Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I fail to see where I supposedly switched topics.
|
You begin by talking about
rearing offspring, then switch to
producing them. Two different topics. When I responded to the reference to rearing kids, you switched back to producing them.
Homosexuals both produce offspring and rear them.
Quote:
|
And as for homosexuality in animals, see the above link.
|
NARTH, huh? Going to start quoting Misogyny next? NARTH begins with the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, a psychological disorder, and can and should be cured. The first has yet to be established, the second untrue, and the third derived from the faulty second premise, and therefore also untrue. I don't take anything they have to say seriously.
Quote:
|
Again, where is the irrelevancy? I didn't say that homosexual couples couldn't raise children, i said produce. There's a large difference.
|
You make a reference to rearing kids in the same sentence as being the purpose of animals forming couples. And you're wrong on the second part. Homosexual couples do produce offspring. Lesbian couples routinely have children through the artificial insemination of one of the partners.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to be seeing an objection to homosexuality based on reproduction. If a sexual relationship not based on reproduction is objectionable, then the CFBC people and people who are sterile shouldn't have sexual relationships either.
Quote:
|
That statement makes no sense. If the action defines the group, or is exclusive to the group, then condemning the action doesn't make someone bigoted.
|
What specific actions are exclusive to homosexuals? What behaviors are exhibited by homosexuals that are not also exhibited by heterosexuals? I'm curious because I cannot think of any.
There is one specific action--vaginal intercourse--that heterosexuals engage in that homosexuals do not, but I don't know of any available exclusively to homosexuals.
Quote:
|
People object to same-gender relationships. That's what defines homosexuality.
|
No. Homosexuality is defined by being attracted exclusively or primarily to people of the same sex. It's a status, not a behavior.
Quote:
|
If I condemn drug use, am I "bigoted" against drug users? I'm not condemning non-drug users, so apparently I must be. Does it matter that drug users are the only people using drugs?
|
This is exactly what I've been talking about. This is condeming a specific action--taking drugs.
What are the actions to which you object when engaged in by homosexuals? You haven't identified any. If these are actions that are also performed by heterosexuals, do you object to them then? If not, that is an example of discrimination based on status and not action, and that is bigotry. Please note, I am not calling any specific person a bigot here, just giving what I think is a fair general use definition of bigotry.
Quote:
|
Not by the above line of thinking. Calling people who object to a certain lifestyle bigots is an odious tactic that makes the term less effective in identifying true bigots.
|
What lifestyle? Identify the specific actions, behaviors, and lifestyle characteristics that define the homosexual lifestyle, and show how heterosexuals don't engage in those same behaviors, and you'll have something here. Just throwing out a label without defining it makes it difficult to understand exactly what behaviors or lifestyle characteristics it is to which you object. If you can identify some specific behaviors about the homosexual lifestyle to which you object, I may well join you in condeming them.
Quote:
|
And honestly, what is up with the liberal thinking on the subject. Most seem to say that sex is natural, nothing special, just a physical thing. It's the conservatives/Republicans who have all these supposed hang-ups. But mention homosexual sex, and suddenly homosexual sex is the most glorious thing ever, something that rises above all other sex. It should be put on display for all to see, regardless of if people want to see it or not.
|
Who, exactly, has been saying this? It sounds suspicously like a straw man to me.