Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess one cannot compare being red-haired or left-handed to being homosexual The former two are irrelevant to society.
1. How is being homosexual "relevant to society"? People in society make all kinds of life choices and form all kinds of social and familial relationships, from lifelong monogamy to serial monogamy to brief, unattached sexual linkages; from having children to not having children; to forming enduring sexual partnerships to remaining unpartnered, to being celibate; from living alone to living in a family to living with a group. For the most part, society doesn't worry too much about these choices. Why is it legitimate for society to get so agitated about one particular lifestyle?
2. What do you mean left-handedness isn't relevant to society? Do you know how many industrial and household accidents are caused by the fact that many tools and machines are harder for left-handed people to operate? Do you know how much society spends on disgining tools and machines for left-handed people that wouldn't be necessary if everyone was right-handed? Do you know what a premium left-handed relief pitchers command on the open market?
When I first saw the title of this thread I didn't bother to read it. After all, what could be that political or controversial about California preparing to repeal a particularly silly and benighted law?
I guess I understimated the commitment of our homophobic and befuddled members to archaic and bizarre notions of what life is and should be like.
1. How is being homosexual "relevant to society"? People in society make all kinds of life choices and form all kinds of social and familial relationships, from lifelong monogamy to serial monogamy to brief, unattached sexual linkages; from having children to not having children; to forming enduring sexual partnerships to remaining unpartnered, to being celibate; from living alone to living in a family to living with a group. For the most part, society doesn't worry too much about these choices. Why is it legitimate for society to get so agitated about one particular lifestyle?
2. What do you mean left-handedness isn't relevant to society? Do you know how many industrial and household accidents are caused by the fact that many tools and machines are harder for left-handed people to operate? Do you know how much society spends on disgining tools and machines for left-handed people that wouldn't be necessary if everyone was right-handed? Do you know what a premium left-handed relief pitchers command on the open market?
1. I am not saying it is legitimate for society to get so agitated about it, but interested, why not? Let's not forget that there are also moral implications (no matter how justified or not). Religious people usually condemn homosexuality. And despite all the different lifestyles heterosexuals have these days, I assume the average heterosexual couple is statistically still more likely to have children than a homosexual couple To a lot of people having children is still the purpose of life.
2. True enough, I am ambidextrous, so I don't care about those things. There is one difference though: Being right- and left-handed is equal insofar as there would not be more problems if the percentages were the other way round (10% right-handed and 90% left-handed, or whatever the exact figures are). But if 90% of people were homosexual and only 10% heterosexuals, society would probably collapse
As are all of your antiquated and biased views of homosexuals. You cannot accept our views or our request for equal treatment. All you ever do is attack anyone that disagrees with you and claim they are attacking you. Get over your self.
I understand your requests, and they are not demands for "equal" treatment, rather demands for "special" treatment.
If it is the concept of marriage, civil unions serve this purpose, and appropriately so. If the civil union laws do not meet standards, they should be upgraded, but changing the meaning of a word to fit that which it was not established is nothing more than providing "special" treatment.
It is apparent that you are emotionally involved. This promotes irrational thinking.
It is an abnormality in exactly the same sense that being left-handed or having red hair is an abnormality.
True. Once we recognize this fact, we can move on to later positions. Unfortunately, there is a resistance to accepting this fact as there is fear that it may lessen the position of latter arguments.
You are using the term in order to express all its pejorative connotations. Then, when challenged, you resort to another definition of the same word and pretend that you meant nothing negative by the use of your term, that you're just saying "abnormal" is the same as "uncommon" or "unusual".
Either way, you have shown yourself to be unfit to participate in an honest debate.
I think it's much more straightforward, though, to put it the way I did at the outset: you lie.
That is what you infer, yet there is no proper evidence to support such. Now if you think so because it degrades a position, then that is a problem I can not help. A fact is a fact, if you do not like such, then you have a problem with the language, and if you have a problem with the language, than it is likely you have a problem with your position.
We do not define language to suit your position, yet this is exactly what you argue for. This is an element of politically correctness, a direction that attempts to lessen the blatant aspects of the truth in order to lessen the display of its results.
You claim me dishonest, yet I have not argued a position outside of the simple facts which can be validated by simple literacy.
In fact, it would be brought under question as to if you are being dishonest by using fallacious positions to infer motive that has not been stated. This is an emotional position, one that is not validated nor logically supported.
We can't get past definitions because this endangers your position, so definitions must be adjusted to suit your position. It is absurd.
So, your only response is then to dismiss using fallacious reasoning as support. In the end, you are wrong and no amount of support will change that outcome.
But if 90% of people were homosexual and only 10% heterosexuals, society would probably collapse
That's a moot point, and I can't understand why people even bring it up. Your argument suggests that, somehow, by advocating for gay rights, more and more people will "convert" to homosexuality, and before we know it, 90% of the world will be homosexual. It's just ridiculous. Stop it.
So, your only response is then to dismiss using fallacious reasoning as support. In the end, you are wrong and no amount of support will change that outcome.
No, my response is to point out that you are using fallacious reasoning. I can see how you would find that confusing, though.
That's a moot point, and I can't understand why people even bring it up. Your argument suggests that, somehow, by advocating for gay rights, more and more people will "convert" to homosexuality, and before we know it, 90% of the world will be homosexual. It's just ridiculous. Stop it.
That is what you are reading into it, I did not say anything like that. I just wrote why I think the comparison with left-handedness and red hair is not convincing.
I absolutely agree with you that the percentage of homosexuals in society is pretty stable. It might SEEM to increase a little bit as more people dare to come out these days. But it is good that way, there is no point in forcing homosexuals into heterosexual relationships the way it used to be for a long time. It only ruins the lives of everybody involved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The former two are irrelevant to society.
Who woulda thunk it?
