In that case we're all bisexual. We might not be able to consciously control our preferences, but barring medical or psychological condition we are all capable of arousal and sexual performance with members of the same sex. Hell, we're capable of these things with "partners" that are far less compatible than that.
My hypothesis is that there is a spectrum. On one side you have people completely incapable of being sexually aroused by the same sex, such as myself, and on the other side you have people completely incapable of being aroused by the opposite sex. Most people are somewhere between and effectively bisexual, but few people are precisely in the middle, where homo or heterosexuality would be a true, ceteris paribus sort of choice. Most people claim to be at the poles, but I am confident that I am not in denial because I passed a lie detector asking me if I had ever had sexual thoughts about people of the same sex (was accused of something but innocent, obviously), much to the surprise of the operator, who says the vast majority of people who he has interviewed do not admit to having gay thoughts but the test indicates they lied about it. Oh also I have no motive for being in denial as I obviously have no problem with gayness. If you study anthropology/sociology, the history of sexuality certainly suggests a spectrum as I describe.
How do you think the majority of homosexual parents acquire babies to raise? Adoption and reproductive technology are far more expensive and difficult than natural procreation, regardless of how "unnatural" natural procreation comes to the participants.
Well there is quite a bit of pressure to try not to be gay if you're raised in a religious family. Had a friend who killed himself over this as his father was a local religious leader. There are gay people who simply choose an asexual lifestyle, by becoming priests or just living alone with cats or dogs. It's relatively "easy" for lesbians to have sex with somebody they're not attracted to, as they don't need an erection and active participation is optional. For guys it'd be a lot harder. Maybe they pretend their partner is somebody else, or are bisexual?
True. But the "ridiculous" argument in question is that homosexuals are not prohibited from marrying in general-- only members of the same sex. It is only one item on a fairly long list of legal requirements for marriage, and I simply don't see any grounds upon which it can be claimed that this requirement is more a "violation" of our "marriage rights" than any of the others. They are all related in one fashion or another to the form and function of marriage in our society and what we consider to be acceptable unions.
It isn't an assumption. It is a reasoned position on my part. I believe that marriage is meant to fulfill certain societal functions and thus that it is reasonable for marriage to be limited to those unions which either serve those functions or at the least do not undermine them. I do not support all of the current restrictions on marriage, but I would rather support all of them collectively than none of them. At this time, I am only willing to advocate for the lifting of one of these restrictions, that being the restriction that potential spouses must be of the opposite sex.
Hm, not really. It was more a matter of being against Mormons (polygamy), or preventing the birth of children with terrible diseases. But if marriage were really about producing healthy children, then fertility and financial security would be required for marriage. Marriage is treated as a contract between individuals moreso than an institution, with a few bigotry-inspired quirks here and there.
I believe that marriage serves roughly two functions, and that all of the benefits of marriage and all of the restrictions ought to revolve around these two functions. Remember, the State extends benefits and provides legal services for marriage that cost us money, so marriage itself must be justified.
These two functions are:
1) reinforce the ideal home environment for children, which includes (at least) two parents among other things
2) provide the basis for natural alliances between families
Natural alliances, lol... yeah people looove their step families. That's actually a new one to me, at least in a modern context. It makes sense if you're in a tribal society or trying to unite kingdoms. But the meaning of marriage has certainly changed and become more plural, which is for the better because we're not all looking for the same thing and we don't live in a feudal society.
lol, she's right on that one. Pimping is kind of like being their agent... where you screw them out of the money they get screwing others.
And plurality is a number that exceeds the remaining number.
Would you call 3 out of 5 a majority or plurality?
It is both.
Now suppose you have options Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow, 10 voters with a 50% turnout. If 2 vote for Red, and the other colors each receive 1 vote (out of 5 votes), then Red has a plurality, but not a majority. A majority did not vote for red, they voted for the other colors, but Red wins a plurality because it got twice as many votes as any of the other colors... The fact that persons 5-10 did not vote has no bearing on this.
Completely different issue............no comparison and you know it..........
Anti-miscegenation is a much closer example, as it, too was against people with "deviant" sexual preferences (for the other race), rather than against a race as a whole.
