Dally wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that the OP expressed his beliefs. Others then insulted them.
Others have actually critisized those beliefs, some when it became apparent that the OP was unwilling to engage in rational discourse did use insults however many people have attempted to engage kirkstaller in debate.
I for instance have responded to several of the cliaims that Kirkstaller has made yet the only responses I had from the OP were to dismiss the site which showed that the organisers of his petition were being less than honest and to bring up and irrelevant point when I questioned his use of Kirk Cameron as an authority on christianity.
o, as both sides see the world in diammetrically opposed ways then perhaps the way to look at things is what is the natural way before complex, arbitrary and fleeting concepts such as "rights" came into being? That being the case, the OP's views clearly have more validity at least on the subject of homosexuality.
The OP's views have absolutely zero validity the entire basis of the OP's argument is "the religious doctrine that I have uncritically accepted says so". Myself and others on the hand prefer to base our viewpoints on reason rather than rely on religious dogma as the OP does.
There is also nothing in nature to backup the viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong and in fact as you probably are aware of homosexuality is shown to occur in nature. You are however in your argument committing the logical fallacy known as the naturalistic fallacy.
