Warlord Lefein wrote...
Quote:
The sexual impulse is a basic function of biological life. If some people direct this impulse in a direction other than reproductive activity or something that won't result in reproductive activity... Its just a kink.
I assume this includes heterosexual sex where contraception is used as well? Or sex between couples where one partner is infertile? My own mother had to have a... surgery-whose-name-I-don't-know-how-to-spell-that-removes-ability-to-reproduce... because becoming pregnant again would probably be life-threatening, but she is still sexually active. (I'd really rather not think about it, but that's an entirely different issue.)
For that to be an argument against anything, you must believe that there is no valid reason for having sex other than producing offspring. I happen to think that sex can be a natural expression of the love you have for someone. Certainly I think it's far more unnatural to have sex with someone you *don't* love, regardless of the genders and reproductive possiblity involved.
You know, I'm probably technically bisexual. The problem is, there's only 4 men I've ever found attractive, one it was because he looks like a girl, and they're all fictional. So I'm kind of stuck. Some psychologists think that *everyone* is bisexual to a certain degree. I'm not too convinced myself. But if every person you meet of the opposite/same gender you find either pysically unattractive or mentally repulsive, how does that make you any different from homosexual/heterosexual? Of course, some people don't think personality matters to homosexuals/heterosexuals in choosing partners. But I'm rarely interested in someone's body at all until I've learned something about their mind. (Exceptions usually involve wings.)
Quote:
There are no gay rights or hetero rights or any rights inbetween in the matter of the subject.
That works about as well as saying there are no women's rights or black's rights... and no, I'm not saying that you're saying that. But the fact is that there are legal protections and things that are allowed to heterosexuals that are not to homosexuals, just as there were ones given to whites and males that were not given to non-whites and females before. Now, as you have said, civil unions would solve this problem. But then I wonder if the same argument that was used against segregated schools might come up. "Seperate but equal isn't."
The cleanest solution might actually be to make marriage the result of a religious ceremony, and civil unions the result of a legal contract. So, you could have the legal contract and get married in a church or whatever (like, say, my parents), and you have both a marriage and a civil union. You could get have an appropriate religous ceremony, but never have the legal contract, and be married but have no civil union. (And thus, would get no protection under the law.) If you have what I think of as a "courthouse marriage", with no religious component, then you have a civil union but are not married. (Yes, even if you are of opposite genders.) Basically, seperating church and state. The laws can be somewhat consistent, and religions can do what they want - long as they don't break the law anyway. It's perfect!
Of course, it'll never happen. *sweatdrop*
Quote:
And what is so wrong with not wanting your kids exposed to sex of any type before they are old enough to have it?
The problem is that they *will* be exposed, whether anyone like it or not. The only thing accomplished by trying to shield children from sexuality is losing the opportunity to get to them *first* with what you believe on it. (I think *my* first exposure came from an *encylopedia*. It's kind of hard to get away from sex...)
Now, that certainly doesn't mean you need to go into *detail*. In fact, it'd probably be a bad idea for all sorts of reasons. But not knowing about something at all just makes it more likely that they'll do something incredibly *stupid* when it is brought to their attention.
Quote:
See, people who buy into the conventional wisdom of the day are FRIGHTENED TO DEATH of this subject. Anyone who doesnt agree with you is subject to all kinds of mudslinging.
This I think is basically true, but at the same time isn't really much of an argument. Basically, there are some people on the gay rights side of things who are idiots. But that doesn't make everyone on that side inherently wrong, any more than everyone who is opposed to gay rights is inherently wrong because some of *them* are idiots. (It's pretty safe to say one of these groups *is* wrong, but if they are it's not because of their idiocy ratio.) I personally hate "political correctness", but that doesn't mean everything related to that is wrong. I think a lot of things under it are wrong ("he or she" < "he" || "she"), but I have to evaluate them on their own.
And... that's all. `.`
~sleepygirl, o.O;;;