rurounihime (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rurounihime) wrote2006-12-02 10:35 pm
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.
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.
no subject
Ironically, if this were actually true, it wouldn't be a bad thing considering how overpopulated the world is.
Also, legalizing same-sex marriage would likely be a symbolic step of acceptance towards homosexuality that would promote more people to admit to being gay, or for bisexual persons to choose a same-sex partner, so it could lead to more openingly gay people. I would not be surprised if gay couples had fewer biological children than straight couples. Assisted reproduction is very expensive and I doubt any couple could afford to do it more than once or twice. The question would be if these persons would have less biological children as part of a gay couple than they would if they were closeted in a hetrosexual relationship...That'd be an interesting study, but I digress...Either way the statistical difference would be tiny compared to the world population since the US contributes so little to its growth currently.
Try that on your 'reasoning' friends.
no subject
I agree with you on this.
Erm.. to be honest, I didn't phrase it correctly. For the 'more and more people will be gay' part- Their exact words are: If same-sex marriages are legalized, more straight men and women will turn gay. Which will in turn, reduce the world's human population.
What I was trying to say was- just because same-sex marriages are legalized, it dosn't mean that people will turn gay! But it will make gay or bisexual people be more open about it because it's accepted in our society. Being gay or straight isn't something that can be controlled with a switch of a button. You have to be gay to be gay.
Oh god.. I'm not making any sense am I?
no subject
Though to be honest i hadn't ever thought about that consequence of legalizing gay marriage, that
no subject
no subject
And there are other theories, don't misunderstand me. These just seem to be the prevailing two, in my opinion.
In terms of number 1, my father had an interesting idea, and that is 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). So this idea gives pause for thought, definitely.
As for number 2, I don't think it's contagious, certainly. That's just silly. You don't "catch" homosexuality. If that were the case, then everyone would "catch" it, because whether you are aware of it or not, you have come into contact with a homosexual person in your life. But I had a friend once who submitted that tastes in people change over time, just like tastebuds do: someone you found attractive when you were younger might not necessarily be attractive to you in your later years. I know that I am not attracted to the same type of guy that I used to be, so who's to say that the same isn't true of gender attraction as well?
no subject
Well, there is a possibility that one day I will fall in love with another girl. Things can change.
no subject
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?
no subject
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? ^_^
no subject
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.
no subject