By minding someone's own business I mean not infringing on anyone's lifestyle in any way. Do you have a problem with that?
In the same way that people like texxx used to say that a white marrying a black was like marrying a dog. Duh. But then, people like texxx are regularly on the wrong side of history. Sucky for them; good for everyone else.
i got three pages through this stone-aged thread and got to wondering, why do conversations about "gay" always lead to a discussion about "gay sex"? and then the next comparison that gets brought up is the pedophile argument, followed by the beastiality argument. its always the same, "as long as you stay away from my kids" or "they don't let a man marry a sheep" line of thinking. none of which actually apply to the discussion of equal rights.
Of course I never did. Batman stoops low in order to make up for a lack of ability to debate. He has no problem with slandering others to compensate for his own inadequacies
Straight guys enjoy lesbian p*rn but straight women don't enjoy gay p*rn. And again, get the state out of all of the marriage business for everyone. Less government, more liberty, end of problem. But nobody really wants that. They want their lifestyle legitimized by the government. Grandpa Republican and Grandma Democrat wouldn't be able to keep on with their never ending bickering. What a cute couple.
I have no problem with the gay community. They do their thing, I do mine, everything's fine. I am curious though about the scientific/genetic argument. Its a little annoying when people say the beastiality/pedophilia comparison is out of place. Why? They both involve attraction. If you say its a no brainer for one, how can you say its out of the question for the other. You end up sounding like the guys you're arguing with. I'm not saying homosexuals should be looked at in the same light. Being gay is between two consenting adults. Pedophilia hurts innocent kids. Beastiality is......I'm not sure. Is it consentual if a dog humps your leg? Really though, genetics are very complicated and I feel we've only seen the tip of the iceburg in understanding it. Maybe a more comforting comparison could be if you're into redheads or blondes. Its a bit more superficial, but an attraction nonetheless. Personally I like redheads. The religion aspect is also annoying because there are so many self righteous f***s who are quick to condemn those acts yet go off and sin in other ways. Unfortunately my personal belief is that religion causes just as much harm as good, at least these days it seems. I think their are chinks in the armor of both sides arguments and its not as easy as either side thinks. I don't have a problem with more rights for the gay community, but I just don't take a concrete belief with the factors involving it.
Because consenting adults are not animals or children. There's no evidence that homosexuality leads to bestiality. I don't understand why anybody would even bring it up, other than to marginalize and belittle gay people. That is why the only people who make the argument that it does are bigots. I mean it's legal to own animals. Why does nobody ever make the argument that it should be legal to own human beings as slaves because it's legal to own animals? Why does it not work both ways - "they both involve" ownership. The reason why is because bigots can't credibly make this argument, wheras the bestiality one is apparently acceptable. Sad.
Wow. Aren't you a lawyer or something? Why don't you read the whole post. Homosexuality is a taboo that society looks down on. Right or wrong, it is. People are arguing that it is genetic. My question is if thats the case, are all attractions genetic. Again read the whole thing before you start throwing out labels. I hope you pay more attention to the details involving the cases you take. Sad.
then why don't you discuss bestiality and pedophilia when discussing heterosexual marriage? Rather you seem to think it's uniquely germane to homos. Why is that? PS please answer my other question too - why is f-king animals relevant to the question whereas owning animals is not? Don't make the case if you can't argue it.
Again. I didn't say homosexuality leads to beastiality or pedophilia for that matter. That's stupid. There are just as many heteros commiting those heinous acts as there are homo. My point is asking about genetic factors. How do you not understand that? The ownership thing is stupid. I'm not making a similar comparison. As far as people being hetero, yeah it is also an attraction and if everything's genetic than heterosexuality must be genetic as well. You would also have to attribute that to the survival of the species though. My only point is that people seem so concrete on the genetic thing when it is convenient and won't think about other, less pleasant sides of it. I just don't know if its as simple as genes. I happen to think that may be some of it, but environment may also play in more than it gets credit. Is there any chance that everyone is a little right and a number of factors are involved in the issue? I know that sounds impossible, but you never know.
This discussion came up earlier in the thread. Genes (or heredity) are brought up as a counter to the argument that homosexuality is not natural and is therefore wrong. Nobody is saying that having a genetic component implies that homosexuality is ok. It should be ok regardless. I think many proponents of equal rights for gays believe that there is a strong biological component, but anything is possible. The question is, why does it matter? Who cares if it is nature or nurture or a combination of both?
I'm not saying it matters at all. Earlier I said I'm fine with people being gay. Its been going on throughout history. Hell, the Spartans were boy lovers. I'm just fascinated with the whole born gay/choice argument. If someone is willing to throw out that as a basis of it being natural, can it not be asked if other things we take as choice are genetically determined? As for who cares, well I do as I 'd like to understand more about what makes people what they are. I also am curious about other topics like physics and astronomy as well. Maybe I shouldn't be. To be clear, I have no problem with equal rights for gays. Its not my lifestyle, but to each their own.
I think maybe the disconnect is that I'm not sure "we" take those other things as choice either. They most likely are biologically determined as much as anything else. The desire to engage in sexual acts with children is not likely to be a choice (who would actually choose that?). However, the act itself is a choice and therefore considered a crime and morally wrong because of its affect on the non-consenting party. It is considered an illness in large part because of that affect (although it is a very complicated issue that is really separate from homosexuality or heterosexuality and has other reasons for being considered an illness). So it really doesn't serve as a good analogy because it differs from sexual orientation in areas that really matter (harm to others and consent of both parties). Not only that, but comparing that crime to homosexuality is disparaging and insulting. That is why people get railed on for bringing it up. Comparing a loving and consensual relationship to the disgusting violation of pedophilia is simply inflammatory especially since it is so irrelevant to the argument. Bestiality on the other hand might be a slightly more acceptable analogy, but of course it doesn't fit either and does little to provide an interesting argument.
