Could you answer my question please?

My bad, I should have said a position that could be misinterpreted as homophobic.

Aren't we all special. We all have to be treated nice and neat. Again someone SHOULDN'T discriminate against others based upon their race, sexual orientation, religion, gender, etc., but do we really need the government to tell us that?

If the only reason you act good is to avoid incarceration or eternal damnation, does that REALLY make you a good person? In my views, you do good things because they are the right thing to do. In the eyes of those arguing against me in this thread, you do good things because the government tells you to.

You have the right to health insurance. You don't, however, have the right to someone else's labor. again, that doesn't really apply in this situation, as has been discussed, but I need to stress that FACT.

Of course. Do you have the right to force others to extract and clean it for you? No, you do not.

You're good. Call me a homophobe. I couldn't care less.

I'm like the soldier who fights for your right to protest against him and his war. Seems counter-productive and dumb, but it's the right thing to do.

That would be the correct interpretation. The first thing that he did to justify his stance was dismiss homosexuality as frivolous while oddly using it interchangeably with gender-fluidity. Later on, he dismissed those who didn't agree with him as only doing so because the scenario involved the LGBT community. Both of those (among many others) espouse the motivation behind his reasoning on this subject.

History tells us yes.

Strawman alert!


:laughing: both sides of the scenario are very plainly opinions. Morality and fact are not even in the same family tree.










WOULD YOU MIND ANSWERING THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED HERE?

You're free to say "no I won't answer your question, Frownland."

Free market! Everything is gonna turn up roses, buddy, I promise.

I said that everything will be fine! How about we focus on getting rid of all of these pesky laws, we're having a hard time finding places to store them. And we're getting rid of the laws for that reason only.

You said doctor. EVERY DOCTOR has to swear to, and abide by, the H.O. So maybe you're trying to backpedal or move the goalposts here, but it won't work. If you mean doctor, as you said, then there is no middle ground: it's black and white. If you're a doctor, you are bound to treat your patients under the oath which you freely (were not forced to) swore to. That simple, really.

They lose their free will.

Time? Energy wasted whilst failing to obtain a good or service.

Free will vs Time & Energy. All are important, but I will go with free will.

They actually aren't, it's just an industry standard. It's largely reflected in modern malpractice laws, but nobody is really required to take the oath.

I already mentioned that. Anything else?

And access to those services. In a life or death situation, that could mean losing their life.

Fixed that for you in light of recent developments. Does it still hold true? Also where does equality rank on your goody scale?