Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Defining Life

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 11:47 AM
I'm not denying truth. It is a fact that the bible was written by human authors. It is a fact that those writings have been subject to human error, as are all writings. And it is a fact that people who rely on these texts without question are logically flawed.
In response to:

Defining Life

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 9:53 AM
Criticizing my handle does not make my point any less valid.
In response to:

Defining Life

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 9:52 AM
I respect your position. Most who are pro-life leave out the part about people having the freedom to choose within the bedroom. That is why I think issues like comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraception need to be part of the conversation. Time and again, research has shown that this is the most effective policy at reducing abortion. But pro-life people frequently negate it and often give the impression that they're just against sexuality as a whole.
In response to:

Defining Life

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 9:37 AM
If God can create the Earth and every living creature on it, then I think God would be plenty competent to find a better way of communicating with humanity than using a book written in three different languages in a society where only a fraction of the people are literate.
In response to:

What If Democracy Is a Fraud?

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 9:25 AM
These are all distressing questions to ask and they all have distressing answers. Looking back on history, we see that the Founding Fathers were very aware of the problems of democracy. They understood that democracy often led to anarchy and tyranny. That's why they pursued a republic. That's also why they wanted to restrict voting to only tax-paying landowners. They understood that if everyone voted, they would be subject to the irrational whims of personalities. And history has proven them right. I don't know what the solution is, but I think something has to be tried. Otherwise, there won't be much of a republic left.
It doesn't matter what you call it or whether you take honor in it. There's nothing to be proud of when you seek excuses to disparage an entire group of people. This isn't an instance where you're not allowed to have an opinion. This has actual legal ramifications for actual human beings. Homosexuals are human beings who are worthy of equal protection under the law. You can have your opinion, but you cannot deny them their equality.
Argument from authority is not an argument. It doesn't matter what credentials he has. What matters is the evidence he presents and he presents nothing other than the old "I don't like it because my religion says so" argument. And calling me names doesn't make my point less valid.
If proponents of marriage are going to fight to strengthen marriage, should they not address something that does tangible harm to the institution? There is plenty of evidence that divorce does significant harm to marriage and families. There is no such evidence that has been brought forth that same-sex marriage does the same harm. So why focus on same-sex marriage when the issue of divorce is so much more pressing?
How is it that homosexuality destroys monogamous marriages more than divorce? Divorce is legal and there's plenty of research to show that it is far more destructive to families than same-sex marriage. So why complain about same-sex marriage when divorce does so much more objective harm?
Appeals to conspiracy are not rational arguments and do not hold up in a court of law. If you're looking to argue against same-sex marriage, you'll need something called evidence.
Mr. Weber's arguments against same-sex marriage have no merit whatsoever and would never hold up in a court of law. None of the states that permit same-sex marriage stipulate that everybody must say it is a good thing. It just makes it legal in the same way people aren't forced to admit that income tax is a good thing. The cases that he just cited had nothing to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with state anti-discrimination laws that exist separately from marriage laws. In many of these states, if a business serves the public, it must do so equally. And for any entity that takes public money, like a college, it must abide by those same non-discrimination laws. Religion is not an excuse to discriminate and disparage an entire minority. That is not religious freedom. That is religious bigotry. If another religion were the majority in this country, Mr. Weber would be fighting against the very thing he's promoting. Marriage has changed a great deal over the centuries and will continue to do so. The Travis Webers of the world don't have to like it, but they do have to accept that we live in a country that is supposed to afford equal protection under the law. And when religious prejudice undermines that protection, it is not a matter of freedom. It is just plain bigotry.
Previous 11 - 20 Next