The majority of your opposition on this issue cares about what the bible says. You can disregard it, sure, but since it is your biggest hurdle, you won't be converting many people to your point of view.
Bible is inaccurate and invalid. It is not fact; it's faction. Religions are not universally applicable ethical doctrines, and they rely expressly on Appeal to Authority from a being who likely doesn't exist.
Your "conversion" is not required for justice to take place.
Abnormal doesn't = wrong. You said that, not me. See the conversation on the link that I provided on that post.
Yes, Abnormal != wrong (as in immoral). If you think it does, you are assuming the Naturalistic Fallacy. You cannot go from an Is to an Ought in Normative Ethics. As for the "laws of nature" comment by the other guy---law of nature in ethics is irrelevant, because Nature != moral. If you say it does, then you are committing the Naturalistic fallacy.
So, Waite...I'm confused....every time I start talking about feelings, emotions, sexuality, intimacy, etc., the thought police descend and demand that I keep it strictly as a matter of the Constitution. But when I do, people like you say that there is more to it then that, and demand that we include everything ells as well.
WTF!!!
Is this or is this not strictly an agnostic issue?!?!?!?
Make up your collective f**king minds!!!!
Agnoststic? What does that have to do with anything? That's a Red Herring, since Agnostic means: don't know either way.
It is not black or white, but legalistic and ethical. It is A. Illegal and B. Immoral what the government is doing by denying marriage to homosexuals. This is a fact, whether you choose to accept it or not. The Constitution is relevant in that it provides equal protections as well as implied freedom of Association given that you hurt no one else or do not, by doing so, infringe on the powers granted expressly to the government. Ethically, there is no argument to disfavour homosexual marriage.
Assult rifle has always been a military term, not assult weapon.
Actually, this is false. There is a difference between the newly politicized term "assault weapon" and the true military "assault weapon." Look it up. An assault rifle is a "true" assault weapon, because modern law definitions of assault weapons do not match the original definition.
Dictionary also says your full of ****:
Assault Weapon:
n.
An infantry weapon, such as an assault rifle.
An "assult weapon" includes a wide verity of handguns and shootguns, as well as a list banned features on ANY firearm.
That's the stupid government definition, not the military designation.
For example: Under the Braidy Bill, if you mount a cartrage pouch, a laser sight and a scope on your antique Civil War Musket, your antique Civil War Musket then becomes an baned "assult-weapon" and you get 10 years.
I am not even mentioning the Brady Bill. This is a totally different concept compared to what the brady bill thought was an assault weapon.
George Washington wrote:
I am not convinced that same sex parents do "nothing" at all to a child.
Well, when I care, I will be sure to send you the first email.
-
I'm sure it affects the child to some extent, at least. I still feel that a traditional family is the most healthy enviroment to grow up in.
No credible study proves this; they show little change, if any. If you have a problem with "little change," then illegalize all other "tense" marriages and one unit households. Forbid divorce too, since that's the leading problem of marriage, not gays.
Also, it makes little sense to me why homosexuals want to have children when they know full well they can't produce them naturally. If they wanted to have children that badly then why not just mate with the opposite sex?
Many people adopt, even though they can perfectly well have childre. According to your logic, it makes no sense why they would want to adopt. Furthermore, what they choose to do is irrelevant to you.
And don't say it's just cause they're not attracted to the opposite sex because being gay is a choice as far as I know.
Well, when "as far as I know" becomes a valid defense, I will let you know. Most studies say nothing about choice, and it's highly unlikely, since sexual attraction is chemical. You think they manipulate their body chemicals on the molecular level? Please. No credible scientific study corroborates what you say; none.