Replies

Sodomy is medically risky, and not something I would suggest to anyone as prudent from that standpoint, but then love and sexual attraction works in mysterious ways. If I were gay, and my parents thought my lover were a murderer, for what I did of my own free will knowing the risks, it would break my heart to know my parents were abandoning me in that way. I would immediately execute a document to give my gay lover the right to control access to those who really cared about me, and my chosen journey, and in the hypothetical you suggest, that would not include my parents.

"Sodomy is medically risky"

It is beyond merely "risky". It is downright, gravely dangerous. From the standpoint of hygiene it's about the thing a person could do. The only thing I can think of that would be more dangerous would probably violate posting guideliens if I were to post it.

"my chosen journey"

This sounds waaaaay to much like the "fellow traveller" BS of foreign sympathizers in our history. I'm sorry, but the road travelled isn't validated simply because someone chose to do it. Your entire point hinges on the fact that the activity in question is not illegal. The point was made repeatedly in the months prior to making it a "Constitutional Right" in Lawrence vs. Texas that it would be used to legitimize it on moral grounds, just another equally valid lifestyle. People making that argument were denounced as right-wing, homophobic crazies. You are now proving them right, by using the legality as moral approval.

Qwinn

"If I were gay, and my parents thought my lover were a murderer, for what I did of my own free will knowing the risks, it would break my heart to know my parents were abandoning me in that way."

There are -several- things wrong with this sentence.

Would you also consider a parent that strongly disapproved of their son's alcoholism to be "abandoning" their child?

To everyone else:

There are some people here who believe that sex has been elevated to the stature of a sacrament. I disagree, although I see why they say that. People who are all out for the sex culture don't defend it the way a priest would defend celibacy - no, they defend it the way a junkie defends his drug of choice. Sex is an addiction. But whereas only some people are hard-wired for addiction to alcohol in their genes, due to natural selection or God or whatever other reason you want to claim, almost everyone is hard-wired for addiction to sex. That's about the only difference.

The thing is, people who are atheist are more likely to support "gay rights" (ugh, I still can't stand referring to it as an identity) than religious people. Atheists are also more likely to believe in Darwinism. If that is the case, why isn't the Darwinism itself a reason to reject homosexuality? It is the worst possible anti-survival trait. The genes of the true homosexual will NOT be passed down. It is total suicide on the evolutationary level.

You know how I view the effort to extend marriage rights to gays? The next step will be that because gays are "disabled" in their inability to recreate through normal means, it will be up to health agencies and the government to provide them with the means to artificial insemination so that they don't die out (which, unsurprisingly, they are - the homosexual population as a percentage of the population is dropping). Taxpayers who disapprove will of course be forced to fund it.

There's a difference between tolerance and celebration. Between acceptance and recruitment. We are so far into the "celebration" and "recruitment" phases in every aspect of our culture that there is going to be a serious backlash (I believe it's a large part of why people are leaving network TV in droves), and the gay lobbies better slow down and stop demanding that they be APPROVED of before it starts getting really ugly. No one has the "right" to be approved of. No one.

Qwinn