Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights

[Neutraligon]

Really, that's not up to you to decide.

I know, I don't decide.

You do decide if you want to implement it legally, despite the harm it does. You still have not acknowledged the harm your support for this AG would do to children.

[Celritannia]

Really, that's not up to you to decide.

I know, I don't decide.

Then stop wanting to do it, stop saying you want to do it.
Let people live their lives and be happy, instead of trying to establish this hypothetical Authoritarian Catholic Theocracy/Fascist state.

You say you don't want to hurt people, but then you mention how you will hurt people. It's a double standard, an oxymoron, and hypocritical of you to even say.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

I know, I don't decide.

Then stop wanting to do it, stop saying you want to do it.
Let people live their lives and be happy, instead of trying to establish this hypothetical Authoritarian Catholic Theocracy/Fascist state.

You say you don't want to hurt people, but then you mention how you will hurt people. It's a double standard.

Bingo. We have a winner.

[The Imarian Monarchy]

I know, I don't decide.

Then stop wanting to do it, stop saying you want to do it.
Let people live their lives and be happy, instead of trying to establish this hypothetical Authoritarian Catholic Theocracy/Fascist state.

You say you don't want to hurt people, but then you mention how you will hurt people. It's a double standard.

Celrit, I think you meant hypocrisy there, not a double standard

[Sundiata]

Easy and not so easy. Natural law in accordance with divine law and will.

And what is natural law? Because, in the actual wild, in nature, homosexual behaviour happens.

The moral and ethical imperative that humans have in nature that comes from God. The best definition of this, in my opinion, comes from Aquinas' Summa Theologae.

[Celritannia]

And what is natural law? Because, in the actual wild, in nature, homosexual behaviour happens.

The moral and ethical imperative that humans have in nature that comes from God. The best definition of this, in my opinion, comes from Aquinas' Summa Theologae.

Your morals are not the only morals that exist. Confucianism is older than yours.

[Neutraligon]

And what is natural law? Because, in the actual wild, in nature, homosexual behaviour happens.

The moral and ethical imperative that humans have in nature that comes from God. The best definition of this, in my opinion, comes from Aquinas' Summa Theologae.

Like not harming children by forcing them to be parented by a broken marriage you forced on them since their only alternative was celibacy? How about the moral imperative not to harm children by taking away their loving parents as described by the AG. How about the moral imperative that doesn't harm a loving couple who is unable to conceive, since lack of children is something that can easily break apart a couple. It truly is astonishing how much harm your morals would perpetuate.

[Sundiata]

The moral and ethical imperative that humans have in nature that comes from God. The best definition of this, in my opinion, comes from Aquinas' Summa Theologae.

Your morals are not the only morals that exist. Confucianism is older than yours.

No. Confucianism is dharmic in origin, like Hinduism, like Buddhism. It doesn't make logical sense for God to operate in the manner described by dharmic religions and teachings for a variety of reasons. These reasons are outlined by Aquinas as he describes the qualities necessary to being and goodness.

[Necroghastia]

Your morals are not the only morals that exist. Confucianism is older than yours.

No. Confucianism is dharmic in origin, like Hinduism, like Buddhism. It doesn't make logical sense for God to operate in the manner described by dharmic religions and teachings for a variety of reasons. These reasons are outlined by Aquinas as he describes the qualities necessary to being and goodness.

You wanna talk what doesn't make sense for a creator that is supposed to be omnibenevolent? Thinking cishet marriages are the only valid ones.

[Loben III]

And what is natural law? Because, in the actual wild, in nature, homosexual behaviour happens.

The moral and ethical imperative that humans have in nature that comes from God. The best definition of this, in my opinion, comes from Aquinas' Summa Theologae.

Is it considered gospel?

[Sundiata]

The moral and ethical imperative that humans have in nature that comes from God. The best definition of this, in my opinion, comes from Aquinas' Summa Theologae.

Is it considered gospel?

No, it's considered tradition. Gospel would be scripture.

[Loben III]

Is it considered gospel?

No, it's considered tradition. Gospel would be scripture.

So why are you bent on forcing non Catholics to adhere to tradition.

[Celritannia]

Your morals are not the only morals that exist. Confucianism is older than yours.

No. Confucianism is dharmic in origin, like Hinduism, like Buddhism. It doesn't make logical sense for God to operate in the manner described by dharmic religions and teachings for a variety of reasons. These reasons are outlined by Aquinas as he describes the qualities necessary to being and goodness.

That's just your opinion.
People can hold a different belief and still think their religion or belief is more important than yours.
But because you want to make certain people unhappy, it can be discredited in creating goodness.

[Sundiata]

No, it's considered tradition. Gospel would be scripture.

So why are you bent on forcing non Catholics to adhere to tradition.

No, no. I want everyone to be a part of the fold.

[Loben III]

So why are you bent on forcing non Catholics to adhere to tradition.

No, no. I want everyone to be a part of the fold.

Those times are over, to the benefit of Protestants.

[Sundiata]

No. Confucianism is dharmic in origin, like Hinduism, like Buddhism. It doesn't make logical sense for God to operate in the manner described by dharmic religions and teachings for a variety of reasons. These reasons are outlined by Aquinas as he describes the qualities necessary to being and goodness.

That's just your opinion.
People can hold a different belief and still think their religion or belief is more important than yours.
But because you want to make certain people unhappy, it can be discredited in creating goodness.

I don't want to to make certain people unhappy anymore than you want to alienate certain people from feeling God's love. It's not just my opinion. Emotions are fleeting. It is right to credit sacred tradition and scripture in our moral understanding.

[The New California Republic]

That's just your opinion.
People can hold a different belief and still think their religion or belief is more important than yours.
But because you want to make certain people unhappy, it can be discredited in creating goodness.

I don't want to to make certain people unhappy anymore than you want to alienate certain people from feeling God's love. It's not just my opinion. Emotions are fleeting. It is right to credit sacred tradition and scripture in our moral understanding.

That unhappiness happening as a predictable effect of a policy and callously disregarding that unhappiness is only marginally—marginally—less abhorrent than doing it intentionally as the purpose.

[Kannap]

So why are you bent on forcing non Catholics to adhere to tradition.

No, no. I want everyone to be a part of the fold.

You need to learn to accept that not everybody is Catholic nor will everybody be.

[Celritannia]

That's just your opinion.
People can hold a different belief and still think their religion or belief is more important than yours.
But because you want to make certain people unhappy, it can be discredited in creating goodness.

I don't want to to make certain people unhappy anymore than you want to alienate certain people from feeling God's love. It's not just my opinion. Emotions are fleeting. It is right to credit sacred tradition and scripture in our moral understanding.

Not when this scripture does not allow people to be happy.
See the overall problem here?

[Kannap]

That's just your opinion.
People can hold a different belief and still think their religion or belief is more important than yours.
But because you want to make certain people unhappy, it can be discredited in creating goodness.

I don't want to to make certain people unhappy anymore than you want to alienate certain people from feeling God's love. It's not just my opinion. Emotions are fleeting. It is right to credit sacred tradition and scripture in our moral understanding.

You do want to make certain people unhappy, though, just so you can feel self-righteous or better about yourself by scoring more points with the Pope or whatever your gimmick is here.

By simply insisting that homosexuals marry somebody of the opposite sex and procreate with them - therefore betraying their very nature and living unhappy and unsatisfying lives - you're harming people. And not just the adults in these marriages, but you're advocating for utterly terrible home lives for the children that their marriage creates. And that's absolutely horrible.

I couldn't imagine growing up with two always unhappy and unsatisfied parents who inevitably will get divorced anyway, further causing harm. Why would you support such behavior? It's morally reprehensible of you to support such harm for so many people - adults and children - in such a care-free way.

Well, at least morally reprehensible in my eyes. I suppose if forcing harm on people, especially children, is morally acceptable in your eyes then I'm sorry for you.

[San Lumen]

That's just your opinion.
People can hold a different belief and still think their religion or belief is more important than yours.
But because you want to make certain people unhappy, it can be discredited in creating goodness.

I don't want to to make certain people unhappy anymore than you want to alienate certain people from feeling God's love. It's not just my opinion. Emotions are fleeting. It is right to credit sacred tradition and scripture in our moral understanding.

Yet you want Lgbt people to be unhappy thus their children could very well be depressed too.

[Celritannia]

I don't want to to make certain people unhappy anymore than you want to alienate certain people from feeling God's love. It's not just my opinion. Emotions are fleeting. It is right to credit sacred tradition and scripture in our moral understanding.

You do want to make certain people unhappy, though, just so you can feel self-righteous or better about yourself by scoring more points with the Pope or whatever your gimmick is here.

By simply insisting that homosexuals marry somebody of the opposite sex and procreate with them - therefore betraying their very nature and living unhappy and unsatisfying lives - you're harming people. And not just the adults in these marriages, but you're advocating for utterly terrible home lives for the children that their marriage creates. And that's absolutely horrible.

I couldn't imagine growing up with two always unhappy and unsatisfied parents who inevitably will get divorced anyway, further causing harm. Why would you support such behavior? It's morally reprehensible of you to support such harm for so many people - adults and children - in such a care-free way.

Well, at least morally reprehensible in my eyes. I suppose if forcing harm on people, especially children, is morally acceptable in your eyes then I'm sorry for you.

"Let's force an unhappy marriage and an unhappy family/childhood. Because that's what God intends."

[Neutraligon]

You do want to make certain people unhappy, though, just so you can feel self-righteous or better about yourself by scoring more points with the Pope or whatever your gimmick is here.

By simply insisting that homosexuals marry somebody of the opposite sex and procreate with them - therefore betraying their very nature and living unhappy and unsatisfying lives - you're harming people. And not just the adults in these marriages, but you're advocating for utterly terrible home lives for the children that their marriage creates. And that's absolutely horrible.

I couldn't imagine growing up with two always unhappy and unsatisfied parents who inevitably will get divorced anyway, further causing harm. Why would you support such behavior? It's morally reprehensible of you to support such harm for so many people - adults and children - in such a care-free way.

Well, at least morally reprehensible in my eyes. I suppose if forcing harm on people, especially children, is morally acceptable in your eyes then I'm sorry for you.

"Let's force an unhappy marriage and an unhappy family/childhood. Because that's what God intends."

Worse than that, let's also prevent happy marriages because God doesn't want IFV.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

We need to think evolutionarily. Why do Abrahamic religions ban male homosexuality? I bet the natural causes would probably be STDs among gays & bisexual men as well as boosting fertility rates among starving agricultural people so that they can be more robust in wars.

[Neutraligon]

We need to think evolutionarily. Why do Abrahamic religions ban male homosexuality? I bet the natural causes would probably be STDs among gays & bisexual men as well as boosting fertility rates among starving agricultural people so that they can be more robust in wars.

Unlikely for the former. Greater numbers and control of the masses is likely a reason why.