another Letter to the Editor
May. 23rd, 2004 12:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
saitainaIn a May 18th Letter to the Editor, Frank Plummer wrote, “Homosexuality violates the basic law of nature: procreation hence, that it prove that it is not normal behavior.”
Sorry to disappoint you, Frank, but that’s where you’re wrong. Granted, nature has been, and always will be about the continuation of the species. But the part of the brain that drives this urge recognizes nothing beyond what gets us going in order to mate.
There are documented cases of homosexual behavior in animals just as there are in humans. No, you cannot create an off spring this way but apparently our subconscious doesn’t care. It has only one desire to fill, and that is the urge to mate with whatever (of our species) as many times as is possible. This urge and subconscious desire has been with us since our ancestors of Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthals.
Just because we like to pretend we don’t have the same chemical make-up, urges and desires as desires they do, doesn’t make it wrong.
As for being in love with a truck, your brother or a goat? Different issues. Homosexuals do NOT have the same rights as heterosexuals. I’m sorry but we don’t. And it’s not fair. I would like to live in a world where any child I might have has the right to love, be with and marry whom they want, just as I want that right. And it’s really not that much to ask for. Changing the law to include those of us who might love a person of the same sex does not open the door for those who love other things that are considered “taboo”.
There ARE reasons you can’t marry your brother, just as there are reasons you can’t marry Bessie the cow. They ARE valid reasons (incest, or the sexual relation between genetic family members is known to cause horrendous birth defects, and I would assume the same for animal relations). But I have yet to see a reason why I can’t marry someone whom I love who is of the same sex.
Really, is it that hard to except that a law might one day read, “Marriage is between two humans, regardless of sex, who are not related to each other.”
Sorry to disappoint you, Frank, but that’s where you’re wrong. Granted, nature has been, and always will be about the continuation of the species. But the part of the brain that drives this urge recognizes nothing beyond what gets us going in order to mate.
There are documented cases of homosexual behavior in animals just as there are in humans. No, you cannot create an off spring this way but apparently our subconscious doesn’t care. It has only one desire to fill, and that is the urge to mate with whatever (of our species) as many times as is possible. This urge and subconscious desire has been with us since our ancestors of Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthals.
Just because we like to pretend we don’t have the same chemical make-up, urges and desires as desires they do, doesn’t make it wrong.
As for being in love with a truck, your brother or a goat? Different issues. Homosexuals do NOT have the same rights as heterosexuals. I’m sorry but we don’t. And it’s not fair. I would like to live in a world where any child I might have has the right to love, be with and marry whom they want, just as I want that right. And it’s really not that much to ask for. Changing the law to include those of us who might love a person of the same sex does not open the door for those who love other things that are considered “taboo”.
There ARE reasons you can’t marry your brother, just as there are reasons you can’t marry Bessie the cow. They ARE valid reasons (incest, or the sexual relation between genetic family members is known to cause horrendous birth defects, and I would assume the same for animal relations). But I have yet to see a reason why I can’t marry someone whom I love who is of the same sex.
Really, is it that hard to except that a law might one day read, “Marriage is between two humans, regardless of sex, who are not related to each other.”
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-23 01:15 pm (UTC)The 'natural' argument? Well, given that a homosexual's mind comes that way, I'd call that natural. And what's with this natural kick anyway? What, does he sleep in a tree and eat raw meat? Does he not use contraception? Have sex only to breed? Does he use tools of any kind? Wear clothes?
The floodgates argument is off too. Let me post my hideously long diatribe I've used elsewhere on the issue:
We cannot allow the 'floodgates' argument to prevail. It does not stand and it itself opens up floodgates that are far more dangerous than anything else. We cannot impose restrictions or grant licenses on the basis of floodgates - because that argument is terribly extreme. 'Where do we draw the line?' Ask floodgate proponents. Well, I respond to them 'where do we draw the line on floodgates?" As soon as you say 'we cannot allow this for it may lead to that' we are allowing the most restrictive, draconian measures in simply to challenge a future possibility. That is not acceptable.
We must disallow interracial marriages, because polygamy, incest and paedophilia will follow! We must disallow divorce, for sham marriages, polygamy etc will follow. We must disallow cigarettes and alcohol, for legalised drugs must surely follow! We must keep the death penalty, for the loss of prisons must surely follow! We must disallow WAP phones, for surely increased paedophilia will surely follow!
Every issue must ALWAYS be considered on it's OWN merits - not for fear of future precedent, not for what might happen. If, in a court of law, you were sentenced for the crimes you might committ - you would be appalled. If I were to restrict you or punish you on the basis that others might take your actions to another extreme, you would be furious, and rightly so.
No. Take gay marriage or gay civil unions on their own merits. Then take polygamy on its own merits.
Yes the precedent will add weight - but we cannot have a society that restricts everything on the basis of what it can lead to and pretend to call that society 'free.'