I would say the biggest argument against this scenario is that it has never occurred previously. There have been a number of times throughout history where wars and invasions have caused a significant skew in gender balance, and an "outburst of homosexuality" has never been documented.
Actually, there is. I noted it myself.
Prisons.
As completely gender segrigated societies, Homosexuality does replace normal relationships.
|
I would say the biggest argument against this scenario is that it has never occurred previously. There have been a number of times throughout history where wars and invasions have caused a significant skew in gender balance, and an "outburst of homosexuality" has never been documented.Actually, there is. I noted it myself.
Prisons.
As completely gender segrigated societies, Homosexuality does replace normal relationships.
Hmm...
My better sense just tells me to walk away from this one, but there are times when better sense can be damned.
If you want to say that in a heavily gender-skewed society like China may become, a heirarchical culture of domination based on rape and violence may evolve in the absence of healthy relationships, then say that.
That bears no resemblance to homosexuality as a cultural phenomenon as we know it.
Also, dictating which relationships are "normal" isn't terribly helpful to the discussion.
Edit: And this threadjack is getting out of control. Can someone post about feminism or something?
|
Saying that what occurs in prison is the same as people forming commited homosexual relationships is about as offensive as saying that rape is the same as consenual heterosexual sex. It has no place in a rational and reasonable discussion. It just goes to show just how far we have left to go as a society.
It just goes to show just how far left we have to go as a society.
Fixed it for you.* ;-)
*Yes, I realize I'm poking fun at me as well. :-)
Saying that what occurs in prison is the same as people forming commited homosexual relationships is about as offensive as saying that rape is the same as consenual heterosexual sex. It has no place in a rational and reasonable discussion. It just goes to show just how far we have left to go as a society.
Hold on a second here. Not to put words in Lord Fyre's mouth, but just because rape is associated with male prisons, doesn't mean that every homosexual relationship that occurs between people who were previously solely hetero, is rape.
Also keeping in mind the idea that sexuality is at least somewhat of a continuum, it seems a little shortsighted to deny that supply and demand effects won't come into play in societies where there's a limited supply of one or the other gender. If either men or women works for you, then in a shortage of one, there's more impetus to look for the other.
|
|
Saying that what occurs in prison is the same as people forming commited homosexual relationships is about as offensive as saying that rape is the same as consenual heterosexual sex. It has no place in a rational and reasonable discussion. It just goes to show just how far we have left to go as a society.Hold on a second here. Not to put words in Lord Fyre's mouth, but just because rape is associated with male prisons, doesn't mean that every homosexual relationship that occurs between people who were previously solely hetero, is rape.
Also keeping in mind the idea that sexuality is at least somewhat of a continuum, it seems a little shortsighted to deny that supply and demand effects won't come into play in societies where there's a limited supply of one or the other gender. If either men or women works for you, then in a shortage of one, there's more impetus to look for the other.
That's a plausible scenario, Petrus, although it would still require a significant cultural shift in China.
However, the prison example is still a poor one. Examples of the kind you are describing do not come to mind readily in that environment. Most of the intercourse that goes on there is either forced, or under the pretense of protection, submission, or self-preservation in a heirarchy, which is a terrible set of circumstances in itself.
That said, if Lord Fyre had in mind a few corner cases of people somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale going for a same-sex relationship because that's what is available, then I apologize for misjudging his intent, but he ought to have been more clear. Prisons aren't known for their loving relationships.
I even know one lady who does not feel she is gay, she just fell in love with another woman and that woman is gay. She prefers men.
Some people within the LGBTQI community refer to themselves as pansexual. I think that sounds very much like your friend's experience.
I even know one lady who does not feel she is gay, she just fell in love with another woman and that woman is gay. She prefers men.Some people within the LGBTQI community refer to themselves as pansexual. I think that sounds very much like your friend's experience.
Just got introduced to this concept through the second job myself. It may go a long way towards mitigating some of the disdain some people feel towards those who do not firmly have a foot in the gay or straight or bi camps.
a few corner cases of people somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale going for a same-sex relationship because that's what is available
Sailors used to have a bit of a reputation for that.
|
|
Saying that what occurs in prison is the same as people forming commited homosexual relationships is about as offensive as saying that rape is the same as consenual heterosexual sex. It has no place in a rational and reasonable discussion. It just goes to show just how far we have left to go as a society.Hold on a second here. Not to put words in Lord Fyre's mouth, but just because rape is associated with male prisons, doesn't mean that every homosexual relationship that occurs between people who were previously solely hetero, is rape.
Also keeping in mind the idea that sexuality is at least somewhat of a continuum, it seems a little shortsighted to deny that supply and demand effects won't come into play in societies where there's a limited supply of one or the other gender. If either men or women works for you, then in a shortage of one, there's more impetus to look for the other.
That's a plausible scenario, Petrus, although it would still require a significant cultural shift in China.
However, the prison example is still a poor one. Examples of the kind you are describing do not come to mind readily in that environment. Most of the intercourse that goes on there is either forced, or under the pretense of protection, submission, or self-preservation in a heirarchy, which is a terrible set of circumstances in itself.
That said, if Lord Fyre had in mind a few corner cases of people somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale going for a same-sex relationship because that's what is available, then I apologize for misjudging his intent, but he ought to have been more clear. Prisons aren't known for their loving relationships.
Exactly. As a former corrections officer, I can count on one hand the number of consensual relationships I was knowledgable of. On the other hand, I can't even begin to count the number of non consensual relationships that we had to deal with.
|
Saying that what occurs in prison is the same as people forming commited homosexual relationships is about as offensive as saying that rape is the same as consenual heterosexual sex. It has no place in a rational and reasonable discussion. It just goes to show just how far we have left to go as a society.
Dude, you sayin' Bubba didn't really love me?
*Goes into corner to sob uncontrollably*
@David, for the record, 99% of anything that went on in Fed was consensual, until you got to the USP (Max security) level, then it was similar to a state prison situation.
|
Called me a nit-picker.
It's true!
*picks a nit off the thread*
But they're just so tasty I can't eat only one!
Beside, this isn't a graduate thesis dissertation. It's a frikkin' messageboard! I'm allowed to speak in generalities if I want to, damnit. :-P
I was just testing you. You passed. ;)
Actually, I was inclined to go with your reasoning in the first place based on my gutt feeling; but I tend to not trust my gutt (it behaves like the Slithering Stomach-thing in the RPG Superstar contest). I just felt that to make a solid argument against other claims, you needed evidence to back up your statement (which you provided in your reply to me) - because it is the Internet and it's so EASY to generalize!
And, after all, my alias is Zeugma. I enjoy linking arguments that don't logically go together.
It seems neccesary to bring up that rape is not typically caused by sexual desire, but rather for reasons of abuse and control. It's a form of sexual abuse, but it's abuse, not sex.
Returning to my earlier question, does anyone believe that the term "feminist" will and should eventually go the way of the dodo, just as the terms "abolitionist" and "suffragette" or "suffragist" have. How many people still use those other terms to describe themselves, even if they agree with the principles of the movements that were described by them? Will we and should we see the same thing for "feminism" and "feminist"?
I would say the biggest argument against this scenario is that it has never occurred previously. There have been a number of times throughout history where wars and invasions have caused a significant skew in gender balance, and an "outburst of homosexuality" has never been documented.
I had told myself I wouldn't touch this thread with a ten-foot pole, but since the thread seems to have swtiched focus...
Actually, though high school history books don't talk about it a lot, it's a widely understood fact that homosexuality was practiced rampantly in the Old West, due to a number of reasons. The primary one, of course, is that most of the folks headed out west to build their homes or prospect for gold were men. And when you got a ratio of hundreds to one for men to women, homosexuality has a harder time staying buried.
Did the lack of women "turn men gay"? Probably not (though I suspect more than one upstanding citizen found himself surprisingly pleased with the new situation). But as they say, people have urges, and any port in a storm. I think those men with a serious aversion to homosexual contact probably didn't engage. But for those with the slightest leaning in that direction... well, why not? After all, the more people who engage in same-sex activity within a community, the more acceptable it becomes. And I imagine there was a fair amount of splitting hairs (here I'm reminded of the "I'm not gay, you are!" arguments in Brokeback Mountain).
There were other reasons too, of course - for instance, in the case of San Francisco, the city became a dumping ground for Navy men dismissed for "conduct unbecoming" (no pun intended), which helped give bolster the local gay community and eventually led to the San Francisco we all know today. (They talk about it a little bit in "Milk," which is a film I think could help a lot of folks better understand the gay rights movement... there are some striking similarities between what happened 30 years ago and what's happening now.)
I know that, in Seattle's pioneer days, there certainly weren't enough "seamstresses" (as most of the prostitutes were listed on tax records) to go around... and even then, there was a surprising openness around homosexuality. If you take the Seattle Underground tour, there's one rather prevalent photograph of a madam and several of her working girls... except that if you look closer, it becomes immediately obvious that one of the girls is actually a man in a dress.
The past: sometimes more progressive than you think!
/end history rant
|
Returning to my earlier question, does anyone believe that the term "feminist" will and should eventually go the way of the dodo, just as the terms "abolitionist" and "suffragette" or "suffragist" have. How many people still use those other terms to describe themselves, even if they agree with the principles of the movements that were described by them? Will we and should we see the same thing for "feminism" and "feminist"?
"Should go"? Absolutely. Will they go? I don't see how. Ideas (and the words used to express or describe them) seem to be the hardest thing to kill.
Returning to my earlier question, does anyone believe that the term "feminist" will and should eventually go the way of the dodo, just as the terms "abolitionist" and "suffragette" or "suffragist" have. How many people still use those other terms to describe themselves, even if they agree with the principles of the movements that were described by them? Will we and should we see the same thing for "feminism" and "feminist"?"Should go"? Absolutely. Will they go? I don't see how. Ideas (and the words used to express or describe them) seem to be the hardest thing to kill.
Well as I pointed out, how many people self-describe as "abolitionist"s or "suffragist"s? I would wager very few, if any. So why would we think it impossible that a term such as "feminist" would also eventually disappear as a means of self-description when the issues have been obviously addressed? Some women already feel this is the case, and that is why you are seeing the term on the decline in some demographics of women that had historically been ones likely to describe themselves as feminists.
|
|
Going bck to the China thing for a moment. I find it highly unlikely tht we will ever be selling our daughters to the Chinese. One, I doubt we will ever get to tha point and two they simply will not need to. I have een discussing this with a friend of mine who works fo th State Department. It seems that China is the mjor recieving end of the "White slavery pipeline" as the State Department likes to call the illicit sex trafficing trade.
The numbers that we are seeing only relate to Chinese citizens. However, the State Department believes that anywhere from five to ten thousand women from the Uited States, Europe, ad Eurasia are kidnapped and forced into high end prostitution each year in China. Andthat number doesn't include the women being smuggled in from other Asian nations who blend in with the native population easier, at least in the eyes of us outsiders.
What this means is that the market to meet the "demands" of these womanless men are being met by a source that doesn't involve mail order brides. My friend also tells me that the belief is that the Chinese government is turning a blind eye to this because they are as aware of the potential problems the "lost generation" poses as we are. According to what he has read, the Chinese governmet believes that the only othersolution is a war, either a civil war or a war with either the United States or Russia to get rid of some of their excess population. Apparently some in the State Department even believe that members of the government is involved in helping run this pipeline.
I would say the biggest argument against this scenario is that it has never occurred previously. There have been a number of times throughout history where wars and invasions have caused a significant skew in gender balance, and an "outburst of homosexuality" has never been documented.
I had told myself I wouldn't touch this thread with a ten-foot pole, but since the thread seems to have swtiched focus...
Intriguing. Thank you for the history rant.
What this means is that the market to meet the "demands" of these womanless men are being met by a source that doesn't involve mail order brides. My friend also tells me that the belief is that the Chinese government is turning a blind eye to this because they are as aware of the potential problems the "lost generation" poses as we are. According to what he has read, the Chinese governmet believes that the only othersolution is a war, either a civil war or a war with either the United States or Russia to get rid of some of their excess population. Apparently some in the State Department even believe that members of the government is involved in helping run this pipeline.
My personal fear is that China and Africa will go at it.
|
|
What this means is that the market to meet the "demands" of these womanless men are being met by a source that doesn't involve mail order brides. My friend also tells me that the belief is that the Chinese government is turning a blind eye to this because they are as aware of the potential problems the "lost generation" poses as we are. According to what he has read, the Chinese governmet believes that the only othersolution is a war, either a civil war or a war with either the United States or Russia to get rid of some of their excess population. Apparently some in the State Department even believe that members of the government is involved in helping run this pipeline.My personal fear is that China and Africa will go at it.
Actually, according to my friend, Russia is the best bet at this point. Siberia has a lot of natural resources that China needs and they share a long land border. Not only that but most of their military is geared towards a land war, which makes attacks outside the continent unlikely at the moment. Apparently, behind the scenes there is a lot of talk that reunification with Taiwan can only happen diplomatically because they don't have the resources for a military offensive against it. And there seems to be a lot of support for peaceful reunification on both sides, although it is not displayed publically. The rumor is that Taiwan would function as an independent region in a manner similar to how Hong Kong functions.
Actually, according to my friend, Russia is the best bet at this point. Siberia has a lot of natural resources that China needs and they share a long land border. Not only that but most of their military is geared towards a land war, which makes attacks outside the continent unlikely at the moment. Apparently, behind the scenes there is a lot of talk that reunification with Taiwan can only happen diplomatically because they don't have the resources for a military offensive against it. And there seems to be a lot of support for peaceful reunification on both sides, although it is not displayed publically. The rumor is that Taiwan would function as an independent region in a manner similar to how Hong Kong functions.
Russia? Really? I don't see that happening, for reasons I really can't define. Africa has the oil, and is a population that China can exploit while sleeping peacefully at night.
|
|
Actually, according to my friend, Russia is the best bet at this point. Siberia has a lot of natural resources that China needs and they share a long land border. Not only that but most of their military is geared towards a land war, which makes attacks outside the continent unlikely at the moment. Apparently, behind the scenes there is a lot of talk that reunification with Taiwan can only happen diplomatically because they don't have the resources for a military offensive against it. And there seems to be a lot of support for peaceful reunification on both sides, although it is not displayed publically. The rumor is that Taiwan would function as an independent region in a manner similar to how Hong Kong functions.Russia? Really? I don't see that happening, for reasons I really can't define. Africa has the oil, and is a population that China can exploit while sleeping peacefully at night.
Russia also has a large supply of oil, and the Siberian population is ethnically closer to the Chinese than the Russians. Also Siberia has a growing discontent towards Moscow and there is talk of an independence movement. There are a lot of people in Siberia who might be persuaded to side with China in exchange for their own autonomous region within the greater Chinese co-prosperity sphere.
Russia also has a large supply of oil, and the Siberian population is ethnically closer to the Chinese than the Russians. Also Siberia has a growing discontent towards Moscow and there is talk of an independence movement. There are a lot of people in Siberia who might be persuaded to side with China in exchange for their own autonomous region within the greater Chinese co-prosperity sphere.Actually, according to my friend, Russia is the best bet at this point. Siberia has a lot of natural resources that China needs and they share a long land border. Not only that but most of their military is geared towards a land war, which makes attacks outside the continent unlikely at the moment. Apparently, behind the scenes there is a lot of talk that reunification with Taiwan can only happen diplomatically because they don't have the resources for a military offensive against it. And there seems to be a lot of support for peaceful reunification on both sides, although it is not displayed publically. The rumor is that Taiwan would function as an independent region in a manner similar to how Hong Kong functions.Russia? Really? I don't see that happening, for reasons I really can't define. Africa has the oil, and is a population that China can exploit while sleeping peacefully at night.
Do you really see the latter happening though? I mean, this IS China we're talking about. It would be sad if all the Siberians got was a knife in the back after a fortnight of independence.
[EDIT]Also- what does any of this have to do with feminism?!
Interesting, but I would think that if the Chinese were seriously considering war as a means of trimming off their excess population, they would have joined up with the US to send lots of troops to Afghanistan, if not Iraq. There was a perfect opportunity for them to flex some military might, kill off some male citizens, and get on even better relations with the US. The fact that we didn't see that makes me doubt the whole war to remove males scenerio.
Returning to my earlier question, does anyone believe that the term "feminist" will and should eventually go the way of the dodo, just as the terms "abolitionist" and "suffragette" or "suffragist" have. How many people still use those other terms to describe themselves, even if they agree with the principles of the movements that were described by them? Will we and should we see the same thing for "feminism" and "feminist"?"Should go"? Absolutely. Will they go? I don't see how. Ideas (and the words used to express or describe them) seem to be the hardest thing to kill.
Actually even worse the other examples (abolitionist, suffragist) have a distinct quanitifiable end. eg No more slavery, votes for women. Equality on the other hand... that's not so readily definable.
Society is constantly in a state of flux. At any given moment one group of people will be disadvantaged in comparison to another... as a consequence, trying to achieve equality beyond equal opportunity is like running on a conveyor belt that speeds up the closer you get to the stop button. Once you get past a certain point, the returns diminish dramatically. (and rapidly.)
|
|
I know that, in Seattle's pioneer days, there certainly weren't enough "seamstresses" (as most of the prostitutes were listed on tax records) to go around... and even then, there was a surprising openness around homosexuality. If you take the Seattle Underground tour, there's one rather prevalent photograph of a madam and several of her working girls... except that if you look closer, it becomes immediately obvious that one of the girls is actually a man in a dress.
I have taken that tour, are you sure it was just one? Because if not that was a couple of mighty ugly women.
|
|
Russia also has a large supply of oil, and the Siberian population is ethnically closer to the Chinese than the Russians. Also Siberia has a growing discontent towards Moscow and there is talk of an independence movement. There are a lot of people in Siberia who might be persuaded to side with China in exchange for their own autonomous region within the greater Chinese co-prosperity sphere.Actually, according to my friend, Russia is the best bet at this point. Siberia has a lot of natural resources that China needs and they share a long land border. Not only that but most of their military is geared towards a land war, which makes attacks outside the continent unlikely at the moment. Apparently, behind the scenes there is a lot of talk that reunification with Taiwan can only happen diplomatically because they don't have the resources for a military offensive against it. And there seems to be a lot of support for peaceful reunification on both sides, although it is not displayed publically. The rumor is that Taiwan would function as an independent region in a manner similar to how Hong Kong functions.Russia? Really? I don't see that happening, for reasons I really can't define. Africa has the oil, and is a population that China can exploit while sleeping peacefully at night.Do you really see the latter happening though? I mean, this IS China we're talking about. It would be sad if all the Siberians got was a knife in the back after a fortnight of independence.
[EDIT]Also- what does any of this have to do with feminism?!
Nothing really, which is why istarted a new thread to talk about it. Although the discussion originally started because I wrote a response to an earlier post.
|
|
Interesting, but I would think that if the Chinese were seriously considering war as a means of trimming off their excess population, they would have joined up with the US to send lots of troops to Afghanistan, if not Iraq. There was a perfect opportunity for them to flex some military might, kill off some male citizens, and get on even better relations with the US. The fact that we didn't see that makes me doubt the whole war to remove males scenerio.
But they get nothing else out of it, but a few excess male removed. Not only that but by staying out of the Iraq War China has built up it's image with nations opposed to that conflict. In fact China, not the U.S. got the first oil field contracts in Iraq. Not only that, but by staying out of the Iraq War, China gets to evaluate how we operate without risking any forces of their own. Thus if there is a war between the U.S. and China they have alread "watched the game tape" as it were. More on why China wins by staying out of the Iraq War.
I have taken that tour, are you sure it was just one? Because if not that was a couple of mighty ugly women.
I was noticing the other day that the past seems to be generally full of less attractive people. I don't know if this is because camera equipment wasn't very good yet, or simply because of disease, malnutrition, poverty, etc. But all things considered, I'm pretty glad to be alive right now.
|
|
I was noticing the other day that the past seems to be generally full of less attractive people. I don't know if this is because camera equipment wasn't very good yet, or simply because of disease, malnutrition, poverty, etc. But all things considered, I'm pretty glad to be alive right now.
I have taken that tour, are you sure it was just one? Because if not that was a couple of mighty ugly women.
Interestingly, some women in the 19th century viewed prostitution as a form of liberation. I suggest reading the book "Daughters of Joy, Sisters of Misery," for more details.
Sailors used to have a bit of a reputation for that.
Based on our current understanding of human sexuality, I think debating over whether or not homosexuality is a choice is ultimately pretty fruitless. There's a lot we don't know about sexuality, including what makes people attracted to each other in the first place, so trying to resolve the matter on an internet messageboard, I think, is a waste of time.
Personally, I don't think that homosexuality is a choice. I don't have any real academic reason to say that except that as a heterosexual, I don't see anything attractive in men. I don't even like hugging other men, because they're just so bony and bumpy. Heck, I can't even understand what women see in men. In my head, it honestly makes more sense for men to like women, and for women to like women. However, that's just me. I can't speak for anyone else.
That said, even if homosexuality is a choice, I think people should feel free to make that choice. After all, isn't that what freedom is all about? The freedom to make personal choices, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others? If someone decides that they'd be happier marrying someone of the same sex, and raising a family with someone of the same sex, shouldn't we grant them the freedom to make that choice for themselves?
I realize that this may be a little off topic for the thread, but as I said, I do think there is crossover between feminist and LGBTQI thought, and so I do think that in many respects it deserves to be part of the conversation.
Interestingly, some women in the 19th century viewed prostitution as a form of liberation. I suggest reading the book "Daughters of Joy, Sisters of Misery," for more details.I was noticing the other day that the past seems to be generally full of less attractive people. I don't know if this is because camera equipment wasn't very good yet, or simply because of disease, malnutrition, poverty, etc. But all things considered, I'm pretty glad to be alive right now.
I have taken that tour, are you sure it was just one? Because if not that was a couple of mighty ugly women.
Much as some see porn and other such sexual behavior as empowering women to take over their sexuality and break the bonds of male driven society. To which I just have to shake my head. "Don't you realize that what men want you to do is run around naked, doing sexual stuff? You are falling right into their trap. No don't do that. Don't rub your lady parts on that other lady, please don't."
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I should know better to, but...
People choose to have sex; I don't think they choose to whom they are attracted.
So, someone may choose to have sex with a person they don't find attractive (presumably, prostitutes do this) and they may choose to have sex with someone of the same gender in some situations. That's not really relevant to the question of their sexuality, at least in my book.
|
|
That said, even if homosexuality is a choice, I think people should feel free to make that choice. After all, isn't that what freedom is all about? The freedom to make personal choices, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others? If someone decides that they'd be happier marrying someone of the same sex, and raising a family with someone of the same sex, shouldn't we grant them the freedom to make that choice for themselves?
Simply because all of our choices somewhere down the line affect others. All of our choices will. Notice I did not say if it is a right choice or not just that they do affect others.
|
|
Much as some see porn and other such sexual behavior as empowering women to take over their sexuality and break the bonds of male driven society. To which I just have to shake my head. "Don't you realize that what men want you to do is run around naked, doing sexual stuff? You are falling right into their trap. No don't do that. Don't rub your lady parts on that other lady, please don't."Interestingly, some women in the 19th century viewed prostitution as a form of liberation. I suggest reading the book "Daughters of Joy, Sisters of Misery," for more details.I was noticing the other day that the past seems to be generally full of less attractive people. I don't know if this is because camera equipment wasn't very good yet, or simply because of disease, malnutrition, poverty, etc. But all things considered, I'm pretty glad to be alive right now.
I have taken that tour, are you sure it was just one? Because if not that was a couple of mighty ugly women.
Boot to the head
Boot to the headMuch as some see porn and other such sexual behavior as empowering women to take over their sexuality and break the bonds of male driven society. To which I just have to shake my head. "Don't you realize that what men want you to do is run around naked, doing sexual stuff? You are falling right into their trap. No don't do that. Don't rub your lady parts on that other lady, please don't."Interestingly, some women in the 19th century viewed prostitution as a form of liberation. I suggest reading the book "Daughters of Joy, Sisters of Misery," for more details.I was noticing the other day that the past seems to be generally full of less attractive people. I don't know if this is because camera equipment wasn't very good yet, or simply because of disease, malnutrition, poverty, etc. But all things considered, I'm pretty glad to be alive right now.
I have taken that tour, are you sure it was just one? Because if not that was a couple of mighty ugly women.
Oops, sorry to let the secret out. I mean, forget what I just said.
Simply because all of our choices somewhere down the line affect others. All of our choices will. Notice I did not say if it is a right choice or not just that they do affect others.
I didn't say 'affect.' I said 'infringe.' :-)
Yes you did.
??
I'm foncused. :-/
Simply because all of our choices somewhere down the line affect others. All of our choices will. Notice I did not say if it is a right choice or not just that they do affect others.
That said, even if homosexuality is a choice, I think people should feel free to make that choice. After all, isn't that what freedom is all about? The freedom to make personal choices, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others? If someone decides that they'd be happier marrying someone of the same sex, and raising a family with someone of the same sex, shouldn't we grant them the freedom to make that choice for themselves?
A good examnple of this: my only objection to gay marriage is that it opens the door and provides precedent for polygamists to further expand the definition of marriage beyond two people (eg if you swtich the genders, then why not the numbers?)
If the LGBT movement can find a way around that, that'd be a very good thing.
A good examnple of this: my only objection to gay marriage is that it opens the door and provides precedent for polygamists to further expand the definition of marriage beyond two people (eg if you swtich the genders, then why not the numbers?)
If the LGBT movement can find a way around that, that'd be a very good thing.
Personally, I have no problem with polygamy. However, there are some legitimate reasons why they don't allow polygamy in the United States. Countries that sanction polygamous marriages have a real problem with identity fraud and illegal immigration. If people can legally marry more than one person, then it's very easy for people to claim citizenship using false marriage documents. In fact, people in countries where polygamy is legal frequently discover that they have two, three, or even four wives that they never knew of.
That's not the case in countries that only recognize monogamous marriages. If people can only legally marry one person, then the people producing the forged documents first have to figure out who is single, and then hope to Bob that they never get married. Sometimes it happens to people who are comatose. However, it's a lot more rare.
I think if you wanted to open the door to polygamous marriages, you'd have to address the illegal immigration problem. That's not the case with marriage between couples of the same sex.
Yes you did.??
I'm foncused. :-/
Dear lord..she speaking in tongues!