How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

That's exactly what you argued. You argued that marriage between two people who can't procreate is useless. I'm glad you now see how nonsensical your position was. Now that it is dead, would you like to come up with a new argument?

 

Nope, not at all.

Never did I ever say such a thing. You are now making up even MORE schiff about my posts.

My position, my ACTUAL position, makes a whole bunch of sense.

No need. My old argument stands just fine, if you'd ever actually address it.

 

Cool. So since having your argument destroyed, you've come up with a new one. Care to share it? Careful not to appeal to procreation, otherwise we're going to end up doing this aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllll over again.

 

Delusion. Never happened.

No need. The one I've used this whole time stands just fine.

I'm still waiting for you to address what I actually said. Until then, I see no need to entertain your delusions regarding my position.

 

Do you believe any marriage between any two people who can't procreate is invalid?

 

Self-evident to whom? It seems to be consistent feature of humanity through many cultures and many centuries.

Why is same-sex marriage "corrupt?"

I agree with reserving Ph.Ds for those deserving such recognition.

 

Heteroseuxal people have mocked and bastardized the sanctity of marriage. Clean your house first.

 

You realize that this includes any negative subjective opinions of same sex and poly partners. That would also include implied opinions. Which would mean that examples of both would have to be included, at least in abstract, in school lessons. The problem being is that then become implied positive subjective opinion on both heterosexual and homosexual partnerships as well as poly ones. Thus the only way to have no subjective opinions, implicit or explicit, is to ensure that there is no indication of any given partnership. Husbands and wives cannot be mentioned nor anything to infer a mother/father pair as parents, or a same sex pair as parents for a child.

Pot, kettle, achromatic. If you don't want subjective opinions, then not including same sex pairings, but including opposite sex pairings, is showing a subjective opinion, and is as much propaganda as wanting to include same sex with opposite sex. Everything you claim of the left in 1984 tactics, can also be claimed of the right.

 

It's a belief, but it's not a religion as there is no organization behind it. And I don't mean necessarily an organization as any given church is an organization. A person can follow/have a religion without being part of a church or synagogue or whatever. But a religion is an organized system of beliefs, even if only one person is following that system. Atheism is simply a single belief.

 

Exactly. A single position on a single statement is not a religion. Hell, even THEISM isn't a religion.

 

At an age appropriate moment, probably in the last two years of high school, I see no reason nor to debate such issues. I mean debate under the control of an experienced teacher and under certain rules such as using insults about one position or another.
I wouldn't do it with every class. You need a relatively mature group with whom you have a good relationship.
But I agree that no teacher should "teach" the issues. Doing so opens them up to accusations based on whatever the bias of the conspiracy theorist parents happens to be.

 

I'm not dropping by here any more... too many homosexuals here.

Odd news story.. the Aussie guy that got caught (finally) for pushing a homosexual off a cliff was homosexual too.
I have a theory that homosexuals are sociopaths.. they just don't care were they get sex.. as longf as they get it.

 

If LGBTQ individuals had equality with others, your wonderland would be GREAT!!

But, it's not that way. Large numbers of straights think it's ok to discriminate on that basis.

School age children can not be "indoctrinated" to be something that they are not. It doesn't work that way. Prelates have put in SERIOUS efforts to do that, and they fail.

This is the exact same issue is opposing racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and every other kind of discrimination.

There is EVERY REASON for schools, businesses, government organizations, etc., to make it clear to the public that discrimination on the basis of factors such as these is not acceptable.

 

Apparently this was some time ago and the social assumptions then and there were far more severe. I don't know what the motive was...shutting him up about his own sexuality? Some threesome triangle and jealousy?
If homosexuality had been accepted more freely, this man may well still be alive.

 

No.

 

Yes. It is also a religious belief (as it is unfalsifiable).

That is not a requirement of religion (or religious beliefs).

This is correct.

Nope. Religion is best expressed as 'an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it'. IOW, the basis for any religion is a single unfalsifiable theory from which other beliefs stem.

Atheism means "without theism". It applies to anyone who does not hold any theistic beliefs. It does NOT mean that the person is non-religious (holding no religious beliefs), however. This term 'atheism' would be applicable to what most people currently refer to as an "agnostic" or "agnosticism".

On the other hand, there is the existence of something that I like to call the Church of No God. This is what most people (mistakenly) currently refer to as an "atheist" or "atheism". A Church of No God member holds the theistic and religious belief that gods do not exist.

 

Theism is a word used to describe a subset of religions, particularly religions that are about the existence of gods.

 

You can be a theist without being religious at all. This has been true of most deists for most of their existence. Regardless, even if all theists were religious (and they aren't), that wouldn't make theism a religion. It's a position on one question. It isn't even a worldview, much less of a religion.

 

Not believing in something is a religious belief? Can’t say I agree with that.
May I ask, which god do you believe in?

 

If that's how it is best expressed, then why does it seem that you are the only person in existence who uses that definition?

 

Nope. A theist, by definition, is religious.

It has never been true.

Yes, they are.

Theism is a subset of religions, specifically the ones that are about the existence of gods.

You seem completely unaware as to what a religion is.

 

Reality disagrees.

Because I do not subscribe to the bizarre definition that is yours and yours alone? Lol.

 

But BELIEVING in something, specifically that there are no gods, IS a religious belief.

I believe in the Christian God as described in the Holy Bible.

 

You must not talk to many people then. The most common definitions for the word 'religion' unfortunately do not include all religions. IOW, they are incomplete definitions.

 

More accurately it means a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
One can believe there is a god and not be religious.