Way:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, if you define "unnatural" as "that which we do not see in nature," that appears to be false. There are many documented cases of homosexuality among animals, including some which seem to "mate" for life. I can try to find links to this if you doubt it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I�d like such a link, a little.

Your intellectual laziness here, like TomD, is tiring me out.
What do YOU mean by �unnatural�. Male lions may eat the lion cub offspring of prior males � so you think cannibalism is �natural�? I don�t believe it. But you�re too lazy to say how you define unnatural.

And I�ve been too busy to ask on your morality thread what you mean by the word �morality�, I suspect it�s different than mine. (I don�t think I missed it).

Eddie at least admitted to not using �evil�:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't use the word "evil," simply because it's so ridiculously useless. There are very few evil people in the world. Almost nobody sits around twirling their greasy mustache, thinking on how to ruin other people's lives. I disagree with many groups, and even consider people of certain ideologies to be ignorant or prejudiced, but I seriously doubt any of them don't consider themselves to be good people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He finds it useless; I don�t. We disagree � let�s move on?

TomD, unfairly misquoting:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon, Tigger. That's intellectually dishonest. You're saying:
"Okay, so homosexuals are more capable of having monogamous relationships than I thought, so my argument against their 'marriage' on that basis is unsound. But they obviously don't NEED 'marriage' to be monogamous, so we STILL shouldn't give it to 'em."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not unsound. Less strong. It�s tiresome to have to point out the difference (and it feels unfair).

But what�s now getting really tiresome is how I try to include a continuum, and discuss it in general terms, but rather than get seriously engaged in the difficult, complex differences, there is immediate focus on an extreme point and a claim that the extreme point invalidates the generalization. Well, it doesn�t, in reality. (It might in some closed, formal philosophical system comparison; though I�m not sure.) The continuum is there, and there needs to be borders, and gray areas, and cases where the generalization is less good for society than an exception. But such exceptions don�t necessarily invalidate the general rule.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that despite what else I�ve written, many times, on other issues/ reasons I oppose the homosexuality lifestyle, that when I list just the first two (from my first homo- post), these are taken as �all� the reasons. There�s also promiscuity, and society�s consumerism, the latter still almost unaddressed, as well as the burden of proof issues. And prolly others, but if those who want to argue against me don�t want to look, why should I? I know it�s not going to change minds; I know it�s mostly to see if my thoughts become more ordered, and maybe learn a bit.

Arguments against some of these objections seem mostly to be, well this problem is bigger than just homosexuality, so you shouldn�t fight it just there; Denelian using the �straw in the dike� phrase a couple of times. And my reply is that I�ll fight it, a little, wherever it seems reasonable to fight it. And I continue, with greater weariness, doing so against equality for homosexual gay pairs gaining the privilege of marriage or (healthy white newborn) baby adoption.

And Locus, the same-sexers DO want to change the laws to allow equality and to force me into accepting and acknowledging their lifestyles as equal. Which I don�t think it is. Similarly, you want to denigrate marriage:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If marriage is indeed some sacred thing between a man and a woman then we need to remove it from our legal system. There is no room for sacred cows in an impartial system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is just this kind of extreme secular/ atheistic/ anti-Christian kind of rhetoric, that takes what may be a good direction for the next legal step (in allowing gay marriage) (I don�t think it is a good step), and after failing in being convincing towards one direction, states the extreme in the opposite direction as what we �need to do�. This kind of argument really firms up my conviction that fighting such changes, in either direction, is where I want to be.

However, the note about the gay pair who did adopt 5 HIV positive kids is very relevant. I�ve already accepted that a monogamous (?) committed gay pair should be able to get on the adoption list, after acceptable heteros. For the sake of the children being so raised, some of whom already exist, there seems to be a strong argument to allow those gays to be �married�. I�d certainly prefer them �gay-paired�.

I�m thinking about how I feel on the idea that a committed gay pair who is willing to adopt, and care for, unhealthy kids, are doing enough good to have earned the �marriage� privilege.

And I�m not done thinking about it, but it certainly is a big step down the �slippery slope� of equality acceptance, which I oppose. (And I�m still too busy at work.)