Veil of Fire

Ok. Given the above, that homosexuality is a choice...

(1) Homosexuality is a choice that does no more societal damage than the other avaliable and socially acceptable options when applied appropriately. (Thus distinguishing it from pedophilia, etc.)

(2) Homosexuality is a choice the prevailing religion (Christianity) finds morally reprehensible.

(3) Homosexiality is a manner of living in which the rituals performed by adherents are morally reprehensible to the aforementioned prevailing religion.

Are those three statements acceptable?

Now.... consider this...

(1) Hinduism is a choice that does no more societal damage than the other avaliable and socially acceptable options when applied appropriately.

(2) Hinduism is a choice the prevailing religion (Christianity) finds morally reprehensible.

(3) Hinduism is a manner of living in which the rituals performed by adherents are morally reprehensible to the aforementioned prevailing religion.

Where's the difference? Doesn't that just go towards proving that Christians and/or Republicans would screw us ALL over if the Constitution would let them get away with it? Not allowing Hindus (or any other religion) to marry each other, not allowing insurance of state workers to cover Hindu spouses, not granting federal jurisdiction through hate crime legislation to cases in which religion was the motive? Etc.?

Why should anyone support the Religious Right's crusade against homosexuality if they wouldn't support a similar crusade against alternate religious beliefs?

MadMordigan

This is precisely the argument I would use to defend the rights of homosexuals to the same societal benfits we give others. The fact is that homosexual activity is simply none of our business, and should be tolerated in the name of freedom.

Aethernaut

I wouldn't call homosexuality a "choice". I certainly didn't choose to be gay it's just the way I am. It's firsthand knowledge to me and most, if not all, of my gay friends and a good number of my straight friends would agree. I have absolutely zero attraction to women beyond friendship. I knew as early as 10 or 11 years old that, to me, males were more attractive than females. It seemed natural to me even though I was constantly bombarded with societal pressure that it wasn't natural at all. I tried being "normal (i.e. hetero)" but that "closet" that I built only caused misery in my life until I blew the doors off of it.

So, I disagree completely, homosexuality as a "choice" is not a "given" and not comparible in any way to a religion.

Now, the environmental argument might be used as a cause for homosexuality but I don't buy that one either. I was raised in a loving, nurturing, classic atomic family. My parents are 35 years in and still happily married. How exactly would that cause me to be gay?

Homosexuality seems to be a biological trait from where I stand.

I do agree with the basic point of your post though, that everyone should be afforded equal rights in society regardless of race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc., etc.

Even the crackpots of the religious reich, among others, should be able to express their opinions freely right up until they start trying to shove said opinions down other people's throats.

-SK

Grumpy

But, for the sake of argument, SK...

The difference between Hinduism and homosexuality (for purposes of this discussion) is that religious beliefs and practices already have enshrined protections. (Though the majority religion often believes the protection extends to their tradition alone.) But when anyone suggests adding sexual orientation to the list of protected traits, you hear objections that it's a "special right."

Veil of Fire

Kitten: Woah there... I said just for the sake of argument! Keep in mind that I sleep with women myself. Obviously I don't think that I woke up one day and said "Ya know, I don't want men to interest me sexually."

If the condition were PURELY biological, the identical twin studies would be more conclusive. As it is, they indicate there IS a biological/genetic component, but it's not the 100% cause. Further studies of overexposure to testosterone in the womb lead to a similar conclusion.

But my point was that even if homosexuality IS 100% a concious decision, it still deserves the same protection all the other 100% concious decisions get.

Amos

That is very interesting and proves that the modern gender society--in which our gender identity is allowed to be independant of our sexul identity--is responsible for the increase in sexual deviance (and various other social problems we never knew before). Behavior is never genetic because we can willfully change our behavior but not our genes. Incarnate as if they were the fruition of the sins of our forefathers, yes, but behavior is never genetic.

Veil of Fire

How does gender identity becoming independant of sexual identity cause a woman to produce more testosterone during pregnancy? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Viti

Behavior has no genetic factor?? How do you explain people raised in the same home with completly different behavior and reactionary patterns? My brother and I are night and day!

The AntiChris

I understand the point you're trying to make, but aren't you dangerously close to suggesting that homosexuals should be treated similarly to groups of people whose only distinguishing characteristics are that they hold irrational and misguided beliefs?

This could be construed as offensive to homosexuals.

Chris

HelenM

If one's 'for the sake of argument' premise could be construed as offensive then, yes...

love
Helen