|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
An illness may be a "natural" condition, but that does not make it a "normal" condition. I don't understand why we should give particular credence to your ideas of what is "normal" and what is not. Is being handicapped normal? Does that make wheelchair ramps a "special right" for folks in wheelchairs?
In other words, the rules of marriage should not be subverted for homosexuals to be able to marry one another. What part of homosexual marriage do you believe is a "special right"? Most of us look at it as giving them the same rights as straight people - that is, marrying the person that they love.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And allowing a handicapped person access to a public place is simply ensuring them the same right to be there as anyone else. Right. And allowing homosexual couples to marry is simply ensuring them the same rights as other couples.
Marriage is an ancient and sacred (in countless religions and cultures) union between a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and child-rearing. Plenty of people get married and don't have kids. Should we prevent them from doing so? The fact is, your idea of marriage is simply one of many different ideas. I'm of the opinion that marriage is a social arrangement avaliable to couples. And the civil institution of marriage has to take everybody's view into account. And as for the religious, no one's saying that your church is going to have to marry gay people. But if my church wants to, it's unconstitutional of you to try and stop them.
But change the fundamental concept of marriage so they can pretend to live in a normal marital relationship? They can't procreate! They can adopt, like many straight couples are forced to. Fertility is not a prerequsite for marriage.
But even then, why discriminate against all other types of people who happen to live together? Allow gay marriage, and that's just what will happen. Any two people can gain the benefits of marriage.
By the way, if you are an evolutionist, how do think homosexuality, if it is a normal condition, evolved as an adaptation that is beneficial to the propagation or survival of an individual's genetic traits? Kin selection. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-22-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Here's the abstract from an article that hits the evolutionary advantages of homosexuality in greater depth:
quote: From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - AM} at PubMed. [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-23-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If not having a choice in the matter is how we define what is normal, then human slavery must be a normal condition, too! However, it is not. True. We usually consider a condition "abnormal" when it leads to debilitating effects. This is not true of homosexuality by itself, as it is with Parkinson's or Down's. That's why the AMA and other medical/psychological groups no longer classify it as abnormal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why can't they just be civilly united? I dunno. Why can't the darkies just have their own drinking fountains?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's not really clear to me what you're talking about. Perhaps you're just simply repeating the empty arguments of same-sex marriage's reactionary, moralist opposition without thinking about them?
I don't see where the gays lose anything by gaining a civil-union status. What, besides the 1000+ Federal rights accorded to, and only to, married couples? And to continue the same analogy - what do the African-Americans lose by gaining their own public water fountains?
Today she might even have a penis. I suppose "Here Comes The Bitch" will be accorded some legal urgency, when humans petition to marry their dogs. Why does that necessarily follow? Moreover - how can dogs consent to marriage?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
All right, I carried the analogy a little too far. No, you're just avoiding my question. It's a simple one, but apparently it was too subtle, so let me ask it explicitly - if we rejected "seperate but equal" accomodations for black people, why should we accept them for gay people?
This entire issue will evaporate like hot sweat when gay-gene therapy becomes a clinical out-patience procedure. Perhaps, but it hardly seems reasonable to discriminate against people now assuming that they won't even exist in the future. And what makes you think everyone will get the treatment in the first place? Or that it will work on everyone? It seems to me that the hypothetical "gay cure" doesn't solve any issues; it makes them more complicated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If I were a black person I might be insulted by your remark. Perhaps, but many black leaders have expressed solidarity with gay persons precisely because they recognize that the struggle for equality is exactly the same.
Please, how should racial rights extend all the way to homosexual rights under the law? Not racial rights, civil rights. There's no such thing as "racial rights." There's merely equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by our Constitution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Do I have to be a frickin' fundy to think that "marriage" is a heterosexual affair, and that "civil union" is a homosexual affair? What part of this is so oppressive to gays? Asked and answered. When I replied to this and asked you why seperate "but equal" accomodations, public facilities, etc. represented a civil rights violation for black people - plus that there's more than 1000 Federal rights granted only to married couples - how didn't you understand that as the answer to your question? I'm just curious what kind of mental block is going on here for you, since it appears that we're right back where we started.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What about heteros that spend too much time in jail and then turn gay? They turn straight when they get out. Look, think of it like this. If you jack off, are you gay? Cuz technically it was a dude's hand on your junk? No, right? Because it's more about what's going on in your head than what's going on below the belt. Plenty of gay men have had sex with women; they were thinking of guys, usually, while they were doing it, which is how they came to understand that they were gay. And sometimes straight people have gay sex because it's all they can get, like kids in boarding school or prison inmates. Artifical restrictions on sexual access aren't fruitful in regards to determining orientation. It's people's free behavior that is indicative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If I'm a black person and you say I can't drink water from a public fountain, is that the same thing as if I'm gay person and you say I can't get "married" at a public courthouse? Sure, sounds the same to me.
Let me ask you why gays suffer when they can't get "married" under the law but still gain, via civil union, all of the technical rights that heterosexual married people enjoy. Because they don't get all the same technical rights as married people. There's 1000 Federal rights they don't get, at least, that apply only to married people - not to civil unions, which don't exist.
I say let them have everthing but the title of being "married." What's so bad about that? Again, asked and answered. Why did we specifically reject the doctrine of "seperate but equal" for minorities? How do you think you can have the exact same thing under two names, when the laws say only "marriage", not "marriage or civil union"?
I must have the obnoxious gene for questioning half-baked opinions. Apparently you have a mutation in your gene for "effective argumentation", since I'm still waiting for you to present a rebuttal that isn't simply the repetition of your point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The Hells Angels say their rights are abused if they can't have fist fights in the parking lot. Really? You have, perhaps, an example of that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I certainly did get that impression from reading Sonny Barger's "Hell's Angel." You got the impression, or there's actually a passage to the book dedicated to advocacy for the right to fight in parking lots? My favorite Beastie Boys song, after "Root Down", is "Fight for Your Right"; but that song shouldn't be taken as evidence that the Beastie Boys are the leaders of a serious movement to enact a Constitutional amendment enshrining the right "to paaaarrrr-tee!" In other words, there are people that are talking about "rights" in an ironic, sardonic, or otherwise non-serious sense; then there are people who are actually talking about real rights, like people pushing for government recognition of gay marriage. On the other hand, you bringing up the Hells Angels is indicative of the fact that, like many of gay marriage's opponents, you don't really take this issue very seriously, despite the fact that people's families are on the line here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think it is germane to mention here that I am in love with my sailboat Pearl. See what I mean? You're not the least interested in taking this seriously. But real people's families are on the line, here. I simply can't understand how jokers like you think that's funny. Is it funny, to you, when two women can build a family together, raise children, have joint ownership of property - do everything married people do, literally - but when one of them comes down with an illness, her partner can't see her in the hospital? That's funny to you? That's just like your enthusiasm for your sailboat? It's a big fucking joke, I guess. Christ, I hate the fact that people like you even have a say in any of this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Because, in my mind, gays and blacks are not equivalent entities for lawmaking purposes”not if gays CHOOSE to be gay, which seems to be the popular opinion. That seems to be the exact opposite of the popular opinion, in fact. But let me ask you this - if gays choose to be gay, then by the same token, straights choose to be straight. So why should straight people be allowed to marry if being straight is a choice? Clearly, choice has nothing to do with the legal issue in this regard. Regardless of gays choosing to be gay or not, not allowing them to marry is discriminatory.
Well, according to your reasoning tattoed people with spiked hair ought to have special laws that protect their rights. I don't see that special laws are necessary. In fact, clearly it's your side that requires special laws to discriminate, as evidenced by the movement to amend the Constitution to "define marriage". So the question is really why you think straight people need special laws to privilege them above others?
Are gays gay by choice or by nature? Should it even make a difference? I've just argued that it doesn't make any difference. If straight is just a choice, why should straights have special laws and a special kind of relationship just for them?
Should a brother and his sister have the right to get married? Who says they don't? Sibling marriage has been common throughout history; it's only recently been made illegal out of eugenic concerns.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024