13 May 12
Originally posted by normbenignRE: The "stat" argument:
"Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but regardless let me clarify that I most certainly do not view homosexuality as a "defect.""
Reasonable estimates of homosexuality range from 2% to 5%. In that figure are quite a few who behave bisexually, or have changed one or more times. Whether it is a "defect" I don't know, but it is a somewhat less than mainstr ...[text shortened]... ey become not just non mainstream but adversaries of traditional lifestyles.
A chess player who can achieve close to a 2100 rating on this site is far more statistically "aberrant" in the US than a homosexual. Would laws disallowing really good chess players from marrying be OK in your form of "libertarianism"?
13 May 12
Originally posted by no1marauderIt IS annoying how many really good chess players there are amongst the smelly unemployed bum population. Maybe we can stop them from breeding! I hate losing to someone who doesn't seem to be capable of logical thought.
RE: The "stat" argument:
A chess player who can achieve close to a 2100 rating on this site is far more statistically "aberrant" in the US than a homosexual. Would laws disallowing really good chess players from marrying be OK in your form of "libertarianism"?
Originally posted by whodeyWhat you think is "hilarious" is about as insignificant as anything can get. Believe it or not, people have "sexual unions" of all kind of sorts without getting married.
I think it hilarious that those who claimed to be discriminated against because of thier sexual orientation are now trying to convince us that gay marraige has nothing to do about sex.
13 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is not irrelevant in the context of a section of society trying to designate it as a hedonistic perversion rather than an expression of someones innate sexuality. This is always tied up with the idea of 'normal'
Whether people "chose" to be gay or not is irrelevant IMO.
I believe that at any given time a % of any given population are gay, therefor how can people argue that it is not normal; if any given human population yields x% of gay individuals. If it was the product of abherrent nurturing and societal permissiveness there would surely be historical scenarios where homosexuality was conspicious by it's absence.
I am not arguing that lifestyle choices should not be recognised as valid by the host society; I just do not believe homosexuality is a choice in same way that collecting wives or stamps is.
13 May 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57I honestly don't care if its a "hedonistic perversion" or not.
It is not irrelevant in the context of a section of society trying to designate it as a hedonistic perversion rather than an expression of someones innate sexuality. This is always tied up with the idea of 'normal'
I believe that at any given time a % of any given population are gay, therefor how can people argue that it is not normal; if any given huma ...[text shortened]... just do not believe homosexuality is a choice in same way that collecting wives or stamps is.
I honestly don't care if it's "normal" or not.
The argument is a irrelevant distraction. People's sexual preferences are none of the government's business. Invidious discrimination aimed at people because of their sexual preferences is objectionable regardless of whether such choice is "innate" or not.
13 May 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYou wont be surprised to learn that I do not care wether you care or not; the fact remains that homosexuality has a genetic root (arguably), but if this is correct then the argument against gay marriage is about as valid as arguing that certain ethnic groups should not have their relationships recognised by the state or given the same validity as the dominant ethnic group.
I honestly don't care if its a "hedonistic perversion" or not.
I honestly don't care if it's "normal" or not.
The argument is a irrelevant distraction. People's sexual preferences are none of the government's business. Invidious discrimination aimed at people because of their sexual preferences is objectionable regardless of whether such choice is "innate" or not.
If you wish to argue that somebody with a shoe fetish should have their relationship recognised by the state then go for it!
But I would argue that you have fallen into the same eronious argument as those that contend this is about sex; it is'nt, it is about two people falling in love and asking their community, in the form of the state to give their union the same respect and protection as their straight
counterparts.
13 May 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57People with a shoe fetish shouldn't be treated any differently than anybody else.
You wont be surprised to learn that I do not care wether you care or not; the fact remains that homosexuality has a genetic root (arguably), but if this is correct then the argument against gay marriage is about as valid as arguing that certain ethnic groups should not have their relationships recognised by the state or given the same validity as the domina ...[text shortened]... the state to give their union the same respect and protection as their straight
counterparts.
What happens if it is shown that there is no or a very weak genetic root to homosexuality? Would it then be OK to invidiously discriminate against homosexuals?
I've fallen into no erroneous argument, but you sure have. Resting an argument against invidious discrimination on supposed "innate characteristics" is a weak reed.
13 May 12
Originally posted by no1marauderWell done you are now claiming that homosexuality is fetish, are you trying for a birthday card from whodey? As I posted earlier I would support any lifestyle choice you care to mention providing it did not involve the curtailing of somebody else's choice.
People with a shoe fetish shouldn't be treated any differently than anybody else.
What happens if it is shown that there is no or a very weak genetic root to homosexuality? Would it then be OK to invidiously discriminate against homosexuals?
I've fallen into no erroneous argument, but you sure have. Resting an argument against invidious discrimination on supposed "innate characteristics" is a weak reed.
The subject of this discussion is whether legalising same sex marriage is wrong on the grounds that it is a example of the state meddling in peoples private sex lives, you seem to be arguing that it is meddling in that area but that it is okay.
I am arguing that it is quite the reverse; by contunuing the status quo they are meddling by giving the practioners of one sexual preference a range of legal rights and protections that they deny to the practioners of another.
There may be a number of lifestyle choices that are being discriminated against by the current marriage laws, the all but 1st wife of a polygamist may well need to be given legal status in order to protect them financially. However to claim that homosexulity is just another in an infinite list lifestyle choices is simply incorrect.