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
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