discspeed wrote:This issue has a lot of similarities with religious persecution. Imagine you were in a severe religious minority, like the state was Muslim or something. Imagine everything associated with Christianity was outlawed. Christians were accepted as long as they kept their beliefs hidden and accepted their outcast social status. Simply stating their beliefs would be considered heretical. This is the way it is in many Middle Eastern countries. This is intolerance.
In religion the broad of the brush is significantly greater than that of sexuality in people. In those countries, they are not going against the sexual preference of a person, but the very soul of a person. The matters of the soul are weightier than the sexual preference of someone. Basically, that kind of persecution is far worse than what is deemed "sexual" persecution.
Speaking of persecution, people die for having different religious beliefs in countries like the Middle East and Africa. Homosexuals aren't rounded up en mass and executed for what they do in America. There is a significant difference between the two.
Also, beliefs may be considered heretical in a threaten ideology, but they have to be tested to see if they are true or not. In our country we have and will continue to test the validity of homosexuality to see if it's genetic. So far, signs point in the other direction.
There are some things that need to be answered concerning homosexuality:
1. What benefit will it bring to society?
2. What purpose does it serve?
3. Is it natural?
So is denying homosexuals their right to be open about who they are.
I'll ask this question again, where do we draw the line with those that are "who they are" ? There may be a incestuous relationship between a brother and sister both consenting to it, should we say "no" to them?
Outside of the perspective of religion, how is homosexuality wrong?
I have made mention of my point of view as a Christian, but I didn't rely solely on quoting the Bible. In other words, there has been other scientific articles that I have given and quoted from that deal with the issue.
Aside from that, why is it bad to come from a religious standpoint?
I'm not trying to sound harsh with this next point, I'm just trying to tackle your question with a different approach. It may seem cold and mean, but I'm not trying to be that way. I'm just elucidating a point.
From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuals are considered a weak link. They are unable to reproduce passing on their traits to the next generation. If anything, their dna could be considered a bad mutation causing them to be attracted to the same sex. On this point we can't pass it off as necessary or normal. From this perspective, if we legalize same-sex marriage, we are suggesting these marriages as a viable means to preserve our species but, in reality, we are glossing over the real truth--- the extinction of certain group of people based on the inability to pass on their traits to the next generation. Also, we delude ourselves with the notion that it will make a difference and are being fair by allowing such a thing to happen. We should be honest about the conclusions, not make people feel good about themselves and their projected outcome.
There are common humanistic morals that transcend all religions and societies. These are what we must draw on to make law in a state where no one's individual religious beliefs are deemed the universal standard.
Really? Which ones?
Frank Delicious wrote:
You didn't answer my question.
I don't think it's wrong to say "no" to someone or a group of people. There is a difference between standards and discrimination. I look at discrimination as something that people do to another people because they "are" something. People discriminate against people who "are" old, young, black, white, male, female, handicap. These are things that people "are". Sexuality (heterosexuality and homosexuality) is something that people actively "do". Sex, people actively engage in it. You won't see someone actively engaging in being old, young, black, white, male, female, etc. They simply "are". This is the biological side.
To have standards on something that people "do" is necessary. If we don't have standards on things that people "do" then all behavior would be permissible. Murder, greed, selfishness, rape, lying, stealing, things of this nature would be unchecked. This is the behavioral side.
So, people who "are" something are biologically that way (mostly-- becoming handicap later in life) while people who "do" something are behaving that way. Behaviors can shift, biological ones can't.