rurounihime: (callisto by morbideclipse)
rurounihime ([personal profile] rurounihime) wrote2006-12-02 10:35 pm

Ranties

More bullshit about preserving the sanctity of marriage.

I'm still waiting for that Magical RebuttalTM from the "sanctity of marriage" people. You know the one I'm talking about: It will supposedly refute the challenge made to fix divorce rates, domestic abuse, spouse-ditching, child abuse, drunken marriages that get dissolved the very next day, and spousal murder BEFORE deigning to say that gay marriage impinges on the "sanctity of marriage."

What sanctity? The sanctity I see, currently, is most certainly not exclusive to heterosexual couples. It isn't confined to divisions of sexuality; marriage sanctity is a huge and rewarding effort made by both spouses, regardless of gender. And frankly, the idea that het-couples magically get to sidestep the requirements being placed on gay marriage just because they are heterosexual is the most hypocritical argument I have heard in a long time.

So. Magical Rebuttal? Let's go, people, pronto. If you seriously believe that the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed by legally recognized gay unions, you better put your money where your mouth is and prove it to me, preferably without using religious reasoning that half the people in the world don't follow or recognize anyway. That's called subjective "proof", and it doesn't apply to everyone, or even most people. If there's a scientifically acceptable reason out there, tell it to me. Because I'm really starting to believe that you HAVE no answer to that argument.

One more thing: If your sentence ends with "it just IS that way," then don't bother wasting your time using it here. You will not like the response I give you. That kind of reasoning would never hold up in a scientific journal or in a competent court of law. We're all critical thinkers. We can be mature enough not to resort to petty tantrum throwing and foot stomping.

I'm open 24 hours.

[identity profile] rubymiene.livejournal.com 2006-12-03 07:55 pm (UTC)(link)
For #1: I've given this a lot of thought too. There is quite a bit of scientific evidence that people are born homosexual, however the evidence suggests that homosexuality is more caused by hormonal influence during fetal development than genetics.

that there has always been a certain percentage of the population that is homosexual or bisexual, all through human existence, and that it's a function of genetics and natural selection. I find this to be very intriguing, because I am a believer that nature finds ways to correct overpopulation (or you could say that overpopulation's strain on nature leads to certain events).

The logical problem with this theory is that if homosexuality really did 'correct' overpopulation, then people with the homosexuality 'gene' would have fewer children, thus reducing the presence of such a gene in the population, to the extent that, after several iterations, such a gene would only represent a miniscule amount of the gene pool, not the significant percentage of gay persons today.
One possible explanation is that if gay persons had fewer children, in times of famine, their children had a better chance of survival into adulthood. However, there has been no evidence of more gay persons in overpopulated regions or time periods.

#2: I think with gender attraction it's also likely people figure out they have attractions they previously weren't aware of, or were only vaguely aware of. If there's a scale of gender attraction (see Kinsey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports)) then people who are predominantly heterosexual might never seriously consider engaging in a homosexual relationship or encounter until they meet a 'gay' person.
It's like slash. It's a lot easier to write it after you've read it, but can you honestly you didn't have an unconscious interest beforehand?

[identity profile] rurounihime.livejournal.com 2006-12-03 08:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Hmm, perhaps I should have said nature corrects FOR overpopulation. And I'm not saying it works. ^_^ And maybe I'm making the wrong connections anyway between being gay and the population issue, but I definitely think that this whole argument about there suddenly being an influx of gay people is total BS. Gay people haven't just been appearing for the last... what, century? There just hasn't been the safe opportunity for them to show it until now, and even now they aren't exactly safe. Very depressing.

Let me revise my statement in light of your excellent point, and say that I think that homosexuality is an an intrinsic part of our collective genetic makeup as a species. It occurs with regularity, and always has. That's all I mean. It's a natural function of our genetics.

I find that to be very intriguing, the addition of certain hormones during pregnancy. I'd very very interested in reading up on that. Do you have any links?

I think it's hard to argue unconscious and conscious interest. I didn't really have any thoughts on slash before I started reading it, but then again, I was fairly young at the time, so my gradual appreciation for it could have just as much to do with my own self-discovery as with what I was reading. And I'm sure both helped push the other along, you know? I know people who knew in their core at a very early age that they were gay or straight, and I know people who went through life believing they were straight and only recently have decided that they aren't. Or maybe they were, and things changed. Or maybe none of us are really gay or straight, but are constantly in a state of flux. I like to picture a spectrum of sexuality when I refer to myself, at least, because it seems the most likely, and the least fixed. Some people won't change, some will... I don't know, I'm getting all metaphysical now. But human sexuality is such an interesting topic!

Have I ever told you how much your imploded kitty-face icon cracks me up? ^_^

[identity profile] rubymiene.livejournal.com 2006-12-05 12:06 am (UTC)(link)
Thanks, Two Lumps is the best comic :)

For more on the hormone theory, Wiki's article has plenty of research links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

There may also be a genetic basis that makes some people more suspectible to hormonal flux.

[identity profile] rurounihime.livejournal.com 2006-12-06 07:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Thank you for the link! ♥