Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[CSolarstorm]

Homosexuality & Politics

The penguins cannot help you.

This is a new 'gay thread' for general discussion regarding homosexuality politically and socially. Sorry if you were sick of them, but apparently there will always be one, so we might as well make it a good one.

There are a lot of modern issues pertaining to homosexuality in the 21st century - this isn't personal, it's debate. Try to be sensitive, and if other people aren't sensitive to you, try your best to repay it with politeness, because we don't want to remember the thread like this:

Well I'm sorry I compared your sexuality to humping a tree.

A Guide to the Discussion Thus Far

As you may or may not know, there's been tons of 'gay threads' in the history of SPPF, and a lot of useful facts were learned, and a lot of problems were experienced that we can prevent. I apologize that it's so long, but you may fare better in this debate if you read it. I also hope to update it to reflect the conversation, so you don't have to read each page of the thread. Feel free to suggest additions or modifications, corrections, demand credit from me, whatever you like. I want to be accomodating.

You have to read at least half of it to know why there's a picture of penguins up there.

    Spoiler:- A Guide to Gay Threads:

Show Spoiler

 

Argument from Precedent

Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, they're all sexual deviant behaviors.

This is usually blasted as a slippery slope fallacy, because it is used to question what would be legalized after gay marriage. However, slippery slope is not always a fallacy, especially when you're talking about a legal system where decisions are considered precedence for future decisions. Comparing same-sex marriage to something else is often necessary to debate about it.

"Sexual deviance" is an umbrella term people against homosexuality use for homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality, and necrophilia. Gay-rights advocates (simply called 'advocates' after this), reject the idea that these practices are equivalent in any way, and draw a distinctive line between two adult human beings being sexually active with each other and assume everything else either takes advantage of an animal or a child which both have a lack of emotional and/or intellectual understanding. While it's true that children can understand and grant permission to marry in situations where child marriage is allowed, and both children and animals can indicate approval or comfort, the bulk of valuable critical thinking skills only develop during human puberty.

If interracial marriage is legal, then there's no reason we shouldn't legalize same sex marriage.

Advocates can use Argument from Precedent as well. Some use the civil rights battle for interracial marriage as a civil precedent for allowing gay marriage. Gay rights were included in civil rights movements in the 1960's, however, not everyone who approves or enjoys interracial marriage today believes same-sex marriage is a right. It's a matter of where the line is drawn.


What Doesn't Homophobia Mean?

A phobia is an intense rejection/revulsion toward something. Terms such as hydrophobic or photophobic aren't about fear, but rejection, so the suffix "-phobia" is not limited to fear, but also revulsion, rejection, or disgust. So how broad should the term "homophobia" be applied? Is it a narrow psychological term for someone whose obsessive disgust toward homosexuality interferes with their everyday life, or is it a political term that applies to everyone who isn't pro-gay rights? Are entire religions homophobic? You might want to practice discretion if you consider using this term, because when you use it too much, people stop taking it seriously.


The Deal With Leviticus

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

First, notice it says that the act is detestable, not the people who did it. However, but should ask then if the person being judged WANTS to be separated from their act; if they say 'If you don't acknowledge I'm gay you don't acknowledge me' then in their eyes, if their act that they have no problem with is detestable, there is a gap in communication and they take it as they are being detested (hated).

Some of us on here have painstakingly debated that there is ample evidence that the death penalty in Levitus was a law that was observed in the society that the Old Testament was written in. In the New Testament, all the moral tenants that applied to the Christian citizenry (I believe there were certain Leviticus rules that applied to priests) were preserved, but Christ is observed telling them not to use the death penalty. And Rome was not a Hebrew nation anyway, as of the time they were polytheistic and worshipped the Roman gods, so Christians did not have the law on their side to put people to death with; they were only a church, so when somebody violated the Leviticus morals, the punishment became excommunication, which is the punishment in many Christian churches today for being gay. (I should know; my birthmother was excommunicated. I'm pretty sure she was not put to death!) While the example of Christ pardoning the prostitute (He without sin cast the first stone) is not the reason for the death penalty being null, it does suggest, or indicate, whichever you believe, that Christ does not want people to kill those who violated the rules of the church.

If Jesus Christ did reverse the death penalty on homosexuality, apparently the entire United Kingdom didn't pay attention for a millenia. The United Kingdom punished (male) homosexuals with the death penalty until 1861, when they switched the punishment to imprisonment until 1967, when it was decided age of consent had to be higher for homosexuals, starting at age 21. In 2001, the age of consent was leveled to 16, the same age of consent for heterosexual adults.


Appeal to Nature

Homosexuality isn't natural.

Since we are all honest and well meaning debaters, we should ask ourselves some questions about how we understand this statement. Are they talking about a) they way they perceive normal human behavior or b) the animal kingdom? Oftentimes, they're only talking about what's normal, so if you link them to this list of homosexual animals, you could start a big misunderstanding.

You might have said homosexuality isn't natural, completely thinking about the animal kingdom. The problem is, we can't derive a sense of wrong and right from the animal kingdom, because animals don't wear clothes, they're rapists, they sleep around, eat their own kind, kill one another while mating, etcetera. So before you use a gay penguin couple to prove that being gay IS natural, stop, think about it, and ask yourself if you can leave the debate having adequately explained the meaning of the word 'natural' and whether it's good or bad.

On another hand, there are also Social Darwinists around here, some of which think we need to model society off of natural law and natural selection in the animal kingdom, so you know, feel free to challenge that.


Is Homosexuality a Choice, and Does that Matter?

I didn't choose whether or not I liked vanilla ice cream.

To many gay rights advocates, homosexuality isn't a choice in the way that they can't choose which gender they prefer sexually. This might carry the assumption that everyone has to follow their sexual preferences. Some say that there is a possibility that stifling your inborn sexuality might result in depression or suicide.

I chose to like vanilla ice cream, because when I tasted it, it was good, so I decided to like it.

This person assumes that "deciding they liked it" is the same as "deciding to like it". Discovering that you like vanilla ice cream, and thus deciding to acknowledge that you like it, is different than tasting the ice cream, tasting that it's yucky, and then deciding it shouldn't taste yucky and then licking it again and having it taste good because you decided differently.

On the other hand, in the past five or so gay threads, we've had a few gay people tell us firsthand that they chose to be gay. They were mostly told, "Well, you're bisexual."

You can choose whether or not you like eating vanilla ice cream.

Not everyone is happy being gay. Some people CHOOSE to seek conversion therapy. In this case, you've got to ask yourself which means more - embracing their sexual preference, or being happy with the entire balance of their life.

If you prove homosexuality is a trait people are born with - how much does that achieve, anyway? Not everyone assumes that people are born the way they are supposed to be. Obviously there is the freedom, and sometimes the necessity, to change out of the state you're born into. Proving that homosexuality is an inborn trait is almost as pointless as proving that it's natural in the animal kingdom.

While the two American associations that both go by the name "APA" both claim that homosexuality is not a disorder, some people still see it as an atypical trait in men and women that is comparable to a developmental condition or other abnormality. For some, an absent desire for the opposite sex is all it takes to consider homosexuality not only an abnormality, but an imposition.


Marriage Equality

Same-sex couples have been acknowledged by different cultures throughout human history - but many of those famous examples differentiate between marriage and unions between same-sex couples, seeing them as something fundamentally different than the man+woman concept.

One reason gay couples might want to share the institution of marriage, and not adopt a new custom, is to remove the distinction of being different so that their version isn't seen as inferior or disappointing compared to 'regular marriage'. Marriage is a social tradition among family and friends that people don't want to be excluded from participating in just because they can't find themselves sexually attracted to the opposite gender.


Marriage & Matrimony

There's a difference between marriage in the eyes of the government, and holy matrimony. Not everyone who gets married does it in a church, and atheists get married too. Why not let gay people get married in the eyes of the government, with a marriage certificate and a ceremony in a house or a rented auditorium? There have been cases before of gay couples suing churches for refusing to marry them, so to many churches, they feel the need to reject gay marriage to protect themselves from lawsuit. So why not solve the conflict by passing laws giving immunity to churches who want to maintain their own marriage practices?


Gay Pride & Media

There are plenty of TV shows and movies where boys and girls feel romantically attracted toward each other, and that's considered young love and really a truth of life that is suitable for all audiences, separate from 'sexuality'. Gay relationships are typically relegated to romance/adult genres where it can be portrayed purely as a 'sexuality'. After DADT was repealed, a story about an airman coming out of the closet to his family on YouTube was picked up by many news stations. Coming out of the closet when you expect people to see you differently is a hard thing to do, and advocates might say it's an example of courage. Others wondered why a normal person talking about their sexuality should be news. Advocates might say that being gay is as much about love as it is about sex. Most same-sex relationships in the media take a sexual overtone and very few portray nonsexual, yet couple-love between two members of the same sex. Some people doubt that homosexuality is anything more than sexuality, and cite a high divorce rate among homosexuals to support this.

Not all gay people and gay-rights advocates like or approve of Gay Pride parades, because they often encourage the idea that homosexuality is hyper-sexual. Gay rights activists decided in the 1960's that they have to shock and desensitize people in order to gain acceptance, but some people believe this method has outgrown its purpose and is now about having a party instead of gaining acceptance.

 

No-Tears Easy Rules To Follow
(These rules are actually redundant and double-enforced by Profesco's recent sticky, and in some cases triple-enforced with the actual rules of SPPF.)

1. No straw-quoting. Straw-quoting is when you link to someone's quote, and then replace what they say with something that is meant to mock their original message and/or generally humiliate them.

2. No defamation. Please do not use this thread to share links about what a member has done in order to discredit them or turn other members against them.

3. No personal attacks. Please don't call someone subhuman or tell them to kill themselves.

4. Do not use someone's family members as an example. Please don't use another member's family or friends as an example to prove something in the debate without getting permission from that member. They're not fair targets just because that member brought them into the debate.

5. Don't post giant/bold off-topic messages. Statements emphasized with a giant font, all caps, or a style meant to catch attention that are irrelevant to the topic like "U MAD" or "SICK BRO!" should be reported as spam. Don't do this with pictures, either.

6. Don't attack back. Don't feed trolls, don't reply to spam, don't flame people who flame, and don't break rules to get revenge on someone breaking rules.

7. Don't badger other users. Don't bug others to stop posting about a particular subject, or to stop providing sources you don't approve, since this creates spam. Feel free to not accept sources or to not reply.

8. Don't get off-topic. You can use this thread to talk about the way things relate to homosexuality, but don't start debating the legitimacy of those subjects. How religion relates to homosexuality is good - where that religion matters, bad. Homosexuality compared to polygamy, good. Whether polygamy is right or wrong, bad.