Originally Posted by Jaxian

It is morally wrong because your vote decides which laws will be passed. If you vote against someone because that person is gay, you are not voting bassed on who will create the most fair laws; you are voting based on your desire to punish gay people. This may result in people being subject to unfair laws simply because you desire to punish gay people.
Who says it's "morally wrong"? You? And on what basis do you make that judgment?

And how in Sam Hill do you come to the conclusion that people who are voting against gays are doing so because of a "desire to punish gay peoople"? That is a blind judgment that is typical of one-sided arguments - most often engaged in by "tolerant" liberals.

Saying that homosexuality is wrong is NO DIFFERENT MORALLY than saying that abortion is wrong. And could it be - just COULD it be - that anti-abortionists are actually concerned about saving the lives of unborn children, rather than supposedly supressing the rights of women?


Because your vote affects the laws we must all live by, it is only moral to vote for the person who will create the best laws. It is not moral to force us all to live by a poor set of laws, simply because of a desire to punish homosexuals.
I already refuted this BS tripe. People who believe homosexuality is morally wrong are NOT "trying to punish homosexuals". Stop being such a drama queen.


This is voting based on an issue. In this case, the person who opposes abortion votes against the pro-abortion candidate out of the desire to get the best set of laws.
The exact same thing could, and is, said about people who vote against homosexuality on moral grounds. They are seeking to either establish, or maintain, the "best set of laws".


I would not necessarily vote against such a candidate. I would vote based on each candidate's stance on the issues. That stance on the issues may include each candidate's stance on marrying minors, so if the man married to a 15-year-old girl supported marriage to minors, I may vote against him for that reason.
In other words, you are making a moral judgment against that man, based on what YOU believe to be moral or immoral. This is, by the way, EXACTLY what you are angry toward other people for doing.


In a similar fashion, I disagree with Clinton's affair, and I think it was an incredibly horrible thing to do. But I would still vote for him over any candidate who has a worse stance on the issues.
Thank you for your confession. So you're a party-line, straight-run voter.

What about the fact that if Clinton will lie under oath about sex, it's almost inevitable that he'll lie about any and everything else?

Do you want to knowingly vote for a liar? A person who has been PROVEN capable of lying under oath? And how can you believe ANYTHING the man says?


I do not understand what you are talking about. No one sets any universal moral standard. Our government is based on freedom, where people are free to live by their own beliefs and their own moral standard, so long as they don't hurt anybody else.
EVERY law in EVERY country legislates some moral of some kind. It's merely a fact.

And by the way, our government is NOT based on freedom. It is far more accurate to say "freedom within reasonable limits".


I draw the lines of morality where where my reasoning leads me to find them. Everyone does. I find homosexuality totally moral, and I find opposition to homosexuality to be one of the worst sins. I didn't choose to hold this belief: it is logic which has led me here.
And there you have it.

YOU have decided that homosexuality is perfectly fine.
YOU have decided that anybody who disagrees with you is a sinner "of the worst kind".
I will GUARANTEE you that you have come by this belief through logic. Logic dictates that homosexuality is un-natural and is an abberation of the natural order of things. It cannot be self-sustaining, nor reproducing. Therefore, you have NOT come to this belief through logic. You have arrived at it because it's what you WANT to believe.


But yeah, we each hold different beliefs about morality. So what? Our government shouldn't give preference to my beliefs, and it shouldn't give preference to yours. Just let me live according to my beliefs, and I'll let you live according to yours.
What if my beliefs are that every homosexual should be killed? Or that every pro-abortionist and abortion provider should be killed, in order to help society become a more moral entity. Do you take the "live and let live" approach to that? Of course you don't. You ONLY apply the "live and let live" morality too people and beliefs YOU agree with.