That is a position of some integrity. However, some seem to think because the state has legislated SSM, it must be good, therefore there can be no valid basis for conscience to object. This is one example of the consequences of SSM. We (have seen and) will see others, eg in education.
No, my argument is that homosexual behaviors are natural, and that all these attempts to declare it unnatural are clearly wrong. From that stems the argument that claims about “natural law” are rubbish.
Are you seriously going to argue that the (apparently) sexual antics of Bonobo chimps create a standard to guide us?
So Homosexual behavior is healthy?
What natural purpose is served by the exchange of semen from one man to another? Does it appear to you that there might be a natural venue for the reception of semen? It would appear to me that that venue is nowhere on the person of another man.
I agree that some have gone too far, though it’s tricky ground. Most people long ago accepted the notion that, at least for race and gender, the state has the right to enforce certain conduct on business, so I can sympathize with the notion that sexual orientation become a protected class in that regard. But I still feel that religious liberties have to protect even what I might view as unsavory applications of it. I don’t personally approve of bakers refusing to decorate cakes for gay couples, but I simply cannot accept that forcing them to do so is helpful either, and it certainly doesn’t advance the cause of equity. Freedom of conscience, as you might be able to tell, is to me one of the most important freedom.niceatheist:
That is a position of some integrity. However, some seem to think because the state has legislated SSM, it must be good, therefore there can be no valid basis for conscience to object. This is one example of the consequences of SSM. We (have seen and) will see others, eg in education.
At least so far as bonobos go, the research suggests that same-sex activity is used as either a means of bonding or of peacemaking. But really, does it have to have a purpose at all? Why is that important?niceatheist:
What natural purpose is served by the exchange of semen from one man to another? Does it appear to you that there might be a natural venue for the reception of semen? It would appear to me that that venue is nowhere on the person of another man.
Homosexual acts are not natural, but rather consistent with desired some people experience. It is that simple.
And providing those laws have an actual rational secular backing I can accept them. I’m not saying Catholics shouldnt’ be politicians, I’m saying they shouldn’t be using their legislative powers to impose their religious beliefs.
Heterosexuals partake of similar practices, though I agree the higher percentage of HIV among gay men, particularly when prevention is pretty simple, is a problem.
And it turns out that those judges have the backing of at least 60% of Americans. And really, this is a silly complaint. The Supreme Court gains its powers and legitimacy from the Constitution. “Activist judge” really means “judges who don’t agree with me.”