Your Opinion...

[Shamol]

Yeah, that "natural behavior" is nothing more than a throwback to a time of superstition and myths. The thing is, all living organisms will always vary, and thus there is no "natural behavior," though there is typical behavior within a species, even each individual organism within that species will vary a lot. That's what makes the gene pool strong. Remove too many variations and you weaken the gene pool to the point of extinction, cheetahs are an excellent example of such a phenomenon caused by a massive population decrease, creating what is commonly called a "genetic bottleneck."

So yeah, your point fails on that tiny fact alone. Secondly, there is no objectivity in morals or ethics, they are decided on by society, and often very flexible. Thus your second point fails on that fact. Third point fails for much the same reason as your first, there is no normal for any living organism, normal only works on machines and physics. Typical is what is common, and there are a lot of typical behaviors humans once had which are no longer even considered civil.

Hate to break it to you, but life cannot abide by arbitrary rules and laws, if it did, we'd all still be single celled organisms instead of stronger colonies of single celled organisms.

Whoa, I wasn't making a point about whether there are indeed natural, normative conventions about biological behavior (or any kind of behavior, for that matter). You'd notice the first sentence of my post contained a disclaimer along that line. My point was that while I am not promoting a "heterosexuality is natural" argument (not in this thread, at least), those that do would object to the specific argument (or "funny retort") as you call it in such-and-such a way.

That said, your arguments against there being a normative ethic seems very problematic. Variations in species does contribute to genetic stability and aid survival, but that does not mean one could extend this fact to arguably ethical issues like human sexual behavior. This is because many people would state that the content of our ethical beliefs has nothing to do with survival. Ethical normativity is something over and above the evolutionary products. You don't have to agree with this, but you can't simply "waive it off" to assume the contrasting position as obvious, either, without giving the arguments their due consideration.

As for your points on there not being any objective moral code or ethical values, I believe we had a thread on this topic just the other day where people argued for and against the concept of an objective morality (here it is). I don't want to rehash that discussion here. All of this seem hardly relevant to the present discussion, anyways.

 

[KittenKoder]

Whoa, I wasn't making a point about whether there are indeed natural, normative conventions about biological behavior (or any kind of behavior, for that matter). You'd notice the first sentence of my post contained a disclaimer along that line. My point was that while I am not promoting a "heterosexuality is natural" argument (not in this thread, at least), those that do would object to the specific argument (or "funny retort") as you call it in such-and-such a way.

That said, your arguments against there being a normative ethic seems very problematic. Variations in species does contribute to genetic stability and aid survival, but that does not mean one could extend this fact to arguably ethical issues like human sexual behavior. This is because many people would state that the content of our ethical beliefs has nothing to do with survival. Ethical normativity is something over and above the evolutionary products. You don't have to agree with this, but you can't simply "waive it off" to assume the contrasting position as obvious, either, without giving the arguments their due consideration.

As for your points on there not being any objective moral code or ethical values, I believe we had a thread on this topic just the other day where people argued for and against the concept of an objective morality (here it is). I don't want to rehash that discussion here. All of this seem hardly relevant to the present discussion, anyways.

It's not whether I agree, it's the universe that disagrees with objectivity in morality, and our own history is very solid evidence supporting that, and thus cannot be applied to anything, really. In essence, what I am saying, is that "normal" and "objective morals" arguments fail by default, they are not based on reality and not supported by scientific research or any evidence at all.

 

[Shamol]

It's not whether I agree, it's the universe that disagrees with objectivity in morality, and our own history is very solid evidence supporting that, and thus cannot be applied to anything, really. In essence, what I am saying, is that "normal" and "objective morals" arguments fail by default, they are not based on reality and not supported by scientific research or any evidence at all.

I'll reserve comment here due to the irrelevance of this topic.

 

[Esper]

Jay kind of vaguely touched on a point which I think it pretty central to why there is hatred of gay people, that is, that women are more accepting of gay people in general. I'd argue that there's a connection between disliking gay people and patriarchy. Yeah, this is a feminist view, but I think a lot of the hatred stems from the way that gay people threaten the idea of male superiority and men as sexual aggressors. Or, in other words, when you show that men can be the object of someone's attraction, of a man's attraction, that "feminizes" a man in the eyes of some people.

Religious, politics - all those groups that have a problem with gay people (not that all religious or political groups do) -they all just jump on this train. They're not driving it.

 

[Broncos]

I didn't choose to be straight; I just am, just as they didn't choose to be gay; they just are.

Genetic sequence just like the rest of sequences that take place in our development. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply ignorant, or refuses to accept it.

 

[Livewire]

One strange point many people forget is that all this fear of the unique is actually pretty new.

I don't think so. People fear what they don't understand, and by extension, the establishment, historically speaking, fears outliers and "heretics", or any other deviation from the accepted norm. What gets categorized as a deviation changes though, so people's mistrust and hate changes thusly - they find different things to direct their mistrust, generalizations, etc. at. That's how we went from mistrusting Catholics, then Jews, then immigrants, then black people, then LGBT, etc. The mistrust does overlap there, though.

 

[Pike Queen]

My opinion is that it is normal. I don't see it to be abnormal. It's just what you're attracted to; I mean, what does it really matter? Being gay doesn't make people fit any sort of stereotype any more than their personality does; not the fact that they're gay. Besides, no one is hurting anyone by simply being an orientation. People just need to do what makes them happy, as long as they are not hurting themselves or anyone else.

 

[KittenKoder]

I don't think so. People fear what they don't understand, and by extension, the establishment, historically speaking, fears outliers and "heretics", or any other deviation from the accepted norm. What gets categorized as a deviation changes though, so people's mistrust and hate changes thusly - they find different things to direct their mistrust, generalizations, etc. at. That's how we went from mistrusting Catholics, then Jews, then immigrants, then black people, then LGBT, etc. The mistrust does overlap there, though.

New relative to the whole of known history. Even in time periods like the Dark Ages and Renaissance, gay people were just people, they did not differentiate between them and other people. Of course in those times life was infinitely more difficult and no one had time to think on such matters.

 

[Rezilia]

Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply ignorant, or refuses to accept it.

So, just because someone doesn't believe the same exact thing as you, they're ignorant?

That. Is. Astounding.

--

I, for one, am not "simply" engineered to be one way. I'm an asexual lesbian.

"LOLWUT that's not possibru!"

Yes, yes it is. I like women more than men. Yet I don't have sex drive for anyone or anything.

This is the same stupidity that makes people think that pansexuals can't fulfill their wedding vows.

People are not engineered to be gay. Their bodies may gear towards the same gender, but that doesn't mean they'll end up being with the same gender, at all or even exclusively.

Also: GAY PEOPLE FTW :D

 

[KittenKoder]

So, just because someone doesn't believe the same exact thing as you, they're ignorant?

That. Is. Astounding.

--

I, for one, am not "simply" engineered to be one way. I'm an asexual lesbian.

"LOLWUT that's not possibru!"

Yes, yes it is. I like women more than men. Yet I don't have sex drive for anyone or anything.

This is the same stupidity that makes people think that pansexuals can't fulfill their wedding vows.

People are not engineered to be gay. Their bodies may gear towards the same gender, but that doesn't mean they'll end up being with the same gender, at all or even exclusively.

Also: GAY PEOPLE FTW :D

First, yes, belief is a space filler for not knowing something.

Second, that is not possible, asexual is incompatible with any sexuality, because if you lack a sexual attraction you cannot be either homosexual or heterosexual, it's called a contradictory state, and it's not possible for those to exist. If you have a sexual attraction to women then you are a lesbian/homosexual, if you have no sexual attraction then you are asexual. An asexual person can prefer the company of a specific gender, and this is common, but there is no sexual attraction at all.

 

[Rezilia]

I don't have a PHYSICAL (and thus not a sexual) attraction to anyone or anything. Call it emotional, psychological, or anything else - I have a NON-PHYSICAL attraction to women.

Stop being so ignorant.

Just because someone wants to screw a pole, that doesn't mean they WILL screw the pole.

 

[Esper]

Let's tone down the language, please. Remember to show respect to one another even while you're disagreeing.

And, on the topic, there is a term "homoromantic" for people who are romantically, but not sexually attracted to people of the same sex. There's also heteroromantic, biromantic, and so on. They're not so widely known or used, but it's something that a lot of people say they are.

 

[Dakotah]

This is why labels are so dangerous. Because no one truly fits any one particular label fully. We are who we are and to classify us as one thing or another just doesn't really work. No one really fits the label we give ourselves or others give us. I say, forget the label. Just be yourself and who cares what any one else thinks.

 

[Kanzler]

Rationally, the more labels there are the less we'd care. With every label that exists we have to learn a more nuanced definition that applies to less people - doing more work for less gain. Eventually it becomes an exercise ad tedium. If you've narrowed yourself to four labels upon four dimensions, what have you accomplished? Maybe a very sharp understanding of yourself but does it matter to the rest of the world? And what of the exceptions? shall we have labels for exceptions? It's much more intuitive to do what Jay suggested, as I doubt people would care differently about you as a person whether you're able to describe yourself with twenty words or no words at all.

 

[Rezilia]

If you've narrowed yourself to four labels upon four dimensions, what have you accomplished?

That's a Myers-Briggs reference, isn't it?


I think labels are good. They're details. Twenty words of explanation helps others know you better than an entire year of being with you, honestly. We can speak, so we should speak. Language exists for a reason.

 

[Dakotah]

I think labels are good. They're details. Twenty words of explanation helps others know you better than an entire year of being with you, honestly. We can speak, so we should speak. Language exists for a reason.

Labels are also self-limiting, and not always entirely accurate. Sometimes there aren't the words available to describe something.

 

[Silais]

Homosexuality affects me in absolutely no way and thus I have no vehement feelings about the subject—except in the case of gay rights. All human beings should have the same rights, no questions asked, no ifs, ands or buts about it. Why do Americans continue to deny homosexual individuals the same rights as regular Americans?

 

[Kanzler]

It comes from a different perspective. If you're taking about about same-sex marriage, the "right" to marry isn't denied because "same-sex marriage" is contradictory. I don't like using the vocabulary of "rights" to describe the injustice because it dilutes the power of rights and frankly I don't see the "right to marry" as important as a right as others. Yes it's a UN declaration right, but it's no freedom of speech. I see it more as treating people with dignity, regardless of their differences.

 

[KittenKoder]

It comes from a different perspective. If you're taking about about same-sex marriage, the "right" to marry isn't denied because "same-sex marriage" is contradictory. I don't like using the vocabulary of "rights" to describe the injustice because it dilutes the power of rights and frankly I don't see the "right to marry" as important as a right as others. Yes it's a UN declaration right, but it's no freedom of speech. I see it more as treating people with dignity, regardless of their differences.

How is "same-sex marriage" contradictory? Marriage itself is contradictory, the original institution of it was about nothing more than property rights and treatise, and included multiple partners as an option. Now we say it's all based on love, when it's still about nothing more than property rights and treatise, we just offer people the right to choose on their own rather than have the parental guardians decide for them.

The right to own property is a basic human right now, see, rights change based on the culture and era, and property today is more of a measure of a person than ever before, and thus it is now a universally accepted right. When you own something, you have the right to decide what happens to that thing, whatever it may be. Since marriage is a property contract, it is inherently a right as well. So yes, marriage is a right, just like ownership of property, the right to live, and freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is a very new right, actually, much newer than the right to own property, and was not as widely accepted as any other right until very recent history. Most of Europe sort of eased into that right, slowly allowing laws oppressing it die out instead of just jumping in with both feet.

All this makes gay marriage a right, like all the others, because gay people have the right to own property just like any others.

 

[Esper]

The so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights says marriage is a right.

Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

That was probably written partially to outline people's right not to marry against their wills and to take a stance against child marriage, but still, they call it a right and when you say it in terms of "a family has a right to protect by society and the state" and that people should have "equal rights" regarding marriage then it doesn't seem like it dilutes other rights.