Same-sex marriage isn’t wrong. I think it’s perfectly fine. I think that the Prop 8 SHOULD pass!!!!

The posters have similar designs, but my opinion is that the Brokeback Mountain poster is NOT a copy of the Titanic poster.

BUT FOR CRYIN’ OUT LOUD!!! SHUT THE HELL UP WITH THE GODDAMN ARGUING!!!!

Mark, I, too, have gay family members and I love them very much, but homosexuality is NOT a sin. WE’RE NOT IN THE 16th CENTURY, HERE!!!!!

Well, I guess you weren’t thinking your logic through when you said, “Yes, popularity does not equal morality. That’s why even if prop 8 wins in California, its still wrong.”
(emphasis added)

“That’s why” is a loose term for “therefore” which is a logical term. Which is a really major point I want to make. Using loose logical terms like that seem to keep you advancing certain statements as fact, while keeping an “out” available so you can say “I never said it was an indicator”.

Those little fake logical terms are powerful. They allow you to convince others without providing proof.

It’s a peeve of mine. I hate to belabour the point, but it seems to be the backbone of many arguments. It is why this thread is over 120 posts long.

But yes, you’re last post (which pretty much negates your previous post) is correct, popularity can be moral and popularity can be immoral. Or as I said before “popularity does not equal morality.” Now that you agree with me, go back and read why I wrote it, and stop trying to turn it around against me just because you know my position.

Irrelevant. I do check in on this thread from time to time while I browse the rest of the posters. ANy point that you are trying to make is irrelevant.

Wil Said: “”Yes, popularity does not equal morality. That’s why even if prop 8 wins in California, its still wrong.”"

I guess I should have said popularity has no bearing on morality. It’s not an indicator of immorality as you just suggested.

But it is funny how you will suddenly agree with me when it suits you. But you used faulty logic. Just because “popularity doesn’t equal morality” (which is what I said) doesn’t mean “popularity equals immorality” (which is what you were getting at).

So logically, I can stand by my comment and reject yours.

But whats REEALLY funny is that what you actually said is “popularity equals immorality IF Prop 8 passes.” It must be strange having such changeable ideals!

Yes, popularity does not equal morality. That’s why even if prop 8 wins in California, its still wrong.

http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html

At one point in the video, a young boy is asked what he means when he uses the term “open-minded”. His response goes something like this:

“If you have a new vegatable on your plate, if you are not open-minded, you would not try the vegatable. But if you are open-minded, you’ll try it, and you will probably like it”

Exposed here by this young boy is the real effect of early education on homosexuality. “Try it. You might like it”.

In the process of opening our childrens minds to accept others that are homosexual, we are actually encouraging them to step outside what comes naturally to them; try homosexuality and see how you like it.

Good comment, but popularity doesn’t equal morality.

people are still weighing in with theology that’s right on the cutting edge of the 14th century!

Just because something is old doesn’t make it false. Truth doesn’t go in and out of fasion. With your logic, you should go burn a bible. Or a textbook by Newton.

What’s your theological base Marcia? Christianity? Hindu? Aetheist? I’m just curious as to which theological base DOES agree with you.

Or perhaps you are starting your own church. I’ll bet it goes soemthing like this: “Everything about Christianity is what we beleive (except for the parts about homosexual acts, abortion, and divorce) No repentance required because they are OK.”

Again, I have to say: I’m not against taking away your freedom to do what you want. But I AM against you marketing it to my kids in the media and schools as an acceptable act that doesn’t require repentance. That’s the only reason homosexuality has such a huge fight on thier hands.

Now, in an LA times poll in 2005, here was the stance on abortion:

12% favored making abortion totally illegal.
41% favored making abortion illegal with a few exceptions.
19% favored making abortion legal most of the time.
24% favored making abortion always legal

With such division within our country, I would suggest that we not teach either stance in our public school system. Let the parents decide how to teach about it. If you DO teach it in our schools, it must be completely non-biased as to whether it is acceptable or not. It is not fair, based on the polls, to make a unilateral decision to teach that abortion is acceptable. Society can argue and debate for ever about this topic, and never agree. Therefore, it should only be taught in a non-biased way, if at all. Any other course would be discrimination against SOMEBODY.

The same holds true with homosexuality. (No, I’m not comparing homosexuality with abortion. I’m comparing SOCIETY’S DIVISION on the subject of homosexuality with societies division on the subject of abortion. That’s fair.)

With such division in our country, it should not be taught as either acceptable OR unacceptible. If anything, it should be given an unbiased view. Is it possible to include homosexuality in our classrooms without actually promoting it, OR discriminating against it? I don’t know. That’s a very fine line. But IF it could be done, would the gay rights movement be satisfied? Not likely. Would the “homophobes” be satisfied? Probably not. So leave it out completely.

Regarding the “unfairness” of teaching hetersexual relationships in the classroom but not homosexual relationships: There doesn’t seem to be ANY division in our country on whether hetersexual relationships are acceptible. Anything that is unanimous is fair game to be taught in our schools.

Of course, 9/11 should have taught us all that there are folks out there worshipping a very evil God, but we can all use some reminding from time to timeWhat?!? I don’t know what to say to that. I have repeatedly, throughout these posts, emphasised that I am NOT a hater of people. I do NOT condone any sort of violence. So how does that even compare to 9/11? “Of course”…as if!

But Mark can post all the tracts punctuated with all-caps words that he wants What next, you gonna make fun of my use of apostrophes? Why do I always have to contend with bullsh**? I am forever weeding out the arguments that have zero relevancy to the points I make. You fight dirty. Your first two comments were at least on the radar of the topic. But these two are just smoke and mirrors.