This has been bugging me for a long time now. I get it that most people believe that being gay or homosexual is an abomination, but they should be able to marry whoever they want to. Right? I don't know if it's just me who feels this way, but please share your opinion.
@ Gallup's Mirror,
In the comments section of the first of those links, somebody has posted that since there is no gene for homosexuality, it must be a choice, not an orientation. How can anyone exhibit such idiocy, yet still be able to string together a structurally coherent sentence? I'm baffled.
1. If homosexuality is a choice, so what? Are rights tethered to what's beyond our control? There's no gene for gun ownership. But owning a gun is a right.
2. Genes are one of many factors beyond anyone's control that determine sexuality.
And that's assuming there's such a thing as free will which, as you know, is difficult to prove.
Exactly, Blaine. That is one of the two parts to the double-stupid. The other, is that bearing in mind the very nature of homosexuality, it doesn't generate offspring - except in a few circumstances, so if it was genetic, it would pretty much have died out as soon as it got started. What a twerp!
If it is genetic, it could be passed on in families by reproducing heterosexuals as a dormant gene. I heard a theory that male homosexuality may have been advantageous to a gay man's nieces and nephews, providing them with another childless adult who becomes a supporting care-taker/bread-winner for the family. Those children would be healthier and wealthier--able to produce more of their own fit offspring. No theories about lesbianism from this source, so I take this interesting but unprovable idea with a grain of salt. ::rolls eyes:: Personally, if their were a gay gene, I would thank scientists to not publish that information, since designer children are not far off in humanity's future.
such a theory is overly adaptationist. Not everything has to have an evolutionary purpose. After all, the theory of evolution requires that sometimes, genetic (or even non-genetic) mutations result in non-reproductive individuals.
I mean, it's like saying "A lot of people get hit by cars. What is the evolutionary purpose of getting hit by a car?" There simply is none. Getting hit by a car is always an accident. And even though evolution "should" weed it out, it's still going to happen; in fact, if it stopped happening, evolution would lose the mechanism by which it works!
I'm no geneticist, but even if we were to know something about every gene and what it does, do we know everything about how genes interact?
Have to agree here. If civil unions are just as good as marriage, why do we even need to use a seperate institution for a specific group of people? If, CU=M, then substitute M for CU and call it a day. I mean, I'm no history professor, but I recall "Seperate But Equal" not working out so well for a certain other minority.
Also, I have to wonder if lgbt-rights strategists didn't go after marriage equality (rather than employment or housing protections) because of the respectability and inclusion into mainstream society that marriage confers. You just don't get that if you create a special civil-unions-for-lgbts-exception.
That's a perfect in-a-nutshell of what I also understood it to be. It sounds absolutely 'check-mate' perfect to me.
YES. THIS. This is what I've been saying for years.
It's why I made this:
and then this:
Feel free to pass these images along to anyone you wish, if you think it'll help convince them.
Here in Maryland, we just voted to legalize same-sex marriages. The most recent poll found that over 50% of Americans are now in favor, and that 73% of those aged 19 to 29 support marriage equality.
Umm... Because they're Christian. Fundamentalists and Catholics in particular.
Is this news to you?