SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Neocon who wrote (72001)8/7/2003 10:05:50 AM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
"As far as moral substance goes, that is not the judgment sought. I am not alleging that homosexuality is immoral. I am alleging that it is inferior to heterosexuality. In fact, in the comparative form, it may not even be bad, just not as good as heterosexuality"

This is silly. You are assessing "superiority" by an arbitrary measure of whether or not or to what degree a trait or condition furthers sexual intercourse to produce children. So is brown hair "inferior" to heterosexuality? Laugh lines? long toes? a preference for chocolate?

There are millions of traits which are insufficient on their own to perpetuate the species. But to make that an arbitrary requirement for the judgment of inferior or superior in the discussion of human rights is absolutely deplorable. Is a woman incapable of child bearing "inferior" by virtue of the fact that if all the world had ONLY such people there would be no children produced? Can we logically restrict the rights of marriage by assessing the "superiority" of people as measured by their ability or their desire to reproduce?

On that basis males with small penises would also be "inferior" and should perhaps have "civil unions" with narrow-hipped and small breasted women rather than true marriages.

If someone wishes to argue that marriage is a sacred union covenanted by God, It would be worth discussing. But the right to marry does not carry an obligation to reproduce nor does it ensure the capacity to reproduce; nor is the desire to reproduce a necessary component of the pledge.

Your "thought experiment" is an irrelevency and does not bear on the argument in any way.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News