Totem wrote:
Finally, somebody got to the heart of the issue. Elinda, whether or not homosexuals have a choice in the matter of sexual orientation is precisely what is driving the gay marriage debate. If it is genetic, then it stands to reason they deserve marriage rights since they have no choice in determining sexual preference. But if sexual orientation is by choice, then giving a small demographic special rights to marry outside the accepted norm would be to radically chnge the nature of what determines what we define "human rights."
You're setting up a trap here. If we say they're homosexual by preference, then you say they have no right to ask for "privileges." If we say they can't help being homosexual because it's...genetic, then you've effectively turned homosexuality into a disease. If gay people take option B they get no marriage rights. If they take option A they're admitting that there is something abnormal about them on a genetic level.
The way around this, of course, is to point out that genetics has nothing to do with it. Homosexuality isn't inherited, and it isn't voluntary. I like apples. My father likes bananas, and my mother prefers pears. I can't tolerate bananas and can stomach the occasional pear. My liking apples isn't a choice, because if it was, I'd probably make the conscious decision to like all three types of fruit, since they're all good for you. It's also not genetic, because members of my family display widely variant tastes. I just prefer apples over pears and really hate bananas. My brother, he's a meat man. Yet we're closely related and our genetic code is almost identical.
Quote:
My only point is that since this is utterly and factually true, then it stands to reason that the same application of spurious scientific must be applied to every debatable issue-- including unborn children, who, incidentally but logically, are human. After all, people are giving birth to dogs or cats, they are giving birth to people, who are subsequently deserving of the basic human right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Calling a fetus not a human, but a bunch of cells is political definition, not a rational, scientific definition. Whether that bunch of cells is a viable human is another matter, but under the law viable or not, as a human they deserve every human right that you and I are afforded.
Regardless of the fact that I'm personally opposed to abortion, you're diverting the issue here. Drawing a metaphor to abortion would be relevant if we were discussing the death penalty or humane treatment of prisoners. What we're discussing here is whether or not to give some mature, consenting adults who like pears the same optional legal protection as other mature, consenting adults who like bananas. A fetus is not a mature, consenting adult, and to my knowledge, it has no opinions whatsoever regarding fruit, or its own sexual preference.
You're going "right to life <-> gay people <=> right to life <-> unborn children". We're not discussing someone's right to life, we're discussing their right to obtain legal protection through the system of marriage. If we were discussing whether or not fetuses should be allowed to get married, your diversion would at least be relevant, but still totally inane.
