex urges. In addition, most zoophiles would be able to avoid zoophilic behavior, but not zoophilic urges. Further, most pedophiles would be able to avoid pedophilic behavior, but not pedophilic urges. You keep trying to avoid using your main argument, which is the Bible.