Ian
Thanks for jumping aboard; I was expecting you.
Understand that I am going to play devil's advocate just to keep you honest. That's been my motivation all along, after all. I'm just trying to get folks to evaluate their respective opinions and positions, and consider the same from those who feel - and vote - differently.
IF sexual orientation is developed by nurture, it does NOT follow that treating those of the minority orientation equally will increase their numbers.
That's what you hope and that's what we'd all like - in principle.
Understand though that the expression "treating someone equally" is a loaded expression. It's like the Equal Rights Amendment. Everyone thinks it's a good idea to treat women equally in principle. We think... Well... Exactly what do you mean by that? Give me some specifics. Next thing you know, we have opponents to it arguing about bathroom privileges.
To you, "treating someone equally" may mean having the federal government guarantee you the exact same rights and privileges ON EVERY LEVEL that heterosexuals get with respect to marriage. And all of us get the same sex education in public school that considers each and every aspect of an orientation and a lifestyle that is relevant to you.
The devil is in the details, my friend. In the words of Panther, where does tolerance end and advocacy begin?
And then put yourself in the head of Evangelicals who showed up in large numbers at the polls last week. Let's rephrase your statement.
IF sexual orientation is developed by nurture, it does NOT follow that advocating a gay lifestyle will increase their numbers.
That's the mindset of some, Ian. That's how they will frame the discussion. And then what evidence do we have to support your statement? Using the "show one exception" method of proof of mathematics... Let's say your statement is true. Fine... Then how do you explain the dramatic increase in gay activity within prisons? Men who otherwise behave as heterosexuals suddenly engage in homosexual acts in large numbers and with great frequency when confined in an all-male environment when at their peak testosterone years. Why?
Do we care? I wish I could share the data I have at my disposal, Ian. Health insurers cover these populations. I know the prevalence of HIV in the general population vs. the prison population. The differences are staggering. And we have every reason to believe that gay sex (within the prison) largely contributes to the problem. This is a public health concern.
Furthermore, Kinsey's work contributes to the theory that many of us have a little yin AND yang inside (in varying proportions), and environmental influences contribute to how we individually express those tendencies.
The libertarian shrugs his shoulders. Keep the government out of it ALL as much as possible. Give people a license to do what they want behind closed doors. Throw in a few tax breaks and partner rights that make sense, and be done with it. Believe what you want to believe; I don't give a damn.
The Evangelical sees this prison situation. They see what happens when "anything goes." They live (and vote by) their beliefs. They have kids and they want their kids to live a healthy, moral existence. They want healthy, moral grandkids. They resolve it all with a "Love the sinner; hate the sin" philosophy, and act accordingly.
I'm sitting here inside the body of this prototypical Evangelical, Ian. You're not moving me...
The slippery slope argument here
Indeed, Ian, it's the slippery slope argument. Your line on the hill is different than others. And the movement of the line in the past several generations has inertia. Can you and others acknowledge that?
And dare I ask if those who cite STD rates as an argument about gay marriage know the same data suggests they should champion remarkably but not perfectly safe lesbian sex?
You may, Ian. And if women figure out how to fertilize other women, then we males may one day become completely irrelevant!
Maybe they'll keep us around to take out the trash...
Note that gay men do everything that heterosexuals do with each other--everything, except one thing, for which they lack the required anatomy, and nothing more. So sexual practices that are dangerous aren't dangerous because of the gender of the participants.
You're glossing over a few points here... A good number of heterosexuals can be perfectly happy engaging in an activity (sexual intercourse in marriage) which in their mind is the
raison d'etre on many levels. They have their bible in the right hand, and their book by Darwin in the left. They feel doubly affirmed, and don't understand why it's necessary to add all this "stuff" to the picture.
Meanwhile, they see you with ONLY these other choices. And they see the "typical" level of promiscuity of gay men vs. straight men. They see the statistics IN THIS COUNTRY on how the average woman contracts HIV. Follow the virus.
I'm the Evangelical, Ian. I'm still not feeling very warm and fuzzy towards your point of view.
In my book (as the Evangelical), the only thing you have going for you is giving you SOME kind of legal union that will make you happy and keep your practices behind closed doors with one lifelong partner. Anything more is too much information.
Out of role playing mode...
- Bill
bad pun) that there were certain restrooms at U.Va. (multiple places in Cabell Hall) where it was unwise of me to do a simple thing like take a dump. Not unless I wanted to be interrupted...
