|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5800 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
Let's not forget that there's strong evidence indicating a powerful correlation between genetic relationship and homosexuality:
Gay Men in Twin Study - The New York Times It's certainly not something purely genetic, but it looks like genes are definitely a component. There's also been evidence that gayness is developmental or epigenetic, and some factors are environmental. For the most part though, the biological basis of homosexuality is well-documented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: Because severe psychological trauma and aversion therapy is perfectly synonymous with healthy heterosexuality. Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: Wait, wait. Let's look at it this way. Michael Jackson chose to go through a series of plastic surgeries to become white. This doesn't mean that ethnicity is a "choice." Hell, this method of argument can be applied to just about anything that human beings are innately born with. Just because the ability to change yourself exists ex post facto doesn't make the original nature (in this case, homosexuality) a "choice." It's a horrible, horrible argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: I think we've given you more than sufficient evidence as to how homosexuality is determined through genetic, developmental, and physiological factors. But in the end I think everyone is missing the big picture here. Whether or not homosexuality is natural or not is wholly irrelevant to its ethical implications. Genes that lead to a greater tendency towards alcoholism are perfectly natural, but alcoholism isn't considered an ethically stable position just because it's "natural." On the other hand, synesthesia is a perfectly natural neural phenomenon, but we don't think it's ethically unstable because it's natural. Natural phenomena are, at best, amoral. What matters regarding the ethical content of a proposition isn't the descriptive elements, but the prescriptive elements. If anyone wants to argue whether or not homosexuality should be accepted, it's best to divorce it from the scientific study of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
Let the state give civil unions to everyone that wants one: gay, straight, polyamorous, transsexual, etc. Let the churches decide what's marriage and what isn't. Everyone gets their civil rights and the government doesn't step on anyone's religious toes.
Simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: Being raised by heterosexual couples didn't make the vast majority of homosexuals in society any more heterosexual. Why would homosexual couples have some special voodoo effect that turns their children gay? You say that being raised by homosexuals will turn otherwise-heterosexual kids gay, but don't address the fact that being raised by heterosexuals doesn't stop kids from growing up homosexual. You argue firmly that you know the natural causes of heterosexuality, but are baffled or unconvinced of the natural causes of homosexuality when your knowledge of the mechanisms of both are equally nebulous (and therefore, it must be a "choice" on some level). You argue that if it becomes medically possible to alter your sexuality, those who don't undergo this therapy will prove that homosexuality is a "choice," when at the same time you ignore the fact that this argument would make ethnicity a "choice" (due to Michael Jackson's plastic surgeries). You're upholding intellectual double-standards and ignoring the other side of the equation. Logical fallacies aside, if you want people to open up and accept your views, you're going to have to grant the same courtesy and exercise the same capacity you want from us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: Well, I don't know about that.
quote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/08/070823110231.htm
quote: Two-spirit - Wikipedia Sacred, sanctified, socially-recognized homosexual unions did exist, it's just a matter of time and culture, which are very much subject to change. For the longest time in Europe, marriage was mostly a matter of political convenience and little more. There's nothing a priori about the term "marriage" that necessitates a heterosexual union. If expanding the definition and legal status of "marriage" has occurred in the past, there's nothing that morally or rationally keeps us from doing so now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: Well don't forget the Native American Two-Spirits. They definitely had marriages that could be considered homosexual or transsexual in nature. So supposing the affrements were non-sexual, how about we issue marriage licenses to two men without regard of whether they're having sex or not. If they wish to have sex, then that'd just be gravy and the marriage license is silent on the matter.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024