Re: In response to your website, part 2moonlit_pageNovember 12 2004, 17:56:08 UTC
And to you, personally, I would say:
First of all, God made heterosexuals and God made homosexuals and everything in between. It's not up to anybody to criticize God's work. (The closest species to homo sapiens, with a 98.9% genetic compatibily factor, practice homosexuality. It IS natural. If it was unnatural, it wouldn't exist in nature. )
Second of all, homosexual American citizens pay taxes just like heterosexual American citizens, therefore homesexuals should be allowed the same civil liberties as heterosexuals, including choice as to whom they wish to marry.
The exact same arguments against gay marriage were used in the 60's to prevent the 'abomination' that is inter-racial marriage. It's utter bullshit. If someone wants to get up in front of their friends and family and declare undying love, faithfulness, and a partnership with another person, raise a healthy and happy family, pay taxes, buy homes, and share their health insurance benefits then that's an expression of love, which is a beautiful thing. The article you posted expressed totally unfounded FEAR of homosexuals, as if they all exist in a dark corner somewhere and are just plotting and waiting to destroy heterosexual lifestyles with their perversion. It's homophobic, it's hateful , and it's beneath you Kevin.
Furthermore: 12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer life-spans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
Re: In response to your website, part 3moonlit_pageNovember 12 2004, 17:59:53 UTC
Some quotes to take with you, for comparison's sake:
"Marriage is a very important part of our culture and of our society. If we want to have a hopeful and decent society we ought to aim for the ideal and the ideal is that marriage should and ought to be the union of a man and a woman and we cannot allow activist judges to over turn that, we cannot allow activist local elected officials to thumb their nose at 5,000 years of human history and determine that marriage is something else and the people have a right to be involved" (Karl Rove).
"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict" (Gilmore, 1975, p.108).
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix" (from Loving v. Virginia).
In the wisdom of the Supreme Court (with my insertions, would read):
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial[sexual orientation/gender] classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial[sexual orientation/gender] discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another[same] race[gender] resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Now, perhaps in your conservative wisdom, you can explain to me just how someone else's marriage or love life in any way affects your own? Explain to me the harm in loving someone, regardless of their age, race, religion, sex, appearance? And please be sure to list examples of how someone with a "gay agenda" seduced, confused, or preyed upon a child (and if you're going to go to molestations by Catholic priests, I'm going to argue that you're demonstrating how someone used a "religious agenda" to seduce, confuse, and prey upon children. It makes just about as much sense.)
Re: In response to your website, part 3kaelin42November 12 2004, 20:31:56 UTC
Man, after all that writing, i'm probably #2 on your shit-list, right after the grand demon, Dubya, himself. I'm not even going to try to take this point by point because it's very worthless. I tried that with my sister's friend John and it just went on forever with no progress.
Now there seems to be three threads to your responses: the bible, homosexuality, and random quotes from some of us evil conservative types.
The bible: contradicts itself six ways from sunday. As a logical entity it floats about as well as Kerry's campaign. That being said, you can't mix logic with belief. It just doesn't work. They're like oil and water, and as soon as you start using one to justify the other you find a big old disconnect.
Homosexuality: I'd almost like to go through that list point by point, but again, it would serve no purpose. You're obviously very fired up about all of this and in spite of the fact that you consider yourself very open-minded about such things, i can tell that you're going to automatically shut out the opinion of people who disagree with you. Perhaps you'll do it because, to your own satisfaction, you have logically "proven" the truth of your opinions. Maybe it's because you take a larger belief in unfettered freedom. Whichever it is, it will not let you see source of other people's opinions.
Random quotes: Same old. I could fight the good fight and reply in kind, but all it will do is spawn never-ending bouts of ripostes, none of which will really do anything except accumulate page space.
All in all, i'm not getting into it. I'm sorry if you're disappointed with me.
Re: In response to your website, part 3moonlit_pageNovember 12 2004, 20:42:19 UTC
Assuming that I am close-minded b/c I've already formed my own personal opinion and therefore will not hear the defense of yours is a gross affront to my honor. I've never given you any evidence to think that I would shut you down; I'm a very respectful debater. It's also a tepid excuse for being lazy and not answering the questions. So I'll ask them again:
How, exactly, does allowing gay people to marry directly affect you or your marriage? What specific examples have you for any "gay agenda to seduce and confuse children" being in existence?
You posted a defense of the article to a public forum, therefore you are responsible for answering public questions regarding it. Your answers will determine whether or not I am disappointed in you.
Re: In response to your website, part 3kaelin42November 12 2004, 21:20:23 UTC
*sigh* all right then... I didn't mean to affront your honor, i'm just letting you know in advance that this will likely go nowhere.
First of all, the article was about the effects that widening support of gay marriage could have on the country should it be brought further into the mainstream. It sees groups that seem not so much to accept homosexual (read deviant) behavior as encourage it.
The article's argument in a nutshell is that "with aggressive, well-funded homosexual activists already in key positions of influence in the media, education, academia and entertainment, "gay" marriage will be their turnkey to launch a brave new world for kids."
Some of the predictions of the article are already eerily true. There is indeed a new wave of cartoons with "gender-bending heroes." There have been same-sex kings and queens of proms. I have little doubt that more of the columnists' predictions will become true.
Much of the argument stems from the differing ways in which people see the source of homosexual behavior. You see it as being somehow genetic in nature, and that people who are gay simply cannot help themselves. They are how they are. The article's view is that homosexual behavior is brought about by the process of socialization, making it a learned behavior.
I tend to side with those who think homosexuality is a learned behavior. As my sociology professor would be quick to point out, there is no human behavior that is "natural." Yet even he puts his hope in the genetic bandwagon. If homosexuality is linked in some way to genetics, it probably follows the same template as alcoholism. One may have a predisposition to it, but it would never be realized if one didn't drink.
Re: In response to your website, part 3moonlit_pageNovember 12 2004, 22:13:55 UTC
Okay. Question: Why is homosexual behavior "deviant" behavior?
Who would choose to upset their family and friends and be shunned and mal-treated (sometimes to the point of being tied to a tree and having glass bottles and stones thrown at your head until you die) if it was merely a socialized sexual preference, instead of an unavoidable orientation?
(Way to analogize being gay to being a drunk, by the way; very respectful. I can understand being down on an alcoholic whose behavior causes serious harm to all those around him/her, but last time I checked, no one was killed by driver because they were under the influence of being gay.)
No, you don't have to choose the behavior of eating an apple over eating an orange, but you didn't wake up one day and decide you preferred oranges and that liking apples was deviant. You were born with a response to the taste for apples and/or oranges. Liking apples and/or oranges is in no way deviant. It's just the way you are.
So, as it is the basis for your opposition, please explain to me: How is liking boys or liking girls deviant? How is it harmful?
And also, please explain how someone else standing up with someone of the same gender and promising to love, honor, and obey that person and give that person their health insurance and adopt a needy child with that person is in any way detrimental to you standing up with someone of the opposite gender and doing those things? Please answer me those two questions, and then I'll let the issue go.
Re: In response to your website, part 3moonlit_pageNovember 13 2004, 12:49:08 UTC
Kevin. just. answer. the questions. Weren't you the one posting entries about how Kerry never really answered a direct question and you're such a responsible guy, while other guys shirk their responsibility and enjoy female companionship? Take responsibility for your opinions and give direct answers:
1. HOW does someone else being gay and wanting to get married directly affect you in a negative way?
2. HOW is homosexual behavior "deviant behavior" or harmful behavior?
Are answering those questions so hard b/c... there is no way a gay wedded couple could possibly hurt you? There is no way two girls making love or two guys making love could possibly hurt you? Yeah, I think so, and you'd better admit it or else bring evidence to the contrary asap, because otherwise? You come off like a paranoid, gay-bashing jerk, and that is not the intelligent and compassionate Kevin I know.
Re: In response to your website, part 3moonlit_pageNovember 12 2004, 22:17:09 UTC
There is indeed a new wave of cartoons with "gender-bending heroes."
Also, as an aside, you may need to get out more. Cave drawings. Greek art. Roman wax renderings. French lithographs. Japanese anime. All these have artwork and cartoons with homosexuals in them. Alexander the Great was a real life homosexual who was the hero of many tales. I've never met anyone that suddenly went gay b/c they read some homoerotic manga. This is paranoid thinking.
Re: In response to your website, part 3moonlit_pageNovember 16 2004, 00:15:51 UTC
The Greeks were famous for being gay. In the 1960's a common slang for gay men was to be "Greek." The Greeks would take adolescant boys and "train" them to be men, by allowing the boy to penetrate the man. The boy was never penetrated himself, but this is still clearly homosexual behavior, therefore making it deviant. Uh huh...
Re: In response to your website, part 3moonlit_pageNovember 16 2004, 14:03:14 UTC
Dearest, dearest under-informed person. I'll see your "a common slang for gay men was to be 'Greek'" and I'll raise you (one of my many degrees) B.A. in ancient mythology, my 6 months independent study of Alexander the Great and his period of history at UMD, and my tour of the Mediterranean, shall I?
First of all, in Ancient Greece, homosexuality was the norm. If you were a free man who owned property and loved your wife (instead of your mentor or shield-mate) you were considered "deviant." To love a woman was compared to loving an animal, since women were, it was believed at that time, incapable of rational thinking and lacked a soul. Any man that enjoyed making love to his wife for more than the purposes of getting sons, particularly in Sparta, (after all, the city-states were more like separate countries that all spoke the same language than like one united country, such as the republic of Rome,) was considered an absolute pervert from 800 B.C.E. until around 200 B.C.E. Male love, homo eros, was the highest form of love, and the most romanticized and sought-after, b/c it involved the intellect, the physical expression, and the twining of souls. The phalanx of the most successful armies were comprised of shield-mates, warrior lovers, that fought together with such passion for their lover that they were undefeated. Socrates once stood over his injured mentor on the battlefield with only a shield to defend him from an overwhelming wave of approaching enemies. When the other soldiers saw this, the were so moved by his perfect love, that they turned away from their retreat and won the day. Take a minute to imagine the world without Socrates, that dirty, homosexual deviant.
In Sparta, (and again, it's different for those in Athens, Thebes, etc.) young boys were trained by the age of 7 to go into the 'army'. At 15, after a set of trials, they were given a mentor, usually 10-15 years older. The mentor would often take the boy as a lover and instruct him in such matters as sex, marriage, farming, animal husbandry and a trade, but sex between them was always with mutual consent and it would be considered a great blow to the mentor's honor to ever be penetrated by anyone younger, or of lesser status, than he was. So that shoots your "the boy was never penetrated himself" theory to hell, and if you'd like me to sort references, I'd welcome you to www.perseus.org.
Moving on, what you failed to do in this post is present a good argument for why homosexual behavior is "deviant." Mutually-agreed upon sex doesn't hurt any one. In ancient Greece, heterosexual sex was considered necessary, but enjoying it (up until around 200 B.C.E.) was considered deviant and perverted. Clearly it's not, and it doesn't hurt anyone. It would be totally unfair if ancient Greek thought prevailed over the American legal system today, and you loving someone of the opposite gender made you ostracized, a second class citizen, and the subject of hate-crimes. In reverse, it is totally unfair for our legal system to treat a person who loves someone of the same gender as a criminal, a pervert, or a deviant. And unless you can come up with a straight answer that lists how homosexuality is in any way harmful, I'm going to say that you cannot prove that homosexuality is deviant or should be regulated against.
Re: In response to your website, part 3moonlit_pageNovember 16 2004, 14:06:44 UTC
Upon seeing the thread of this conversation on LJ, it occurs to me that perhaps you were replying to Kevin, not me, and that when you said "clearly making it deviant" you were being sarcastic. If that is the case, please ignore my previous post and accept my apologies for arguing with you when it wasn't necessary. Because your message was delivered to my email, I thought you were speaking directly to me and doing so in earnest, not jest. If you were replying to me in earnest, please see previous post. Yours, Roo
First of all, God made heterosexuals and God made homosexuals and everything in between. It's not up to anybody to criticize God's work. (The closest species to homo sapiens, with a 98.9% genetic compatibily factor, practice homosexuality. It IS natural. If it was unnatural, it wouldn't exist in nature. )
Second of all, homosexual American citizens pay taxes just like heterosexual American citizens, therefore homesexuals should be allowed the same civil liberties as heterosexuals, including choice as to whom they wish to marry.
The exact same arguments against gay marriage were used in the 60's to prevent the 'abomination' that is inter-racial marriage. It's utter bullshit. If someone wants to get up in front of their friends and family and declare undying love, faithfulness, and a partnership with another person, raise a healthy and happy family, pay taxes, buy homes, and share their health insurance benefits then that's an expression of love, which is a beautiful thing. The article you posted expressed totally unfounded FEAR of homosexuals, as if they all exist in a dark corner somewhere and are just plotting and waiting to destroy heterosexual lifestyles with their perversion. It's homophobic, it's hateful , and it's beneath you Kevin.
Furthermore:
12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer life-spans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
Reply
"Marriage is a very important part of our culture and of our society. If we want to have a hopeful and decent society we ought to aim for the ideal and the ideal is that marriage should and ought to be the union of a man and a woman and we cannot allow activist judges to over turn that, we cannot allow activist local elected officials to thumb their nose at 5,000 years of human history and determine that marriage is something else and the people have a right to be involved" (Karl Rove).
"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict" (Gilmore, 1975, p.108).
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix" (from Loving v. Virginia).
In the wisdom of the Supreme Court (with my insertions, would read):
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial[sexual orientation/gender] classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial[sexual orientation/gender] discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another[same] race[gender] resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Now, perhaps in your conservative wisdom, you can explain to me just how someone else's marriage or love life in any way affects your own? Explain to me the harm in loving someone, regardless of their age, race, religion, sex, appearance? And please be sure to list examples of how someone with a "gay agenda" seduced, confused, or preyed upon a child (and if you're going to go to molestations by Catholic priests, I'm going to argue that you're demonstrating how someone used a "religious agenda" to seduce, confuse, and prey upon children. It makes just about as much sense.)
Reply
Now there seems to be three threads to your responses: the bible, homosexuality, and random quotes from some of us evil conservative types.
The bible: contradicts itself six ways from sunday. As a logical entity it floats about as well as Kerry's campaign. That being said, you can't mix logic with belief. It just doesn't work. They're like oil and water, and as soon as you start using one to justify the other you find a big old disconnect.
Homosexuality: I'd almost like to go through that list point by point, but again, it would serve no purpose. You're obviously very fired up about all of this and in spite of the fact that you consider yourself very open-minded about such things, i can tell that you're going to automatically shut out the opinion of people who disagree with you. Perhaps you'll do it because, to your own satisfaction, you have logically "proven" the truth of your opinions. Maybe it's because you take a larger belief in unfettered freedom. Whichever it is, it will not let you see source of other people's opinions.
Random quotes: Same old. I could fight the good fight and reply in kind, but all it will do is spawn never-ending bouts of ripostes, none of which will really do anything except accumulate page space.
All in all, i'm not getting into it. I'm sorry if you're disappointed with me.
Reply
How, exactly, does allowing gay people to marry directly affect you or your marriage? What specific examples have you for any "gay agenda to seduce and confuse children" being in existence?
You posted a defense of the article to a public forum, therefore you are responsible for answering public questions regarding it. Your answers will determine whether or not I am disappointed in you.
Reply
First of all, the article was about the effects that widening support of gay marriage could have on the country should it be brought further into the mainstream. It sees groups that seem not so much to accept homosexual (read deviant) behavior as encourage it.
The article's argument in a nutshell is that "with aggressive, well-funded homosexual activists already in key positions of influence in the media, education, academia and entertainment, "gay" marriage will be their turnkey to launch a brave new world for kids."
Some of the predictions of the article are already eerily true. There is indeed a new wave of cartoons with "gender-bending heroes." There have been same-sex kings and queens of proms. I have little doubt that more of the columnists' predictions will become true.
Much of the argument stems from the differing ways in which people see the source of homosexual behavior. You see it as being somehow genetic in nature, and that people who are gay simply cannot help themselves. They are how they are. The article's view is that homosexual behavior is brought about by the process of socialization, making it a learned behavior.
I tend to side with those who think homosexuality is a learned behavior. As my sociology professor would be quick to point out, there is no human behavior that is "natural." Yet even he puts his hope in the genetic bandwagon. If homosexuality is linked in some way to genetics, it probably follows the same template as alcoholism. One may have a predisposition to it, but it would never be realized if one didn't drink.
Reply
Who would choose to upset their family and friends and be shunned and mal-treated (sometimes to the point of being tied to a tree and having glass bottles and stones thrown at your head until you die) if it was merely a socialized sexual preference, instead of an unavoidable orientation?
(Way to analogize being gay to being a drunk, by the way; very respectful. I can understand being down on an alcoholic whose behavior causes serious harm to all those around him/her, but last time I checked, no one was killed by driver because they were under the influence of being gay.)
No, you don't have to choose the behavior of eating an apple over eating an orange, but you didn't wake up one day and decide you preferred oranges and that liking apples was deviant. You were born with a response to the taste for apples and/or oranges. Liking apples and/or oranges is in no way deviant. It's just the way you are.
So, as it is the basis for your opposition, please explain to me: How is liking boys or liking girls deviant? How is it harmful?
And also, please explain how someone else standing up with someone of the same gender and promising to love, honor, and obey that person and give that person their health insurance and adopt a needy child with that person is in any way detrimental to you standing up with someone of the opposite gender and doing those things? Please answer me those two questions, and then I'll let the issue go.
Reply
Reply
1. HOW does someone else being gay and wanting to get married directly affect you in a negative way?
2. HOW is homosexual behavior "deviant behavior" or harmful behavior?
Are answering those questions so hard b/c... there is no way a gay wedded couple could possibly hurt you? There is no way two girls making love or two guys making love could possibly hurt you? Yeah, I think so, and you'd better admit it or else bring evidence to the contrary asap, because otherwise? You come off like a paranoid, gay-bashing jerk, and that is not the intelligent and compassionate Kevin I know.
Reply
Also, as an aside, you may need to get out more. Cave drawings. Greek art. Roman wax renderings. French lithographs. Japanese anime. All these have artwork and cartoons with homosexuals in them. Alexander the Great was a real life homosexual who was the hero of many tales. I've never met anyone that suddenly went gay b/c they read some homoerotic manga. This is paranoid thinking.
Reply
Reply
First of all, in Ancient Greece, homosexuality was the norm. If you were a free man who owned property and loved your wife (instead of your mentor or shield-mate) you were considered "deviant." To love a woman was compared to loving an animal, since women were, it was believed at that time, incapable of rational thinking and lacked a soul. Any man that enjoyed making love to his wife for more than the purposes of getting sons, particularly in Sparta, (after all, the city-states were more like separate countries that all spoke the same language than like one united country, such as the republic of Rome,) was considered an absolute pervert from 800 B.C.E. until around 200 B.C.E. Male love, homo eros, was the highest form of love, and the most romanticized and sought-after, b/c it involved the intellect, the physical expression, and the twining of souls. The phalanx of the most successful armies were comprised of shield-mates, warrior lovers, that fought together with such passion for their lover that they were undefeated. Socrates once stood over his injured mentor on the battlefield with only a shield to defend him from an overwhelming wave of approaching enemies. When the other soldiers saw this, the were so moved by his perfect love, that they turned away from their retreat and won the day. Take a minute to imagine the world without Socrates, that dirty, homosexual deviant.
In Sparta, (and again, it's different for those in Athens, Thebes, etc.) young boys were trained by the age of 7 to go into the 'army'. At 15, after a set of trials, they were given a mentor, usually 10-15 years older. The mentor would often take the boy as a lover and instruct him in such matters as sex, marriage, farming, animal husbandry and a trade, but sex between them was always with mutual consent and it would be considered a great blow to the mentor's honor to ever be penetrated by anyone younger, or of lesser status, than he was. So that shoots your "the boy was never penetrated himself" theory to hell, and if you'd like me to sort references, I'd welcome you to www.perseus.org.
Moving on, what you failed to do in this post is present a good argument for why homosexual behavior is "deviant." Mutually-agreed upon sex doesn't hurt any one. In ancient Greece, heterosexual sex was considered necessary, but enjoying it (up until around 200 B.C.E.) was considered deviant and perverted. Clearly it's not, and it doesn't hurt anyone. It would be totally unfair if ancient Greek thought prevailed over the American legal system today, and you loving someone of the opposite gender made you ostracized, a second class citizen, and the subject of hate-crimes. In reverse, it is totally unfair for our legal system to treat a person who loves someone of the same gender as a criminal, a pervert, or a deviant. And unless you can come up with a straight answer that lists how homosexuality is in any way harmful, I'm going to say that you cannot prove that homosexuality is deviant or should be regulated against.
Reply
Yours, Roo
Reply
Leave a comment