George....I honestly feel that is a two-way street....

How is wanting to be accepted in society an oppressive and bullying mindset?
Please explain this to me.

"G"

G,

At what point do we, as a society, stop accepting people in our society? If we go along with every single argument that someone like yourself presents, we will have to begin accepting pedophiles, druggies, atheists, rapists, murderers, etc...so that everyone feels "accepted".

Could you please explain to me what you find socially acceptable and unacceptable? From reading your posts so far, it sounds as if you would like for everyone to develop the mindset of a homosexual atheist so that you would be considered the majority instead of the minority. If you honestly feel that how you live your life is the right way, you wouldn't feel the need to fight so hard to convince the rest of us.

First off, I'm not homosexual, I just support the acceptance of homosexuality in society.

So when do we stop accepting people in our society? Well, it's a pretty simple answer. Immanuel Kant put it this way:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

This is called the categorical imperative. Now, all we have to do is hold actions against this ideal. Are homosexuals acting in a way that will be damaging to society? Not really, they just want to have the formal, legally recognized union of marriage in our country. This won't do any real harm to anyone. BYS has tried to make some arguments as to the damage that could be caused by homosexuality, but they're all pretty shallow. The real issue here is that Christians and various religious folk don't want to allow them to do what they want to do, even though there will be no real damage to society. It's purely motivated by religious oppression.

Now, how do we know that pedophiles shouldn't be accepted or given rights to be pedophiles? Well, their actions directly infringe on the rights and free choices of children. This is obviously illegal and immoral, not because of any false religious basis, but because it is an obvious and direct violation of the rights and free choices of children.

How do we know that "druggies" are bad for society? First off, it depends on what you mean by druggie. If someone is ruining their lives and inhibiting their ability to make rational decisions, or is apt to directly harm other individuals, then their actions are damaging to society and themselves. Now if they want to ruin their own lives, we can't legislate against that, but we can legislate against harm done to others by illegalizing the drugs that lead to these tendencies. As far as acceptance goes, I don't feel we should accept any self destructive behavior, but it has to be reinforced by positive rehabilitation, not condemnation. Now if someone smokes some pot every once in a while, or uses hallucinogens in a safe environment, I don't see an issue with that, as long as it's not being distributed to minors, or is being forced on individuals who don't wish to experience those influences.

I'm going to skip over the atheist part of your argument, because all atheism is, is a non-belief in a god or gods. This is hardly equal to pedophilia and rape! If you do feel as though it is equal, you are a horrible person and you shouldn't spread your ideologies.

How do we know that rapists and murders are bad for society? Well, their actions directly infringe on the rights and free choices of their victims, breeding fear and insecurity.

I don't want everyone to be a homosexual atheist. I am fine with people having their religious beliefs, as long as they don't try and force their morality on the rest of the world, while having not even a shred of evidence to prove god's existence. Christianity is directly infringing on the rights and free choices of homosexuals, when there isn't any good evidence to suggest that homosexuality will have negative consequences for society.

In fact, if Christianity would just come across and say, "well, homosexuality is bad for society in that homosexual preference will not produce offspring and in the long run, if this preference was accepted by society, then it would inhibit the progression of the human species."

At least this would be the beginnings of a "stronger" argument, although it fails in that A) homosexuality is a minority position and really would have no influence on the gene pool or reproduction based on the majority of heterosexual reproduction that is taking place in society. B) This argument assumes that homosexuality can be chosen as a preference, which has not shown to be the case.

Right now, all you people have is, "our god says this is wrong so we wish to limit the rights of homosexuals." And well, that's just ridiculous.

Have I explained this adequately for you?

"G"

"G" said:
So when do we stop accepting people in our society? Well, it's a pretty simple answer. Immanuel Kant put it this way:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

My response:
So you are saying that homosexuality should become a universal law? In order for something to become a universal law, it should be considered beneficial for society as a whole. In all of your arguments, I still have not seen you post a reason where society as a whole would benefit from same sex marriage. The only argument you have is that of inclusion to the masses. How does that benefit the masses?

It's not BEING homosexual that is in question here. Some people are homosexual, period. The universal that we have to address, is:

Is it beneficial for society to accept homosexuality and allow them the rights that they want, to express their love for one another like heterosexual couple do?

The answer, yes.

1) It promotes brotherhood and goodwill.
2) It allows a group of people to express their devotion to one another the same way that others have been able to do for a long, long time.
3) It starts to unwind a lot of the prejudices that are currently present in society.
4) It frees a group of people from the stresses of certain prejudices against them.

So the EMBRACE AND ACCEPTANCE of homosexuals is good for society and should be accepted as a universal action.

Obviously I wouldn't suggest that homosexuality become a universal law, because that is absurd. There are heterosexuals and homosexuals. You are attracted to who you are attracted to.

"G"