EvC Forum: Haggard thread #2

Just a point or two, for the sake of clarity...

quote:
If you redefine what a marriage is to accomodate homosexuality, then another group is going to lobby for the same rights. After awhile the whole institution of marriage will be turned into a mockery, as if it needed any help.

Nemesis, you're living in a country where (apparently, after a quick google) statistically half of all first-time marraiges end in divorce or separation within 15 years. So it looks like the institution of marraige is already several miles past the point of being a mockery and still accelerating.

Hell, I agree with holmes about making a new term for gay marraiges. At least it would get a clean slate, as it were.

quote:
Do you readily here of a heterosexual man referring to his sexuality as being a determinant in who he is as a person? No. He will likely mention his job or his fatherhood, or his marital status, or his interests as defining who he is. Its different for homosexuals. You aren't a sportsman-- you're a 'gay' sportsman. You aren't a lawyer-- you're a 'gay' lawyer. You aren't a racecare driver-- you're a 'gay' racecar driver. Ever heard of heterosexual basketball player? I haven't. I've just heard of a basketball player. Because, really, his sexual preference is inconsequential. So, if homosexuals don't want their sexual prefernece as being the focus of their self-identity, maybe they should not make their sexuality the focus of the attention. Does that make sense?

Funnily enough it seems obvious to me that if you've been suppressing your sexuality for years because of the fear of societal reactions, when you finally do come out your sexuality does seem to become the focus of attention. It's expressing something that you've previously had to hide.

An analogy: say you're very creative, but for years you've hidden it because people look at creative people with distain and disgust for wasting time and resources on frivolous things. Say there is a widespread religion that happens to mention that God will send wasters to hell, so religiously-motivated violence is common against anyone suspected of such tendencies. You will deny your nature to be creative, but you still have the urge to paint, compose, sculpt, write, or whatever and it really chews you up inside that you can't express yourself. But society gradually becomes more enlightened and starts accepting creative people, and accepting that creative activities are ok. So people start to come out and admit that they are creative, and they like to paint, compose, etc. Finally you come out, and you start to express yourself - and the result is a great release of the creative urge you have bottled up for so long.

The situation appears the same here. Homosexuals have had to suppress their very nature for a long time, and now that society is more accepting it's all coming out (pun intended

). Oh and I do think that homosexuality is not a choice - in fact, I happen to agree with a friend of mine that all humans are inherently bisexual, but tend to prefer one sex over the other in general. But anyways...

quote:
As for homosexuals not being 'happier' than their heterosexual counterparts, I think that's obvious. Maybe you can name one set of parents or even prospective gay parents who actually 'want' their child to be gay. I think we all know that having a 'normal' life is optimal here. And by 'normal' I mean it exactly by the word the means. By normal, I am actually referring to the 'norm.' That isn't me saying the opposite of normal = freaks, because it doesn't.

That's a tad misleading, Nemesis. Gays tend not to be happier because of society, not because there's anything detrimental to being gay. If society accepted them as is, they'd be just as happy or unhappy as your average straight person.

Case in point: I know several gay people. My cousin is gay. They're all quite happy and content because their families accept them, their friends like them, and no one gives them grief for being gay.

Oh and the opposite of normal = abnormal, freakish. Regardless of the negative connotations attached to the word "freaks", please don't pretend that this isn't what the opposite of normal is. And consider this: should a parent want their child to live a socially acceptable life (i.e. 'normal'), where they may be desperately unhappy because they must suppress their sexual desires and possibly engage in sexual activity that is repellent to them, or should a parent want their child to live whatever life they choose that grants them the most happiness, and defend them from societal disapproval if they have to?

Having a 'normal' life is not optimal. Having a happy life is.

Edited by IrishRockhound, : fixing spelling

8 online now:	Aussie, candle2, dwise1, Percy (Admin), Phat, Rahvin, Tangle, Taq
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,843 Year: 4,100/9,624 Month: 971/974 Week: 298/286 Day: 19/40 Hour: 0/3