Dvergar wrote:
A handful of soldiers raped a 15 year old iraqi girl and killed her family. Clearly these few soldiers doing something reprehensible means all soldiers are equally reprehensible.
There are some Vietnam vets I know who would probably like to discuss with you how that statement isn't the least bit ironic.
You know, finding evidence that homosexuality is an inherent condition is so easy that I thought there would have been a huge link of articles by now. I didn't see that, but I did see a lot of 'well everybody knows,' which is funny since it's obvious that most of you just say that without apparently knowing how anybody knows. It's easier to call people LoLHomophobes (that has to be about the dumbest insult ever...it's really GAY).
Dvergar wrote:
Being uncomfortable around gay people doesn't make you bigoted, arguing that they are genetic birth defects and incapable of serving in the military does.
If you're going to argue that the behavior is not only acceptable, but should be embraced, because the participant is driven to participate because of a congenital difference, the downside of that argument is that the majority of congenital differences are considered medically and socially undesirable and are corrected as much as possible, like Eternal's kid's freaky toes...because they're birth defects. Would you want your child to be born gay? Don't bother with the "I'd love them anyway" deflections, of course you'd love them anyway, their your child. Would you want them to be gay, though? Knowing the difficulties and stigma attached, I wouldn't.
If homosexuality is a congenital condition, what happens if they completely isolate the causal factors (so far, the only evidence for the argument that I've seen are minor physical variations) and find a way to reverse them? What happens then? Will parents turn their kids straight with a medical procedure the same way parents like Eternal lop off the extra toes? How many homosexual adults might opt for the procedure themselves?
If Mayo wants to jump on the "well, you argued about this before" bandwagon, maybe he should look back at some of the 'gay marriage' discussions we've had, where I argued that marriage is a religious institution and the government shouldn't be involved (in other words, I'm OK with gay marriage). I'm just not OK with
this. Two adults consensually agreeing to an ostensibly life-long partnership is not the same as forcing people to share quarters with people who are sexually attracted to their gender. At least one of the parties is not consenting. You're arguing that we need to protect one person's rights by trampling all over someone else.
Our current precedent for this is that men and women (who in the main are attracted to each other sexually) do not share quarters and hygiene facilities. I see no reason to change the precedent, and those of you arguing to change it are only focusing on alleged benefit(s) without considering the potential consequences.
Your Pal,
Jubber
(EVEN IF YOU'RE REALLY GAY,
Jubber)
FIXT
