Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Oct 2008 19:26 UTC, submitted by SK8T
In the News In a rather unusual move, both Google and Apple have publicly backed the fight against "Proposition 8", both by words as well as by donation. Proposition 8 is an initiative measure in the state of California that would ban same-sex marriages in California by amending the Constitution of the state to include that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Both companies gave out their reasoning for supporting the fight against 'Prop 8'.
Permalink for comment 335036
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
Member since:

Firstly, nobody is claiming that sexuality is black or white. It exists in gradients, like right or left handedness. So just because you have seen people change sides doesn't prove anything.

Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy). See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).

Secondly every law we have protects a victim.

Where would you place drug laws? (Right now, I'm just talking about the part of drug laws that addresses adults, not kids.) Public indecency laws? I don't accept the premise that laws need to protect a victim. Incest would be just as illegal between consenting adult siblings who could conceivably elect to use in vitro w/ anonymous donor as it would be with underage family members, and it'd be just as wrong. Oh, and it does happen.

You asked why things like paedophilia and beastiality are different. They are different because in both cases there is a victim who cannot protect themselves. With incest the victims are the children who are born with birth defects as a result of these relationships. There are no such victims in homosexual relationships.

The victims in homosexual relationships would not be immediately apparent, especially if you believe that homosexuality is an equally healthy and valid choice. Pretend for the moment that you disagree with the second part. Then, the victims would be: (a) homosexual individuals, who are taught that they have to adjust their lifestyles (and all the costs thereof) and fight "discrimination" for whatever happiness they can find; (b) children, who are taught that this is an equally valid choice early in life (when it is much easier to change one's sexual orientation); (c) friends and family members, who are forced to accept this and/or all the associated flack; (d) businesses, which get regularly shaken down (under the faulty premise that unless they "donate" money to homosexual activists, they are somehow anti-gay); (e) society in general, which has to spend enormous amounts of time, money, and energy debating, researching, investigating, debunking, repealing, leering/baiting, name-calling, apologizing, etc. over something for which society has no real need; (f) people who disagree with a lot of the false claims and are thus often villified; (g) spouses who find that their other spouses use a variety of excuses and rationalizations related to homosexuality to get off the hook (e.g. it's not really cheating; I really love my spouse; my spouse owes me his/her support as I'm cheating).

I've spent some time over the last few years looking at various publicly available topics on homosexual Internet communications including sexual fantasies, dating advice, health concerns, relationship discussions, etc. to see what's what and have come to the conclusion that homosexuality doesn't have a purpose. I.e., there is really nothing of unique value, nor could it exist on its own. It's merely a large set of copies, distortions, and fantasies of things that exist naturally in heterosexual relationships. Why equate homosexuality with heterosexuality? I could understand homosexuality being regarded by some as a valid subset of heterosexuality -- because it is a subset in purely pragmatic terms: love and pleasure but inherently no reproduction -- but equating it would be wrong. And I don't want to see any responses about how we're somehow morally obligated to ignore these facts.

Bottom line is, if you cannot frame an argument against a given law without resorting to religion, then it's fine.

I don't understand what religion has to do with any of this.

Edited 2008-10-26 03:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4