Ranties

[rurounihime]

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.

Comments

[phoenixacid.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with what you've said! I have many 'friends' who thinks that a marriage is a union of a female and a male. If they both happen to be of the same gender, then the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed - even if they have a more decent relationship than het couples.

If that's the case, shouldn't the problems faced by het couples (like you said)- domestic abuse, spouse-ditching, child abuse, drunken marriages- show that the sanctity of marriage has long been destroyed by het couples?

Oh.. and some of my said 'friends' reasoned that if we permit same-sex marriages, more and more people will be gay, and that the world population will decrease because guys will not have children. I was like WTF? That's the most crappiest thing I've ever heard - EVER!

Gender doesn't matter!

*agrees with Luthien82* I wish they legallize same-sex marriages n my country as well.

[phoenixacid.livejournal.com]

Btw.. I wasn't saying that all same-sex marriages don't have problems or that they are better than het marriages or anything like that- am just trying to point out that gender shouldn't be the issue here.

[rubymiene.livejournal.com]

Oh.. and some of my said 'friends' reasoned that if we permit same-sex marriages, more and more people will be gay, and that the world population will decrease because guys will not have children.

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.

[phoenixacid.livejournal.com]

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 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?

[smith-seven.livejournal.com]

oh, I totally understood! And I think, for some unknown crazy reason, some people really *do* believe (as your friends do, I guess) that having gay parents turns you gay. Or something. Weird. As though having straight parents necessarily makes you straight. I don't get that perspective at all!

Though to be honest i hadn't ever thought about that consequence of legalizing gay marriage, that rubymiene mentioned above. Maybe it will *seem* like there is an increase in the gay population because more and more people will feel like they can come out... interesting!

[rubymiene.livejournal.com]

Hehe, you are making sense, and you're right, people don't 'turn' gay suddenly, they are born gay. But that is not what the religious right is afraid of. They couldn't care less about people who are confused or tormented in their own minds, they are rallying against people who engage in non-conformist behavior and/or who speak out about non-conformist sexuality. These are the people who represent a threat to the power Christian leaders hold over people's behavior in this country, because they make other closeted persons realize that non-missionary sex is much more common than their religious leaders will admit to.

[rurounihime.livejournal.com]

I guess it depends on which "theory" you believe in terms of homosexuality: 1) people are born homosexual, or 2) people can be "turned" homosexual.

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?

[phoenixacid.livejournal.com]

Someone you found unattractive in your younger years can also turn horribly disgusting in your later years as well. ;D

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?
Well, there is a possibility that one day I will fall in love with another girl. Things can change.

[rubymiene.livejournal.com]

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?

[rurounihime.livejournal.com]

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? ^_^

[rubymiene.livejournal.com]

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.

[rurounihime.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the link! ♥

[rurounihime.livejournal.com]

I'd say it's very much an individual issue, and not a lump-sum issue at all, and THAT is where people are making a mistake with this whole "sanctity of marriage" thing. You don't automatically get to have a good marriage just because you are straight or bi or gay. Just like you don't automatically get to be a good mother just because you are a woman of child-bearing age. It's individual: some people are cut out to be parents, others are not. Some people are cut out to be married, others are not. It's not a right (and by this I mean a biological right, not a legal right), it's a privilege.

I know plenty of stable het marriages. I know plenty of unstable ones. I know plenty of stable gay marriages. I know plenty of unstable ones. The line shouldn't be drawn through sexuality, but rather through individual ability and effort.

[phoenixacid.livejournal.com]

The line shouldn't be drawn through sexuality, but rather through individual ability and effort.

Hear, hear! Unfortunately, not everyone thinks that way - especially traditional and religious families/friends like mine.(Though not all religious/traditional people are like that)

I learnt to never begin a sentence with: "Lets say that I'm a lesbian-" when debating about topics such as this one. Their reactions were... explosive. But then again, these are the same people that told me that I'm going to a special hell for reading Satan!Harry Potter.

[rurounihime.livejournal.com]

That distresses me so much, because it indicates that none of those people are willing to even open their minds enough to discuss it. Which is ridiculous to me. Are we to be damned for thinking freely now? People just shut down immediately, close down on a phrase or an image, and point fingers. Whatever happened to critical thinking? To the right to be hypothetical? I have tried policing my brain like that, and let me tell you, it is the cause of so much stress and aggravation to me, that I can begin to understand all those jokes about inherent guilt complexes and the like. When you can be doomed because a stray thought crosses your mind... that's just depressing, and I refuse to accept that.

[phoenixacid.livejournal.com]

Some people are just afraid to 'contract' the so-called disease, homosexuality. By speaking about it or god-forbid, accepting gay relationships, people might think that they're gay.

The problem is, many believe that any reasons/decisions/beliefs besides those that match their own are automatically wrong. Therefore, they refuse to open their minds or listen to other well.. stuff.

When you can be doomed because a stray thought crosses your mind... that's just depressing, and I refuse to accept that.
I am doomed a thousand times over if that's the case. :)

[rurounihime.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, apparently I am doomed in that case as well.

Yeah, there's never been a shortage of "I'm always right"s in the world. I'd like to believe that the instant you say that phrase, you have just ruined any chance you have of always being right.

But then, I know I've done my share of being obstinate, too. I think we all have.