Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

[mitex]

Originally Posted by sw85

I would say that health insurance coverage is not something that should be included in such unions.

My wife gets covered under my insurance because it is necessary for me to discharge the marital duty. Likewise with my kids. There is no similar reason for my parents, siblings, neighbors, mail carrier, maid, or whoever else to get covered by my insurance.

But my grandpa NEEDS health insurance. And my mom is willing to provide that for him. But the insurance company made it difficult. Such a civil union or a domestic partnership between them would make the company have to offer the insurance.

They are sharing a common household. One needs to be cared for. How is that unreasonable. No one is making you enter such an arrangement. But for some people that arrangement would help.

[sw85]

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts

If two people are living together (codomiciling), one working a job and the other taking care of the home, why would it be unreasonable for the second person to receive health insurance coverage?

This question misses the point.

Why does the state compel health insurance companies to extend my coverage to my immediate family (i.e., my spouse and our children)?

Again, my wife gets my health insurance coverage because it is necessary in order for me to discharge my duty to her as my husband and for her to discharge her duty to me as my wife. And my kids get that coverage because they too are the objects of such a duty.

I have no immediate duty to care for anyone else -- therefore there is no compelling interest in mandating the extension of insurance to others.

Otherwise, any shmuck could move in with his mailman and thereby get free health insurance.

There is no rational basis to compel such extensions according to any other arrangement than family, because family formation alone is a matter of compelling public interest.

Originally Posted by mitex

But my grandpa NEEDS health insurance. And my mom is willing to provide that for him. But the insurance company made it difficult. Such a civil union or a domestic partnership between them would make the company have to offer the insurance.

They are sharing a common household. One needs to be cared for. How is that unreasonable. No one is making you enter such an arrangement. But for some people that arrangement would help.

Your grandpa, evidently, got health insurance without the state compelling them to be joined to a "civil union," so I'm afraid I don't see your point.

[livingwordunity]

Originally Posted by kch86

I would be interested to see how people who disagree would argue against these points.

I imagine, however, that from the modern secular perspective, many of those points are irrelevant. Many people seem to have the idea, which is a parody of the Golden Rule, that provided you do not harm anybody else without their consent, you have done no wrong.

This parody of the Golden Rule is taught in witchcraft or "Wicca". Here's the difference between the Christian Golden Rule and Wicca:

The Christian "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" calls us to help others in need. But the Wicca teaching of "do what ye will and harm ye none" allows one to be totally selfish. It allows a person to just stand and watch, doing nothing, as others in need suffer while we "do what ye will" enjoying our material success. Satanism is whatever diametrically opposes the teachings of Christ, and selfishness is the opposite of Christ's teaching and example of total self-sacrifice to others. Selfishness is what Wicca has in common with Satanism. Even though people who practice Wicca might not realize it, the teachings of Wicca are essentially the same as Satanism. It may be packaged differently, but it's the same. I left Wicca and converted to Christianity when I realized this.

I believe that part of the reason why the "gay" agenda has gone hand in hand with the contraception agenda is because the homosexual act is the ultimate form of contraception. And this comes down to a self-centered, flesh-driven culture. Heterosexuality unites the two sexes, but homosexuality divides them.

[Gods_Peace]

Originally Posted by stiffkittenbabe

Has this guy got any idea how offensive it is to compare perverts that have sex with animals and children to gays??
So sex is only for procreation? I suppose he would have us believe that it is wrong for infertile couples to make love, seeing as procreation is impossible!

The reason incest is wrong is because it destroys families. The reason pedophilia and zoophilia are wrong is because they do great and unnecessary harm other sentient beings. It isn't rocket science!

And, by his definition, since only sexual maturity matters in terms of morality, that means Ephebophilia (meaning pedophilia but basically with teenagers who have reached puberty) is ok??
There is a time and place for religion, and a time and place for common sense. I think that time and place has arisen.

They are just stating what they believe, your the one who needs to be less hostile. People should never be ashamed of what they believe, and you don't have to mock us by saying that this isn't common sense, which it is. If you had a pure conscience, a well formed conscience, you would realize homosexuality and contraception is wrong.

[Matilda Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn't notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.