jaybee0560
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 212
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 495
- Points
- 108
- Location
- Croydon VIC, Australia
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Rights don't mean "Different things" when you have them constitutionally defined and protected, as most western cultures do.The phenomenon that people's sexuality change during certain periods of their lives. For example, women who were lesbians suddenly marrying men. Some people who are bisexual go through something called the bi cycle. Where there are months that one gender more attractive than the other. Sexuality is complex. Some argue that sexuality is more a set of configurations. Some argue that sexuality is a spectrum.
This goes back to the question of what are rights. I'm arguing from the position that there are no such thing as rights. Rights are a fiction and can mean different things. But that's another thread without answers. You're arguing that rights is something that will always be there.
Unlike blacks and women, those with homosexual inclinations don't have anything to lavage against the state. Like I mentioned in past post. But you're failed to mention or recognized that point.
The LGBT already lives off toleration and permission.
Changing a constitution by amendment is ridiculously difficult. I live in a country that has these rights defined by legislative law. So no, they are not arbitrary or even based on majority rule and they are not rooted in anyones perception of congenital or otherwise.
To your definition of fluid - yes and no. A "lesbian" who suddenly marries a man isn't suddenly fluid even if they may be fluid. Much like when a "straight man" divorces and marries a man - doesn't mean he is fluid. Both could have been bi the entire time and realised maybe they werent actually lesbian or straight. A small percentage of people are fluid and - once again - you have missed/ avoided the actual point.
That being - if we acknowledge that sexual fluidity is something that effects a small percentage of the population and isn't an actual choice - and that even for sexually fluid people - these changes in our orientation are also not a choice - what possible argument is there that makes any effect on how we treat gay people?
"Unlike blacks and women, those with homosexual inclinations don't have anything to lavage against the state."
and again with this unfounded assertion that rights are bartered for using procreation as a "leverage" .. At a legal level with governments like yours and mine that protect these rights in their constitution - there is literally no need to leverage anything past the merits of your argument.
People have worth beyond their ability or even inclination to procreate - limiting a persons value to society on the basis of their willingness to produce children is you playing the bigots game. If you can't form an argument for why being gay is a neutral societal position that has its own worth - then that is your failing, it is not a sign that this argument lacks merit.
And again - the notion that congenital conditions are afforded protections under law is not refl;ected in reality - I could easily be genetically predisposed to pedophilia - sociopathic or psychopathic behavior and still be restricted under law in how that presents - much like gays were.
People don't care if you are born gay - people don't really care if you are gay. The religious argument here, if you are a religious bigot would be - gay acts are an abomination and you shouldn't be allowed to do them at all. If you are born gay - BFD - that is your challenge.