![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAs irrational as that particular brand of fear and hatred my be, some may've occasionally done the futile exercise of attempting to comprehend where it's coming from - against the advice of all past experience from encounters with bigots. Well, after a somewhat thorough sifting through tons of disgusting and outright nauseating displays of pure hatred, I've come up with this, hardly exhaustive, list of possible rationalizations for homophobia. With the respective counter-arguments (as if there's any reasoning with that sort of people, but still).
1) IT AIN'T NATURAL! Weak sauce, whichever way you look at it. That's some blatant use of the "appeal to nature" argument, because it assumes that what's natural is acceptable and/or preferable (and what's not natural, isn't). By that token, it logically follows that adultery, infanticide, cannibalism and nudity must be acceptable too, since they're "natural". While wearing clothes and cooking meat are unacceptable, since they're not "natural". But you won't see anyone advocating for the adoption of laws prohibiting those activities, would you? And let's not forget that using the Internet is not "natural" either, but that hasn't stopped homophobes from spewing their hatred and bigotry via that medium. What's more, homosexuality actually occurs in nature, and is part of the regular behavior of hundreds of species - including mammals (like bonobos). Who's to say which part of nature is "more natural" than the other? Sounds too arbitrary.
2) IT'S A PERVERSION! Another version of the above-mentioned. It implies that homosexuality is a mental disorder, or a disability, although there's a total lack of evidence in support of such an assertion. Defining homosexuality as a disability is an example of the "argument from definition", another fallacy. Except, the definition of disability doesn't include any mention of either sexuality or gender. Being gay doesn't impede one's ability to function as a human being. Moreover, putting a parallel between sexuality and disability also assumes that disabled people also do not deserve respect and empathy. As for the related claim that homosexuality is a creation of the Devil, I wouldn't even waste time on that one.
3) IT'S AGAINST GOD'S LAWS! First of all, why should anyone give a damn about this particular God and not the next one? And why should his laws apply to secular laws? And then there's the double standard argument that freedom of religion does not apply to people of your particular faith, or that the separation of church and state is really moot. In reality, the claim that God is against homosexuality, is not supported by any evidence in the Gospel: Jesus actually never brought the topic up - apparently, it wasn't important enough at the time. While there might be ways to interpret certain parts of the Bible in a way to accommodate such a narrow view, it'd only apply to those practicing that particular religion, and wouldn't apply to anyone else. Notably, most criticism of homosexuality in the Western context comes from Christians, while Jesus himself never said a word on the topic. In fact, Biblical references on the subject come exclusively from the Old Testament, a narrative that was only later picked up by St Paul and some other apostles.
4) IT'S SIMPLY DISGUSTING! Irrelevant to anything existing outside the mind of the particular person expressing that sentiment. Hey, images of heterosexual sex could also be considered repulsive by some. Seeing the missionary position could be considered disgusting, especially when put in the context of having the sole purpose of ensuring procreation. Besides, doesn't it seem that God is OK with lesbian sex? Most people consider it aesthetically fine. The Bible never mentions female homosexuality - curious, isn't it? Even Romans 1:26 is too vague in that respect, because the context there is more about condemning prostitutes, rather than lesbians. The whole premise looks too shaky to be given much further thought.
5) IT'S A GATEWAY TO CORRUPTION AND ABUSE! Some societies or segments of society are inded sensitive to corruption related to sexual relationships, and sexual abuse. So how do they address that problem? Well, they impose gender separation rules. But doesn't that actually disincentivize heterosexual relationships? And some tighter communities tend to outright throw out Teh Gayz. Take the Boy Scouts, or the Catholic Church. And note how well that has worked for them. Besides, the problem here is that sexual abuse is not the same as consensual sexual relationship. Prison rapists for example are heterosexual more often than not, although they do engage in man-on-man sex.
6) IT CONTRADICTS THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE! Yes, we all know of the "union between man and woman" argument. Well, news-flash: Christian and other communities have often condoned polygamy, forced marriage, arranged marriage, child marriage, some often ban interracial or inter-religious marriage. Some fundies insist that extra-marital sexual relationships are sinful, as per the Ten Commandments. Which conveniently makes all same-sex relationships sinful by definition, if they're not to be allowed. There's also the non-sequitur explanation of the claim that gay marriage would ruin the sanctity of marriage, which claims that it'd devalue traditional marriage. But in the meantime they've allowed divorce, civil unions, and decriminalized adultery. And now Teh Gayz are the only ones to blame for all the voes that have befallen straight marriage? Please.
7) IT'S A GATEWAY TO OTHER PERVERSIONS! Like pedophilia, zoophilia, incest, even marrying your rubber doll! The same way drinking tea is a gateway to heroin addiction, amirite? Classic slippery-slope here. Could the reason for the Christians' fierce opposition to homosexuality be the fact that pederasty used to be a major form of homosexuality in Western culture (Greece, Rome)? But much of the modern gay community has rejected pederasty and other such acts - so why continue to associate the two things?
8) IT'S A CHOICE! Yep, we've heard that claim way too often: the "gay lifestyle" is a "choice". Except, that might only be the case in some specific occasions, mostly involving bisexuals. Most humans are either attracted to men or women, and they don't have much of a choice in this. In contrast, bisexual people could choose to act upon their attraction to one sex and ignore the other - but that still doesn't make them heterosexual or homosexual. Besides, I'm not sure why this should be relevant at all. Societies don't just ban certain behaviors because they seem to be choices rather than inherent features. That's quite an irony: the same people who be hatin' on gays for the "choice" pseudo-argument (thus curiously implying that homosexuality might've been OK if it weren't a choice), are a-OK with trying to impose a definitely choice-based religious lifestyle on anyone who'd be silly enough to sit through their endless pontification. And I haven't seen a single fundie suddenly flipping their Gay Switch, just to demonstrate how easily one could alternate between their preferences of a fuck partner.
9) IT TRANSMITS DISEASES! Man-on-man sex is more prone to STIs, granted, including HIV. And some homosexual people have transmitted these to their heterosexual partners. That's a genuine health problem, but the fact is, most gay people never get infected. And most of them know how to protect themselves. Same as straight people. That's got nothing to do with homosexuality, it's about sexual culture, self-awareness, and health literacy. Besides, there are STIs that are exclusive to straight relationships - like the human papilloma virus. Also, look at it this way: if anti-gay bias makes young people engage in sexual behavior earlier in order to prove they're straight, doesn't it significantly contribute to the spread of STIs, including AIDS? And doesn't it prevent schools from creating an effective and honest sexual education that could've saved children's lives?
10) TAX EXEMPTION FOR LGBTs, OMG! Yeah, the evil socialist guvmint often caters to LGBTs by allowing pride parades, providing sexual education, condoms, and services that tend to benefit sexual minorities. How evil of them. Well, while government spending could be debated till kingdom come, it doesn't by itself make homosexuality a problem. If gay people had the same rights as others, providing special services to them wouldn't be even necessary. Besides, there's no such thing as a separate gay or straight economy - it's all part of the same fucking economy. There's no such thing as "straight" money going to gay people, as there are no specially assigned bureaucrats to make sure that particular taxes would go to particular programs, specifically targeting sexual minorities. Furthermore, if we're to put gay people on trial for their perceived transgressions, and then put them in prison, wouldn't that cost a lot more money than merely letting them be? And, don't gay people pay taxes too, part of that money going to orphanages and public schools, i.e. a form of directing tax money towards propping up an inherently heterosexual agenda (i.e. procreation)? Sounds hypocritical.
11) HOMOSEXUALITY = PROMISCUITY! Even if that could be proven with facts rather than assertions (which it can't), it's still irrelevant. Promiscuity has never been defined as a vice, unless you're an adherent to a very narrowly defined brand of fundamentalist religion - or if you just insist that everyone else should be just as miserable as you are. Besides, not all gay communities encourage casual sex. Plus, many heterosexuals actually do exactly that - and even brag about it. In reality, many gay people prefer long-term, monogamous relationships - just like most heterosexual people. Just because you can't find a long-term partner, or prefer not to, doesn't mean you're a sinner. It's a matter of preferences or capabilities, not God's will.
12) BUT I POOP FROM THERE! That's the focus of the bulk of the homophobic jokes, namely: the act is "disgusting", and gays are disgustingly obsessed with it. Hey, one'd think man-on-man sex is even more important to homophobes than it is to gay men! Because anal sex is not even necessarily what a homosexual act ends up with. Does that sound like news to some? Sorry. And, to finish the shock here, straight female-on-female sex involving a strap-on dildo is also regularly indulged in. And it can be great if done properly. Oops, did I say too much?
13) THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN! My fave one. The nuclear family as the norm - we've heard that, too. Well, some kids have had same-sex parents, and there doesn't seem to be any data demonstrating any difference between them and those kids raised by heterosexual couples. In fact, homophobic policies like the prohibition of same-sex marriage end up undermining the ability of same-sex couples to form stable households, thus ultimately harming children. So yeah, won't somebody finally THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?
14) BUT WHAT ABOUT REPRODUCTION? Homosexual encounters do not help it in either way, do they? Well, most heterosexual ones don't, either. There's birth control, fertility awareness, non-penetrative sex, sex with sterile people, sex with infertile people... and then there's homosexuality. Also, heterosexual couples often do the good act of adopting children. And then there's an emerging child-free movement against the emphasis on reproduction, while the world's population is skyrocketing. In fact, does this planet really need an exponentially growing population? Why exactly? Because God said so?
15) KIDS NEED A MALE AND FEMALE ROLE MODEL! Kids have plenty of chances to find role models, and those don't necessarily have to be their legal guardians. Children of working parents often spend more time in daycare, at school, or at the care of their grandparents. They're influenced by their peers and by popular culture - plenty of role models there, too. Besides, homophobes don't seem to have such a big problem with single parents, or abusive parents, as they do with potentially caring same-sex couples as parents. So far, they've failed to provide a reasonable explanation for that.
16) KIDS SHOULD BE RAISED BY THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS! Except, there's no supporting evidence of such a claim. A child's development is determined by his or her relationship with a figure of authority, not by genetic relationship. And let's not forget about the orphans who cannot be raised by their biological parents, and never find adopters. Meanwhile, stable, caring same-sex couples are able to provide plenty of excellent conditions for the development of a young person. Thing is, same-sex couples never accidentally adopt a child, or even use a surrogate to give them one. So they tend to be more responsible and prepared to raise a child than the average heterosexual couple.
17) FATHERHOOD LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO SAME-SEX COUPLES! In many places, fatherhood is handed to the mother's husband. Granted, same-sex couples don't function that way, but that could be solved by consensual agreements between the biological parents.
18) ALL OF THE ABOVE!!! Yeah, some crackpots would stuff all the above insanely stupid non-arguments into the same pot, citing imaginary "facts" like gays being responsible for mental problems, shortening people's life-spans, causing health problems for heterosexuals (for example by mysteriously spreading more diseases through the increased need for precautionary blood tests), and other supernatural phenomena, like the downfall of entire civilizations due to the death of the "core family unit". And this sort of narrative is parroted by many, and a number of politicians tend to be elected by that sort of electorate on a regular basis - and then spew all this nonsense from the political pulpit in front of the whole nation to see.
19) GAYS DON'T EXIST ANYWAY! Some'd even go as far as to outright deny the very existence of homosexuality, ascribing it to some sort of youth rebellion, or temporary curiosity about "tasting some of it", or simply bisexuality masquerading as "fashionable" homosexuality, which deep down isn't real homosexuality. Common derivatives of this argument are: "Gays do have female friends!" - as if that's impossible; and, "There are no gay men, they're just all too lazy to be with a woman" (because men are supposed to be promiscuous by definition, dontchaknow, and since women are too picky, men have to go through great struggles just to "get some", so some of them indulge in homosexuality as a lazy, simple way of "gaming the system"). Are you following the train of thought here? No? I can't, either. And finally...
20) I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE HOW YOU'D PREFER A MAN TO A BEAUTIFUL CHICK! Well dude, that's because you're straight!
1) IT AIN'T NATURAL! Weak sauce, whichever way you look at it. That's some blatant use of the "appeal to nature" argument, because it assumes that what's natural is acceptable and/or preferable (and what's not natural, isn't). By that token, it logically follows that adultery, infanticide, cannibalism and nudity must be acceptable too, since they're "natural". While wearing clothes and cooking meat are unacceptable, since they're not "natural". But you won't see anyone advocating for the adoption of laws prohibiting those activities, would you? And let's not forget that using the Internet is not "natural" either, but that hasn't stopped homophobes from spewing their hatred and bigotry via that medium. What's more, homosexuality actually occurs in nature, and is part of the regular behavior of hundreds of species - including mammals (like bonobos). Who's to say which part of nature is "more natural" than the other? Sounds too arbitrary.
2) IT'S A PERVERSION! Another version of the above-mentioned. It implies that homosexuality is a mental disorder, or a disability, although there's a total lack of evidence in support of such an assertion. Defining homosexuality as a disability is an example of the "argument from definition", another fallacy. Except, the definition of disability doesn't include any mention of either sexuality or gender. Being gay doesn't impede one's ability to function as a human being. Moreover, putting a parallel between sexuality and disability also assumes that disabled people also do not deserve respect and empathy. As for the related claim that homosexuality is a creation of the Devil, I wouldn't even waste time on that one.
3) IT'S AGAINST GOD'S LAWS! First of all, why should anyone give a damn about this particular God and not the next one? And why should his laws apply to secular laws? And then there's the double standard argument that freedom of religion does not apply to people of your particular faith, or that the separation of church and state is really moot. In reality, the claim that God is against homosexuality, is not supported by any evidence in the Gospel: Jesus actually never brought the topic up - apparently, it wasn't important enough at the time. While there might be ways to interpret certain parts of the Bible in a way to accommodate such a narrow view, it'd only apply to those practicing that particular religion, and wouldn't apply to anyone else. Notably, most criticism of homosexuality in the Western context comes from Christians, while Jesus himself never said a word on the topic. In fact, Biblical references on the subject come exclusively from the Old Testament, a narrative that was only later picked up by St Paul and some other apostles.
4) IT'S SIMPLY DISGUSTING! Irrelevant to anything existing outside the mind of the particular person expressing that sentiment. Hey, images of heterosexual sex could also be considered repulsive by some. Seeing the missionary position could be considered disgusting, especially when put in the context of having the sole purpose of ensuring procreation. Besides, doesn't it seem that God is OK with lesbian sex? Most people consider it aesthetically fine. The Bible never mentions female homosexuality - curious, isn't it? Even Romans 1:26 is too vague in that respect, because the context there is more about condemning prostitutes, rather than lesbians. The whole premise looks too shaky to be given much further thought.
5) IT'S A GATEWAY TO CORRUPTION AND ABUSE! Some societies or segments of society are inded sensitive to corruption related to sexual relationships, and sexual abuse. So how do they address that problem? Well, they impose gender separation rules. But doesn't that actually disincentivize heterosexual relationships? And some tighter communities tend to outright throw out Teh Gayz. Take the Boy Scouts, or the Catholic Church. And note how well that has worked for them. Besides, the problem here is that sexual abuse is not the same as consensual sexual relationship. Prison rapists for example are heterosexual more often than not, although they do engage in man-on-man sex.
6) IT CONTRADICTS THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE! Yes, we all know of the "union between man and woman" argument. Well, news-flash: Christian and other communities have often condoned polygamy, forced marriage, arranged marriage, child marriage, some often ban interracial or inter-religious marriage. Some fundies insist that extra-marital sexual relationships are sinful, as per the Ten Commandments. Which conveniently makes all same-sex relationships sinful by definition, if they're not to be allowed. There's also the non-sequitur explanation of the claim that gay marriage would ruin the sanctity of marriage, which claims that it'd devalue traditional marriage. But in the meantime they've allowed divorce, civil unions, and decriminalized adultery. And now Teh Gayz are the only ones to blame for all the voes that have befallen straight marriage? Please.
7) IT'S A GATEWAY TO OTHER PERVERSIONS! Like pedophilia, zoophilia, incest, even marrying your rubber doll! The same way drinking tea is a gateway to heroin addiction, amirite? Classic slippery-slope here. Could the reason for the Christians' fierce opposition to homosexuality be the fact that pederasty used to be a major form of homosexuality in Western culture (Greece, Rome)? But much of the modern gay community has rejected pederasty and other such acts - so why continue to associate the two things?
8) IT'S A CHOICE! Yep, we've heard that claim way too often: the "gay lifestyle" is a "choice". Except, that might only be the case in some specific occasions, mostly involving bisexuals. Most humans are either attracted to men or women, and they don't have much of a choice in this. In contrast, bisexual people could choose to act upon their attraction to one sex and ignore the other - but that still doesn't make them heterosexual or homosexual. Besides, I'm not sure why this should be relevant at all. Societies don't just ban certain behaviors because they seem to be choices rather than inherent features. That's quite an irony: the same people who be hatin' on gays for the "choice" pseudo-argument (thus curiously implying that homosexuality might've been OK if it weren't a choice), are a-OK with trying to impose a definitely choice-based religious lifestyle on anyone who'd be silly enough to sit through their endless pontification. And I haven't seen a single fundie suddenly flipping their Gay Switch, just to demonstrate how easily one could alternate between their preferences of a fuck partner.
9) IT TRANSMITS DISEASES! Man-on-man sex is more prone to STIs, granted, including HIV. And some homosexual people have transmitted these to their heterosexual partners. That's a genuine health problem, but the fact is, most gay people never get infected. And most of them know how to protect themselves. Same as straight people. That's got nothing to do with homosexuality, it's about sexual culture, self-awareness, and health literacy. Besides, there are STIs that are exclusive to straight relationships - like the human papilloma virus. Also, look at it this way: if anti-gay bias makes young people engage in sexual behavior earlier in order to prove they're straight, doesn't it significantly contribute to the spread of STIs, including AIDS? And doesn't it prevent schools from creating an effective and honest sexual education that could've saved children's lives?
10) TAX EXEMPTION FOR LGBTs, OMG! Yeah, the evil socialist guvmint often caters to LGBTs by allowing pride parades, providing sexual education, condoms, and services that tend to benefit sexual minorities. How evil of them. Well, while government spending could be debated till kingdom come, it doesn't by itself make homosexuality a problem. If gay people had the same rights as others, providing special services to them wouldn't be even necessary. Besides, there's no such thing as a separate gay or straight economy - it's all part of the same fucking economy. There's no such thing as "straight" money going to gay people, as there are no specially assigned bureaucrats to make sure that particular taxes would go to particular programs, specifically targeting sexual minorities. Furthermore, if we're to put gay people on trial for their perceived transgressions, and then put them in prison, wouldn't that cost a lot more money than merely letting them be? And, don't gay people pay taxes too, part of that money going to orphanages and public schools, i.e. a form of directing tax money towards propping up an inherently heterosexual agenda (i.e. procreation)? Sounds hypocritical.
11) HOMOSEXUALITY = PROMISCUITY! Even if that could be proven with facts rather than assertions (which it can't), it's still irrelevant. Promiscuity has never been defined as a vice, unless you're an adherent to a very narrowly defined brand of fundamentalist religion - or if you just insist that everyone else should be just as miserable as you are. Besides, not all gay communities encourage casual sex. Plus, many heterosexuals actually do exactly that - and even brag about it. In reality, many gay people prefer long-term, monogamous relationships - just like most heterosexual people. Just because you can't find a long-term partner, or prefer not to, doesn't mean you're a sinner. It's a matter of preferences or capabilities, not God's will.
12) BUT I POOP FROM THERE! That's the focus of the bulk of the homophobic jokes, namely: the act is "disgusting", and gays are disgustingly obsessed with it. Hey, one'd think man-on-man sex is even more important to homophobes than it is to gay men! Because anal sex is not even necessarily what a homosexual act ends up with. Does that sound like news to some? Sorry. And, to finish the shock here, straight female-on-female sex involving a strap-on dildo is also regularly indulged in. And it can be great if done properly. Oops, did I say too much?
13) THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN! My fave one. The nuclear family as the norm - we've heard that, too. Well, some kids have had same-sex parents, and there doesn't seem to be any data demonstrating any difference between them and those kids raised by heterosexual couples. In fact, homophobic policies like the prohibition of same-sex marriage end up undermining the ability of same-sex couples to form stable households, thus ultimately harming children. So yeah, won't somebody finally THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?
14) BUT WHAT ABOUT REPRODUCTION? Homosexual encounters do not help it in either way, do they? Well, most heterosexual ones don't, either. There's birth control, fertility awareness, non-penetrative sex, sex with sterile people, sex with infertile people... and then there's homosexuality. Also, heterosexual couples often do the good act of adopting children. And then there's an emerging child-free movement against the emphasis on reproduction, while the world's population is skyrocketing. In fact, does this planet really need an exponentially growing population? Why exactly? Because God said so?
15) KIDS NEED A MALE AND FEMALE ROLE MODEL! Kids have plenty of chances to find role models, and those don't necessarily have to be their legal guardians. Children of working parents often spend more time in daycare, at school, or at the care of their grandparents. They're influenced by their peers and by popular culture - plenty of role models there, too. Besides, homophobes don't seem to have such a big problem with single parents, or abusive parents, as they do with potentially caring same-sex couples as parents. So far, they've failed to provide a reasonable explanation for that.
16) KIDS SHOULD BE RAISED BY THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS! Except, there's no supporting evidence of such a claim. A child's development is determined by his or her relationship with a figure of authority, not by genetic relationship. And let's not forget about the orphans who cannot be raised by their biological parents, and never find adopters. Meanwhile, stable, caring same-sex couples are able to provide plenty of excellent conditions for the development of a young person. Thing is, same-sex couples never accidentally adopt a child, or even use a surrogate to give them one. So they tend to be more responsible and prepared to raise a child than the average heterosexual couple.
17) FATHERHOOD LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO SAME-SEX COUPLES! In many places, fatherhood is handed to the mother's husband. Granted, same-sex couples don't function that way, but that could be solved by consensual agreements between the biological parents.
18) ALL OF THE ABOVE!!! Yeah, some crackpots would stuff all the above insanely stupid non-arguments into the same pot, citing imaginary "facts" like gays being responsible for mental problems, shortening people's life-spans, causing health problems for heterosexuals (for example by mysteriously spreading more diseases through the increased need for precautionary blood tests), and other supernatural phenomena, like the downfall of entire civilizations due to the death of the "core family unit". And this sort of narrative is parroted by many, and a number of politicians tend to be elected by that sort of electorate on a regular basis - and then spew all this nonsense from the political pulpit in front of the whole nation to see.
19) GAYS DON'T EXIST ANYWAY! Some'd even go as far as to outright deny the very existence of homosexuality, ascribing it to some sort of youth rebellion, or temporary curiosity about "tasting some of it", or simply bisexuality masquerading as "fashionable" homosexuality, which deep down isn't real homosexuality. Common derivatives of this argument are: "Gays do have female friends!" - as if that's impossible; and, "There are no gay men, they're just all too lazy to be with a woman" (because men are supposed to be promiscuous by definition, dontchaknow, and since women are too picky, men have to go through great struggles just to "get some", so some of them indulge in homosexuality as a lazy, simple way of "gaming the system"). Are you following the train of thought here? No? I can't, either. And finally...
20) I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE HOW YOU'D PREFER A MAN TO A BEAUTIFUL CHICK! Well dude, that's because you're straight!
(no subject)
Date: 30/6/15 15:05 (UTC)3 and 6: This one at least sounds like an argument they are making. Gotta appeal to that evangelist base.
15 and 16: All other things being equal, it's better for kids to be raised by their biological parents. Having a male and female parental figure is probably ideal as well. Above all however, I'd say having a stable home environment with two parental figures is better than anything else, regardless of gender makeup or blood. I would take adoption by any two stable people over a single parent.
17. I don't know what you mean by this.
The most important talking point we'll hear for a while will probably be States' Rights. The court went over the state governments, and most measures to reverse this decision will probably center around this.
(no subject)
Date: 30/6/15 15:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/6/15 16:24 (UTC)I wouldn't (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/republicans-predict-fraud-bestiality-if-gay-marriage-is-legalized/) be so sure (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/09/us-republican-who-compared-gays-to-paedophiles-put-on-extremist-list/) about (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/colorado-gop-official-lgbt-equality-leads-pedophilia-bestiality) that (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/texas-gay-marriage-pedophilia-_n_5655389.html).
What I mean by 17 is that the laws of parenthood and inheritance are mostly designed to suit a traditional heterosexual family model, and there are countries and/or states making steps towards the legalization of same-sex marriage (or even having legalized it already), which are still lacking the relevant legislation (https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/human_rights/samesex/report/pdf/report_ch5.pdf) to address this issue, and apply the same or similar principles to same-sex couples as well. My point is that this cannot be an obstacle, provided that the relevant legislation is adopted.
What makes you say that? Would that apply to situations where one or both parents are abusive, or irresponsible, or incapable of taking care of the child?
(no subject)
Date: 30/6/15 17:46 (UTC)I just don't understand what the difference is between same sex couple adoption and heterosexual couple adoption. Don't they run into the same fatherhood topics?
What makes you say that? Would that apply to situations where one or both parents are abusive, or irresponsible, or incapable of taking care of the child?
No, that's why I specified "all other things being equal".
(no subject)
Date: 30/6/15 18:34 (UTC)They should.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 30/6/15 15:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/7/15 18:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/7/15 22:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/15 05:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/6/15 17:01 (UTC)I think mayonnaise is disgusting, but I'm not leading the charge to have it taken off the shelves -
(no subject)
Date: 30/6/15 17:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/6/15 17:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/6/15 18:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/7/15 11:27 (UTC)Why does the concept of marriage marriage even exist? What purpose does it serve? And why do governments waste millions of dollars on benefits and tax incentives to perpetuate it? In other words, why care?
Is it a religious/moral issue? a legal issue or a utilitarian one?
(no subject)
Date: 3/7/15 12:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/7/15 13:04 (UTC)Organized monogamy (or limited polyamory) makes a lot of sense when it comes to reproduction / child rearing standpoint or limiting the spread of STDs, so it is understandable that societies would develop such institutions.
But if those issues are no longer a concern the whole concept of marriage seems superfluous.
(no subject)
Date: 3/7/15 13:32 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Hospital visitiation rights
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/7/15 14:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/7/15 14:23 (UTC)From a strict legalistic standpoint gay couples etc... should have the exact same rights and be subject to the exact same obligations as straight couples etc...
But were aren't just talking about the law are we?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/7/15 22:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/7/15 11:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/7/15 08:14 (UTC)But doesn't that argument ascribe an inherently restrictive and oppressive function to the institution of marriage? If, as it turns out from your argument, it was initially designed to block certain segments from access to the joys and benefits of marriage, then wasn't it actually designed as an institution whose purpose was to marginalize parts of society, rather than stimulate the well-being of society? If so, then really, what has been the point of an institution that is, in essence, oppressive, in the first place?
(no subject)
Date: 6/7/15 11:17 (UTC)Not quite. More that if the definition of marriage is negotiable, let's negotiate. What exactly do you think marriage is?
But doesn't that argument ascribe an inherently restrictive and oppressive function to the institution of marriage?...
It does.
That doesn't mean that it can not also the "stimulate the well-being of society". Marriage exists because, at the most basic/primitive level, children and pregnant women are not self-sufficient. Someone has to provide for them, thus society has established certain expectations...
As a man, you are expected to protect and provide for any child you father as well as it's mother.
As a woman you are expected to be monogamous, so that your man can be sure that the children he is raising are in fact his own.
Failure to fulfill your obligations results in social condemnation and marginalization.
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/15 18:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/15 23:04 (UTC)