Posted: 04 June 2011 at 5:01pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K-A-L
I went through the topic and the "scientific evidence" I have seen presented in favor of giving gays and lesbian right to marry is following
1) "Enjoyment" seems to top this list
4) Interaction possible if handle with care
8) Reference less claims
9) Irrelevant articles not addressing biological aspects but focusing on behavior/psychological issues
11) Doubting credibility and credentials of people who oppose it
12) Wiki articles
13) The point that it is natural because it is there
14) And of course there is always love when nothing works
Please let me know if I have missed some valuable information above. I feel that this list completely distorts and misrepresents the points made. First and foremost would be the works of reputed organizations like APA, WHO, Royal Society etc who have accepted the fact that homosexuality is a completely normal and natural behavior. My second argument would be that gay people like any other people have the need for love and commitment like every other person and denying them that right would be unfair and undemocratic. If one disagrees with the ethics and human spirit of these arguments then so be it.
Originally posted by K-A-LActually the other side has proven that homosexuality is natural and normal citing scientific sources. If you wish that your argument have scientific founding then you would need to do so. However, if you don't care to have a scientifically sound argument then you need not do so. I also hope that you realize that even your norm and default varies. There are a few growing number of countries and regions that deem your perception of the norm as archaic and discriminatory and choose to expand equal rights to homosexuals.
First, I will get to the main point and this is for those who have asked me why it is un-natural and that I have not given scientific reasoning to support my claim. BTW why should I provide all that? The other side has to prove that as what I am supporting is the norm and default (at least by law, social norms etc.).
Originally posted by K-A-L
Main Point: I think I did say that by nature I meant from a biological point of view. The definition I was referring to is "The processes and functions of the body". If this is nature then anything that does not follow it is un-natural.
We need to understand the anatomy and physiology of a human body. In lay man terms anatomy is about the structure and composition while physiology deals with the mechanism. The human body is up made of different organs and each is designed and programmed to perform a function. You cannot eat with your feet or walk on your hands (maybe some can but you got my point).
In same manner reproductive system is the primary/distinct system involved in a love/romantic/marriage type relationship. It is a complex entity with several organs programmed to perform their functions with aim of achieving an endpoint i.e. reproduction. Everything involved is oriented towards male-female interaction. The associated things that happen are actually part of a process which facilitates the endpoint. The linings of the organs, the sensory responses, the release of hormones, muscle contractions etc. all are supposed to facilitate reproduction. In that one achieves intimacy, love, etc. and sure that is important too. However even that is feasible in male-female interaction not same gender interaction.
I don't know how to say this as I honestly don't like to talk about such things (just not my nature) but the fact that one "can get pleasure" does not make a thing natural biologically. Some people get pleasure from cutting themselves or other weird behaviors but that does not make it right.
And no sodomy is not a natural process. The organ is meant for excreting waste products not to provide pleasure. The practice is unclean, un-hygienic, and a source of number of diseases not to mention harmful to the organs involved. People are getting E coli infection from eating cucumber and you are saying this filthy practice provides "enjoyment". If this is what people think is enjoyment then I don't know what world I am living in.
I can quote websites which show that such practices are associated with increased risk of diseases. If you can get me a reference which says intercourse was meant to be like sodomy then feel free to do it. And please no social and behavioral stuff. When we make the argument about human anatomy, we have to realize that humans along with dolphins, apes and some other animals in nature have sex not just for procreation but for recreation as well. Most animals have a reproductive cycle and will copulate only when in heat. Often times the reproductive process is painful, not enjoyable and in many species leads to the death of a mate. Nature made humans and other animals with other sensory systems so that sexual indulgence is completely separate from reproductive instincts.
Even if homosexuals disappeared these practices which you speak about are practiced by several heterosexual couples as well. Many heterosexual couples too engage in sodomy, cunnilingus, fellatio and others purely for pleasure. So these other sensory experiences are not just biologically established, but established socially, culturally, emotionally not only by homosexuals but by human nature in itself.
Any and all sexual practices pose risks of disease and problems. You have the instance of smaller women who find regular intercourse itself painful and it can cause blunt trauma to their intimate area. Penetrative intercourse actually has much higher risks than non penetrative intercourse. By your logic then only non penetrative intercourse should be prescribed. With responsibility, proper hygiene and safe sex practices people can make any sexual interaction safe, healthy, pleasurable and emotional for them and their loved ones. We have way too many instances of abuse and unsafe sex within heterosexuals itself.
As a responsible citizen, I find it much more important to promote safe, healthy and committed sex amidst all people - rather than focus on only one sexual orientations sexual habits and completely lose sight of the basic human problem of safe sex.
There is also the emotional aspect of sex, where sex is beyond carnal instincts of procreation or pleasure, but a very intimate experience that people share out of love. For many people that love is critical above all else and they engage in sex only on the basis of experiencing the emotional connection.
Of course there are religious, social and personal beliefs that don't believe in separating the pleasure aspect of sex from procreation. I am fine with that, it is a very personal experience and people have every right to perceive it how they wish and share their perceptions with their community. However, these perceptions cannot be changed into law can it? Do we go checking the bedrooms of heterosexual married couples to see if their sex is legitimate. Why single out homosexuals. In similar vein most people accept the emotional aspect of sex and find it perfectly acceptable for infertile men and women to engage in sexual relations, have people with physical deformities and inabilities find means to experience intimacy. Then why the hesitation to accept homosexuals need to engage in fulfilling relationships. I don't understand.
I apologize if I am being to explicit here. I tried to tone it down, but I could find no other logical way to express my rationale. Please PM me if you wish me to edit. The above content however is COPA and COPPA compliant under international law.
Originally posted by K-A-L
I don't get the point that there are number of orphaned kids out there who can be adopted lol? So? Is this how life works? If you cannot make the lemonade try eating lemon lol. I mean give me some scientific biological arguments to prove that this relationship is possible.
The same argument that allows parents who cannot conceive adopt children. The same argument that allows single men and women the right to experience parenthood and family.
Biologically many people cannot bear children. However, family is not blood ties only. Stronger than blood is the emotional bond of love and support people offer each other. If this is unconvincing I can definitely cite sociological findings and studies that single parents, gay parents can form equally successful families as heterosexual couples.
Not every person biologically capable of procreating is capable of being a responsible family member. There are some horribly wrong so called normal families out there.
Originally posted by K-A-L
I think those who support it are speaking from a different point of view i.e. this is not an illness or that this behavior is natural because of some people are oriented to like same gender. None would say that it makes sense biologically. I know it just does not. You can say oh if done properly'.nope my friend. Human body does not give you that chance. It is not designed it that way. It is highly organized structure and even a little abuse can cause potential problems and therefore the diseases and illnesses
Then my friend go argue with the scientific communities that have deemed homosexuality as natural and normal. Approach your legislative organizations to deem all forms of sex other than regular sex illegal and better yet find ways to enforce it amidst all couples.
Originally posted by K-A-LIIn summary 1) there is no need to give their relationship status of marriage as it has the potential of influencing young people when they are growing and if they see that all this as norm then it is sure to affect them. We still have controversies on origin of such behavior and it is always safe to not change laws etc. in this situation. 2) Still if majority thinks it is marriage then yeah change it there. The laws are for them and if they are okay with it then sure go ahead.
I believe I have given strong, reasonable arguments on why homosexuality is acceptable and normal. I beleive I have refuted notions that allowing homosexuality or homosexual rights negatively influences society. However, I respect that for some people homosexuality is not palatable or acceptable. I respect the notion that some people would wish to have communities that are free of homosexuals. I wish I could change the way people think and believe, but unfortunately that is beyond my capacity nor do I have any right to do that.
All I can do is present my perception and my knowledge and hope that every human has the ability to think with rationality and compassion to create an accepting truly equal society for all humans. If I fail, I fail in the hope that people know what they are doing and choose the best possible choice after giving serious significant thought to it.
My role is to keep continuing the legislative and social battle for what I believe to be human rights. Everyone will do theirs.
Edit: Since the quote function is awry. I changed my text to blue. I also want to Thank You for taking the time and effort for presenting your opposing views in a reasonable, respectful, and rational manner.
Edited by return_to_hades - 04 June 2011 at 5:08pm