Well in that case I can give something similar another try:
Rights come from God (or Nature), not gov’t or men, according to the philosophy of America’s Founders, if I remember correctly. The gov’t is to protect Natural/God given rights, not grant them. A vague monotheism, not required of every individual, not required of anyone in particular. If America loses its foundation it’s likely to fall
It may be oppressive to prevent homosexuals from forming families, so that is not my issue. Preventing a sick person in a hospital from being visited by who he or she considers to be family isn’t helpful, for example, imo
My issue is sliding window, shifting perception of norms, a voice that says we need to be “accepting” of bisexuality, it seems to be a move away from stability and that is my issue. Non-hetero stuff seems to get a lot more air time than it used to. Am I close minded if I don’t like seeing, hearing, being reminded and informed about various non-hetero stuff? Meh. Maybe. Must my mind be opened to the point that it doesn’t bother me? No, nor is that even a wise ideal. Close enough that I wouldn’t want to oppress homosexual individuals, imo
Thanks two times, I think reasonableness needs to be applauded more. It will end badly soon rather than continue well for centuries if we don’t, imo
Most seemed to be Deists (or deist like). Meaning they thought a god of some sort started everything, but that god does not interfere with us. Many of them had negative views on organized religion. People like Franklin and Jefferson claimed to be Deists (although Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist).
If we accept that there isn’t a good reason to think a person’s sexual orientation could be immoral, then why would we want to stick with tradition? I see the traditional views on sexual orientation as hurting those who don’t conform to them.
Seems we vaguely agree on the vagueness of this, without a need to argue specifics
I don’t accept that
Again, we don’t need to agree on everything, just enough
That’s probably true, but a more mature and sincere expression of traditional views is a better goal than their destruction. Traditional views on sexual orientation connect with traditional views on everything else. Uprooting it all is more dangerous than many realize, imo
Edit:
In other words, traditional views do that and much more. It’s what’s holding it all together
I disagree here. In the US we have gotten rid of some “traditional” views that were no longer appropriate (slavery for example). Many argued that the US would fall apart if slavery were to be abolished. That did not happen.
You did say above that outside of religious beliefs that you could not find a good reason to say homosexuality is immoral.
Keep in mind that at least in the US (I assume you are from the US?) that your particular group (Muslims) are also not popular with people who hold “traditional” views. I would rather everybody be free to practice their religion or their sexuality, than to have some people be privileged, and others persecuted.
Alright mnben87, please provide evidence to your claim because obviously I was unclear.
Without using your “rape criteria” please explain the following; Biology mandates the embryo is part of the mother for nine months, where else can the baby go? She willfully partook in the act of creating life so therefore both parties are responsible for the natural consequences.
What event causes the child to become a responsibility of the parents? When are they responsible, after an eight inch journey down the bith canal
Again look to simple biology if you have a problem with what happens. Your argument is like someone who was involved in a horrific accident. Removing life support is NOT a separate event. Removing the life support kills the person; they are not separate actions. Removing support causes death.
If I was mistaken about your action then I am sorry. My impression is that your thoughts are exactly like those of people in the past and those people were always trying to catch an inconsistent life ethic. My apologies.
Fair enough. Interesting example tho, Civil War and all
I’m not saying any and all traditional views are central and must be maintained at all costs. I’m more saying to try and look at what are the actual costs and risks of keeping or changing a particular tradition.
Edit:
A game of Jenga that hasn’t crumbled yet, let’s keep pulling out pieces until it does. Of course over centuries in a changing world it’s gonna have some resemblance, but over a period of decades? Several years? Every few months? Is it really worth it?
“Priveledged” is kinda shrug to me, it can be a problem I guess but I’m not seeing it in this context
Persecuted … I don’t see the relation to what I’ve said here. I haven’t called for anyone to be persecuted have I?
It’s also possible a country crumbles because they don’t adapt. Losing a foundation of values is not the only downfall possibility.
No you haven’t. However, many don’t accept the lifestyle. I think of teenagers that are driven away from traditional value parents because they don’t fit their parents views. Things like that wouldn’t happen if these views didn’t exist.
A single fertilized egg can split into two. Two fertilized eggs can merge into one.
To me these characteristics separate fertilized eggs from regular humans. There idea of an individual is absurd in the context of a zygote.
Here the burden of proof that the mother has an obligation to host the fetus is on you. It’s my opinion that nobody had the rights to another’s body. It is not the concern of the mother were the fetus goes.
They are now individuals after being born. I’m not going to argue this point much. Are there cases in which intfantside is okay? To prevent suffering? Maybe. Haven’t thought about it enough to argue.
The difference is that the life support is not another human beings body. If you needed my body to survive, I should have the right to deny you that.
I will say I agree with @H_factor that your style of putting the reply above the quote is hard to follow. Just something to consider if clarity is a desire.
True if those views didn’t exist no one would act on them. True also that if those views were barely existent, shunned, etc. then very very few would act on them. Hold that thought please.
Those teenagers you’re talking about, what percentage do you think are straight up homosexual, genetically unattracted to the opposite sex vs. bisexual, could go either way depending on factors including social acceptance? Hold that thought please
Is it good to socially promote non-hetero relationships in the present if that is correlated with or causing an increase in the cost/risk of some number of teenagers being severally distanced from their parents?
Yeah but it seems to be the most relevant to America today.
Even if you disagree with that, uber acceptance of non-hetero stuff is not the adaptation to prolong the nations lifeline, imo.
Not sure. I think more often than not attraction is not a choice.
I am very skeptical that promoting homosexual relationships has any significant impact on the number of people attracted to the same sex. Maybe more people are open about it.
I can’t really speak to anybody else’s thoughts but my own, but promotion of homosexual relationships has had no impact on my sexual attractions. It is like trying to promote veganism to a lion.
The hope of many is that eventually the views of the parents change over time.
I don’t think we will agree here, and you admit it is your opinion.
I would like to see society move towards being accepting to everyone. I would like to see less us and them type thinking. But this is just my opinion.
The hope is that preaching acceptance for how kids are born has the ability to change these people’s minds and opinions. And it’s working, people are far more accepting of the lifestyle than they used to be. Which means far less dickhead parents deciding to abandon their kids simply because they were born a certain way.
To me it’s far better to preach that type of acceptance and let these people live their lives than force them to hide their feelings and emotions for their entire life. We aren’t in danger of everyone turning gay. Simply not being an asshole to gay people won’t change anything except for bettering the lives of everyone.
It’s never lost on me (and I do not mean you) that many of the people trumpeting the horn of every child should be born and abortion is horrible are the same type of people that often hate others. They despise foreigners, gays, trans, Muslims, etc. but they say all life is precious at birth. I guess until some of those precious ones get old enough to be something they hate.
Agree with this. I mostly blame religion for these issues. This also occurs to non-believing children of devout parents (probably not quite as bad though).
So a nearly four year old article says the same thing I did, 'that twinning is not really understood all that well"; and this .03% of babies is justification to slaughter them?? Man up and say you want to abort a human baby through all nine months simply you want to have consequence free sex and use the woman for her anatomy. But if you support abortion you can’t be that honest with yourself.
You never told me; what event christens humanity on an embryo?
For your information; all the names like blastocyst, embryo through all nine-and-a-half months in utero, a baby, the infant, a toddler, a pre-schooler, kindergartner, pre-teen, a teenager, young adult, adult and a senior are ALL stages of humn development with the five exact same traits they shared when a person was first conceived. But go ahead and use random qualities they share to justify consequence free sex.
What other area of human life allows for a person to NOT be held responsible for their actions?
A single action that is consequence free will work.
Again, biology mandates that she is indeed responsible.
You don’t care if an infant is left on a table to suffer on a table to die after a botched abortion? Do me a quick favor; use your favorite search engine and look-up a “sonogram of a seven month surgical abortion” and let me know your thoughts please? I believe we might meet in the middle.
Again, biology determine this indeed has to happen.
Your points totally refute all the evidence and what was said. Thank you for allowing me to bask in a tiny moment of your vast wealth of knowledge and true comprehension.
Now I remember why I stopped trying to explain simple high school biology to you.
Do you call cake batter a cake? Do you call a tadpole a frog? A caterpillar a butterfly? Were The Warlocks the Grateful dead?
Answer: no.
Imo, the woman can choose to do what she wants with her body, including removing a parasite growing in her. If you want to do something with that parasite after it’s been removed, go for it. How many adopted kids do you have?