Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by Jaxian

Yes, I say it is morally wrong. I explained that if we don't vote based on the issues, someone with the wrong stance on the issues may be elected. This affects others negatively. Affecting others negatively is immoral.



If this is not the reason, then what is the reason?



I believe almost every person opposed to abortion is concerned with saving the lives of unborn children. I do not see where you are going with this.



It can only be said if they are voting based on the candidate's stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. It cannot be said if they are voting based on the candidate's sexual orientation.



If a candidate supported legalizing marriage between adults and minors, I would judge that candidate's stance on the issues to be the wrong one, and I would vote against that candidate. This would not have anything to do with that candidate's own marriage.



I do not understand where you get this idea. I vote for Republicans occasionally, and I am very likely to vote for Independant, Libertarian and Green party candidates. It depends on the candidate's stance on the issues, as I stated.



This is a good point, and under different circumstances, I might take it into consideration. But because I can understand why this lie was told, and because I do not believe this lie caused any harm, I do not find it evidence that Clinton would lie about more important information.



You are right, but the more a government legislates morality, the more tyrannical it is. Good government decides as little morality as possible, assuming that nothing should be banned unless it harms someone else.



I understand what you are saying. I like to say "freedom, so long as that freedom doesn't harm someone else."



This is the most important thing you have said, for it actually talks about why you find homosexuality immoral.

In response, I say that whether an action is self-sustaining and reproducing has nothing to do with its morality. For example, playing football is not self-sustaining or reproducing, yet it is still moral. Typing on my keyboard is not self-sustaining or reproducing, yet it is still moral. Watching cartoons is not self-sustaining or reproducing, yet it is still moral. Sacrificing my life to save someone else's actually prevents me from ever reproducing, yet it is still moral.

On the other hand, rape is reproducing and self-sustaining, yet it is not moral. Having sex with minors is reproducing and self-sustaining, yet it is not moral. Having loads of sex before marriage is reproducing and self-sustaining, yet it is not moral.

My conclusion is that whether something is self-sustaining and reproducing has nothing to do with whether it is moral. Instead, morality is based on helping make others happy.

I should also mention that homosexuality, due to the nature of love, may encourage some people to have and raise children through one of a variety of methods, such as adoption, surrogate parenting, or artificial insemination. Because of this, homosexuality can be considered at least a method of encouraging reproduction.



"Let live" is really the most important part of "Live and Let Live." Don't interfere negatively in someone else's life, and that includes not killing them.

Originally Posted by alias

Here is a reason I don't want homos ruling over me. I live near Spokane. The mayor was gay and soliciting on chat lines and offering jobs for lovers. Nice. Maybe we can elect a gay president and he can offer a job to one of his pals who can plan an attack from the inside out. Immorality leads to immoral government. No thanks. I'll vote for the guy with the wife and kids. I stand a better chance of not getting a person who thinks perversion is normal.

Originally Posted by alias

You do have a mental illness. Anyone who can read Genesis 19 about Sodom and Gomorrah and the verses of Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6-7 and not believe that they were destroyed because of homosexuality is either stupid, a liar, or mentally ill. Which is it?

Originally Posted by alias

You don't mind calling them names like bigots. You don't like being called a fag do you? I thought not. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. Liberals didn't invent free speech. It goes both ways.

Originally Posted by Jefferson

How is it "morally wrong" to vote against somebody because he's gay, if you believe homosexuality is morally wrong? And is it possible that, believing homosexuality is morally wrong, it would actually be morally consistent to vote against that person?

Originally Posted by Jefferson

This is no different than voting against a pro-abortionist because you believe abortion is morally reprehensible and wrong. People do it all the time.

Originally Posted by foundit66

The word "fag" is derogatory, and there are much better terms to use instead of "fag". It's virtual sole purpose is to be derogatory.

The word "bigot" on the other hand is describing something very real, and it's purpose is more to describe some THING that you may find repulsive, but is actually quite correct.
I can't help but notice that you are not arguing that the TERM ITSELF is inaccurate, but rather that you don't like the usage of it.

For the word "fag", you can use "gay" or "homosexual" instead and they aren't derogatory. But they are synonymous.

If you can give me a word that is synonymous with "bigot" that you think I should use instead, that would be a good start...

Originally Posted by Jefferson

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"?

Originally Posted by Jefferson

People who believe homosexuality is morally wrong are NOT "trying to punish homosexuals".

Originally Posted by Jefferson

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.

Originally Posted by Jefferson

How odd. Just earlier today I saw a bloke taking a drag from a fag. He was thoroughly fagged from fagging at school nearly the whole day. He had been assigned to fag ropes. I also noticed several fags on the back of his shirt.
Poor boy.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Cute...
You ever seen the "Sh!t" episode of South Park where Garrison can say "fag" but nobody else can? They all get bleeped instead, except the gays who say it...

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Nope. I've actually never watched SouthPark. I just never could get into it.

The Simpsons, on the other hand... Now THAT show is pure genius!