rabble wrote:All seriousness aside, I would like to repeat my question. It's for Bludge and John Henry:
If sexual preference is not an issue, ie people can be gay or not, as they please, how come we're worried about whether certain households might turn kids into gay people?
All seriousness, indeed, aside. Despite yourself, you have managed to ask a good question. I think the problem with the subject of sexuality is twofold:
1. The civics class crowd is stupid for wanting to latch onto it like it's 'super huge' civil rights issue.
2. The religious people are stupid for wanting to demagogue it like it's this apocolyptic biblical thing.
I mean, put on the clown suit, strap on the blue wigs, whip out the water grenades, and fuck already.So, the thing to do is
to try to frame the conversation in a way that does not invite either
argument. Thanks to those few, Jman and Igor in particular I guess, who contributed a few meaningful snippets of thought.
Because, as 'controversial' as the topic of 'gay marriage' and sexuality is, it's also a very interesting train of inquiry.
What is the case for the argument that sexuality is predetermined by genetics? That is an interesting question. "For the sake of argument, assume sexual orientation is a choice, in that case what are the ethical implications of standardizing a new brand of family, in consideration of kids and adolescants?" Very interesting question, in my opinion.
Personally, pragmatically, I could give a fuck less. Say it is
the case that orientation is to some extent a learned value? To me, that's fine. Less kids the better. More abortions the better. Less reproduction? The better. <--- That, is my point of view.
But, since I'm not an "end justifies the means" kind of guy, despite being in favor of the general trend of non-proliferation, I propose that there is some ethical consideration to be made in regard to those children being adopted in the future.
Say thirty years from now they do a study and find that children raised in households with two male or two female parents have a statistically greater chance of being sexually oriented towards their same gender? (Sparrrrrrrrrre me your 2010 studies I mean real, comprehensive studies with huge survey groups spanning decades).
You and I may be sitting here on TDPF at that time mulling over the numbers saying, 'we (in the 2010's) contributed to that. Nothing wrong with being gay or straight, yet, if not for us, by the numbers, these ten million fellows would be [X] and these seven million ladies would be [X], now, there it is in black and white, the actual implications of a policy, who knew?'
Because, if orientation is
an adaptive trait, we're contributing significantly to the probability of one polarity or the other, by standardizing a new family type.
I thought that train of thought was the most interesting part of the Supreme Court hearings.
Kennedy described the issue of gay marriage as "uncharted waters
" when the court first heard arguments in March. He expressed support for gay rights as he has in the past but questioned the timing of a decision because "we have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history
(Quickest snippet ^ I could find).