Occam's Aftershave
Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Ghost of Paley said:
Quote | But you're trying to build a rule from the exceptions. Most people are pretty clearly male or female. |
Maybe in their physical equipment, but most certainly NOT in their sexual orientation. Multiple studies show that between 2-4% (not the often misquoted 10%) of people in the world identify themselves as gay or bi. Even erring on the low end, that’s over 100 million clearly non-hetero folks. A not insignificant number, wouldn’t you agree?
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=88
Ghost of Paley said:
Quote | We can't design social norms around the exceptional cases - that would be like architects designing doorways with the NBA center in mind. |
But we must design social norms to accommodate the exceptional cases. Should we regress to a hundred years ago, when physically handicapped people were considered second class, denied civil rights, and placed in circus sideshows? It’s not like those ‘tards such as Stephen Hawkings ever contribute to society, right?
Ghost of Paley said:
Quote | Perhaps.....but maybe there's a good reason for the taboo. Most social rules have developed for a reason. Even libertine societies were not equally tolerant of all types of homosexual behavior. I'm not a big fan of wiping out a suite of sexual mores without giving some thought to the possible consequences: Free love brings free diseases, and medicine's defenses can be circumvented through microevolution. Open relationships often lead to jealousy, contempt, and homicide. Get rid of marriage, and you often reap a crop of fatherless kids just looking for trouble. All of our little countercultural experiments have had unintended consequences, often disastrous. |
You just defined homosexual behavior as “sexual contact between members of the same gender. Romantic kissing, petting, and well.....you know.” Now you are equating accepting homosexual behavior to “wiping out sexual mores” and “free love” and “open relationships” and “end of marriage”? How in the world can you make that logical connection?
Here’s a though experiment for you
You walk through the park and see a man and a woman making out like high school kids. Someone tells you “They’re on their honeymoon”, so you can bet they’ll be doing that “well,,,you know” stuff at night. You walk away smiling
A week later you find out that the woman was actually a guy in drag, and that they pretended to be a hetero couple because they weren’t allowed to marry as a same-sex couple.
Now tell me - how was society harmed by their relationship? What sexual mores got wiped out? How did their actions condone “free love”, or “open relationships”? Or signal an “end to marriage”?
That is not a far-fetched scenario, BTW. Many same-sex couples are desperate to show their commitment in a legal marriage. Last year when the mayor of SF briefly instructed City Hall to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, over 4000 couples from all over the U.S. showed up the first week alone, totally swamping the office.
Those with non-hetero orientations have never asked for special rights. They just want the same rights guaranteed every other person under the Constitution. The right to marry the person they love. The right to not be fired or beaten because of those they go home to at night. The right to not live in fear.
Ghost of Paley said:
Quote | Every action you take affects another human being. And it's easier to destroy a village than rebuild it. |
That’s right. Every time ANY person of ANY orientation is unfairly discriminated against, or ostracized, or threatened, or tied to a fence post and beaten to death, we ALL are adversely affected.
-------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims."
- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.
|