GameTavern - View Single Post

playa_playa · 08-21-2003, 12:45 AM

I'm dismayed to find that there have been no compelling or cogent arguments against gay marriages in this thread. And before any logic-bereft individual accuses me of being homophobic, let me just say that I have no stance on the issue. But as things stand, there are sound reasons for the government to oppose the legalization of gay marriages.

Changing norms in a society invariably presents a predicament. That is, until the norm in question has been determined to be evil or inhumane, there is no sound justification to change it. Why should there be? Many people oppose the right to bear arms. The reason that the second amendment has not been declared unconstitutional, however, is the fact that there has been no clinching evidence that it is somehow evil, inhumane, unconstitutional, or unjust.

Gay marriages present a similar question: do we have a justification to change the existing laws (therefore, changing the societal norms) in favor of gay marriage? Well, would that decision not depend on whether being gay is absolutely intrinsic? In other words, what if it's the case that homosexuality is strictly a learned behavior? That, noone is born gay, but are conditioned to be gay through trauma, accidents or etc (I'm not advocating that such is the case with homosexuality; I'm just asking why should the laws be changed if this were the case)? And in which case, the person could be reconditioned to be straight? Societies do not and should not change its norms to cater to those that are deviant to them. It should be the other way around. After all, do we not tell drug addicts that although they are clinically addicted, they should still seek help and become sober (thereby being readmitted to the society's norms)?

As far as I've been paying attention, there has been no absolute evidence that there is a "gay gene" or that there is some hereditary condition that forces a person to be homosexual. And until that datum is ascertained, do you not think that we should reserve our judgement intent on changing our laws and norms? Most of you, obviously, do not think so. Since most of you for gay marriages seem to think that "being gay is pretty much hereditary (nice evidence!)" it is the case that homosexuality is intrinsic. Well, show me some data to support that. Last time I checked, not even the human genome project has been able to accomplish this.

It's a very, very simple inference. Seriously, just because a lot of people start saying that marrying animals (this has happened already), your family members, inanimate objects or what have you should be legal, does that mean we should change the laws to cater them? I mean, when does it stop?

08-21-2003, 12:45 AM	#8
playa_playa Viscount playa_playa is offline Location: Fl USA Now Playing: Posts: 66	I'm dismayed to find that there have been no compelling or cogent arguments against gay marriages in this thread. And before any logic-bereft individual accuses me of being homophobic, let me just say that I have no stance on the issue. But as things stand, there are sound reasons for the government to oppose the legalization of gay marriages. Changing norms in a society invariably presents a predicament. That is, until the norm in question has been determined to be evil or inhumane, there is no sound justification to change it. Why should there be? Many people oppose the right to bear arms. The reason that the second amendment has not been declared unconstitutional, however, is the fact that there has been no clinching evidence that it is somehow evil, inhumane, unconstitutional, or unjust. Gay marriages present a similar question: do we have a justification to change the existing laws (therefore, changing the societal norms) in favor of gay marriage? Well, would that decision not depend on whether being gay is absolutely intrinsic? In other words, what if it's the case that homosexuality is strictly a learned behavior? That, noone is born gay, but are conditioned to be gay through trauma, accidents or etc (I'm not advocating that such is the case with homosexuality; I'm just asking why should the laws be changed if this were the case)? And in which case, the person could be reconditioned to be straight? Societies do not and should not change its norms to cater to those that are deviant to them. It should be the other way around. After all, do we not tell drug addicts that although they are clinically addicted, they should still seek help and become sober (thereby being readmitted to the society's norms)? As far as I've been paying attention, there has been no absolute evidence that there is a "gay gene" or that there is some hereditary condition that forces a person to be homosexual. And until that datum is ascertained, do you not think that we should reserve our judgement intent on changing our laws and norms? Most of you, obviously, do not think so. Since most of you for gay marriages seem to think that "being gay is pretty much hereditary (nice evidence!)" it is the case that homosexuality is intrinsic. Well, show me some data to support that. Last time I checked, not even the human genome project has been able to accomplish this. It's a very, very simple inference. Seriously, just because a lot of people start saying that marrying animals (this has happened already), your family members, inanimate objects or what have you should be legal, does that mean we should change the laws to cater them? I mean, when does it stop? __________________ I flame, therefore I am.