Evidence for God from Science

edwardmurphy wrote:So H, what's the purpose of a heterosexual pride day? Why bother?

Is there such a thing?

RickD wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:So H, what's the purpose of a heterosexual pride day? Why bother?

Is there such a thing?

Hortence says there is.

edwardmurphy wrote:

RickD wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:So H, what's the purpose of a heterosexual pride day? Why bother?

Is there such a thing?

Hortence says there is.

Darn Flaming Heterosexuals!

They're the worst. Always in your face with the PDA.

Out of respect for democracy... Society by and large must represent the beliefs of the people.
A democracy is a representation of the social and political belief of the society.
Regardless of my personal convictions if society as a whole believes that gay marriage is not only allowable but ethical then majority by the very principal of democracy speaks.
That is a fair representation of the people.
My religious beliefs whilst important on an individual level are not permissible to dictate policy.
It flys in the face of democracy.
Put it to a referendum,
Let democracy speak for itself....
Let society dictate policy...
Then the obvious will be tangible...
Gay marriage is a society norm

Edwardmurphy,

Maybe you can explain to Melanie, that neither Australia, nor the U.S., are democracies. And while you're at it, please explain the differences between a Representative Republic/Democracy, and a Democracy. Explain to her that in a pure democracy, the minority is at the will of the majority. And in a Democracy, the very thing she is advocating for, equal rights, is usurped by mob rule.

Thanks Ed

melanie wrote:Out of respect for democracy... Society by and large must represent the beliefs of the people.
A democracy is a representation of the social and political belief of the society.
Regardless of my personal convictions if society as a whole believes that gay marriage is not only allowable but ethical then majority by the very principal of democracy speaks.
That is a fair representation of the people.
My religious beliefs whilst important on an individual level are not permissible to dictate policy.
It flys in the face of democracy.
Put it to a referendum,
Let democracy speak for itself....
Let society dictate policy...
Then the obvious will be tangible...
Gay marriage is a society norm

Let society dictate policy. You mean like abortion?

Stu wrote:

melanie wrote:Out of respect for democracy... Society by and large must represent the beliefs of the people.
A democracy is a representation of the social and political belief of the society.
Regardless of my personal convictions if society as a whole believes that gay marriage is not only allowable but ethical then majority by the very principal of democracy speaks.
That is a fair representation of the people.
My religious beliefs whilst important on an individual level are not permissible to dictate policy.
It flys in the face of democracy.
Put it to a referendum,
Let democracy speak for itself....
Let society dictate policy...
Then the obvious will be tangible...
Gay marriage is a society norm

Let society dictate policy. You mean like abortion?

Whether she specifically means abortion, it doesn't matter. The logical conclusion of her position, is such that abortion, and murder, would be legal if the majority wants it to be legal. The government has a duty to protect its people. Just because what we have now, has failed in regards to protecting the unborn, that doesn't mean that Melanie's Democracy type system would do any better.

Whatever majority wins in a democracy, that wins the right to do whatever actions - the scary questions become: What are the sensibilities of whatever majority, and what is it they will, subsequent to their majority vote or helping put leaders in office, actually desire the right to do.

One very interesting thing about the U.S., is it has a high court that is unelected - and their membership, once approved, is until resignation or death. While leaders and citizens can bring cases before the court, they are at the mercy of the outcome.

Here's an interesting possibility, concerning abortion law. Trump has already put one conservative on the court. There is a very good chance that he could end up putting another two on it, especially with the Republicans in control in the House and Senate, the votes would be there to vote place two more conservative judges. What if the court struck down abortion on demand? What do you think would happen?

#Heterosexualprideday was started as a joke. It went over the left's heads, and they fell for it, proving once again they can't take a joke, displaying what perennially-outraged people they truly are.

Philip wrote: Here's an interesting possibility, concerning abortion law. Trump has already put one conservative on the court. There is a very good chance that he could end up putting another two on it, especially with the Republicans in control in the House and Senate, the votes would be there to vote place two more conservative judges. What if the court struck down abortion on demand? What do you think would happen?

1. There would be more salt from the left than the Sahara desert, Gobi desert, and all the world's oceans combined.

2. See above

Hortator wrote:#Heterosexualprideday was started as a joke. It went over the left's heads, and they fell for it, proving once again they can't take a joke, displaying what perennially-outraged people they truly are.

Hortence, are you somehow unable to see the difference between a joke meant to be funny to everyone and a joke meant to be funny to some at the expense of others?

If not then I invite you to look into how conservative Christians react whenever some smart-alec atheist insists that high schools that let people pass out the Bible must also allow people to pass out Satanic literature or sues for the right to display a Festivus pole next to the manger. It's a joke, only the Christians somehow don't get it and freak out, showing what perennially outraged people they are.

It's as if there are people deliberately trolling those who's views they disagree with. It's also as if your ability to see that for what it is is highly situational.

I agree that deliberately just trying to tick people off with some stance only designed to get a reaction is unhelpful and inflammatory. But the whole idea of a gay pride day or parade - really, I don't get it. Whether one believe random genetics or God Himself created them heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual - IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCES ARE A CHOICE, but as having been given or assigned at birth - then what the heck is there to be proud about? What did someone DO to be proud of their own sexuality - IF they have no choice in it? Just as dumb would be those marching in a heterosexual parade, if that is what they believe (that sexuality is merely assigned by genetics)? It's like marching is a _______ (insert race identification) parade. Or a man or woman pride parade. So, I would say, on some level, many are parading in gay pride celebrations as in -in-your-face middle finger to those of different values.

The point of a gay pride parade is to respond to the once widely held and broadly disseminated idea that homosexuality is something shameful that should be repressed or hidden.

Should just have sexuality day so everyone can participate rather than gays excluding others considered outside their camp. Also, bring your kids, great day out of hedonistic fun for all the family.

How about Deliberately Obtuse Day, where social conservatives could sit around pretending not to understand anything, no matter how clearly it's laid out for them? That'd be a hoot.