I enjoyed reading this one a lot more than most of his other civ watch stuff. He manages, for the most part, to present his argument in a non-inflammatory manner without sneering too much at the 'other side's' arguments or demonizing them or brushing them aside by reducing them to silly rhetoric.
For the most part. I think it's unfortunate that he uses 'dysfunctional relationships' to describe what I can only assume is predominantly aimed at homosexuality, if not homosexuality exclusively. I don't think he defines what he is arguing against so that the reader can really make a decision one way or the other as to the validity of his argument. In any case, I think he could have chosen a better word than 'dysfunctional'. Words like this cripple his argument and make people not want to pay attention to him, just as if I were discussing religion with a Mormon and called LDS 'dysfunctional' for one reason or another.
Aren't childless marriages 'functional' for society? I think so. I think his argument fails because he never elaborates on why childless marriage shouldn't be sacred in its own way. Surely society benefits from life long monogamy? Surely individuals do as well? Surely we all benefit from the ideal of marriage, of only having sex with your soul mate or your true love? Aren't these things true regardless of whether children are in the picture? I think so.
quote: So when you hear someone talk about how “extending marriage to gay people” is “simple fairness,” think again. Is it fair to the children who will grow up in a society that insists on magnifying any trace of reproductive dysfunction? Is it fair for all of us to be forced to raise our children without public encouragement for reproductive normality and monogamous, heterosexual, lifetime marriages?
The loss of public encouragement that he speaks of, if it exists, is not because of gay people or gay people getting married. I don't understand why the same ideals of fidelity and social responsibility can't be held for gay couples, just as they are held for childless or infertile couples.
quote: Just as there are people who for reasons of their own will always be renters, who never get to benefit from that tax deduction for homebuyers, so there will always be people excluded from the joys and responsibilities of marriage and child rearing.
Very weak argument that essentially boils down to 'life isn't fair'. Can be used to explain away pretty much everything.
quote: But it should provoke, not sympathy, but scorn when some of those unfortunate people demand that special protection for marriage be abolished solely because they have no personal desire to participate in it.
I have no idea what this means. Why don't gay people and infertile people who want to get married want to participlate in 'marriage'? Very confusing.
quote: Instead they demand that their non-marriage relationships be called marriage, and that public schools from now on should teach all of our children that those reproductively dysfunctional relationships should be held up as equally valid models for our children to aspire to.
Reproduction is now a choice. Many heterosexual married couples choose to not have children. Is he arguing that marriage should come with the expectation of reproduction if it's to be called a real marriage? That's fine if he wants to argue that, but if that's his argument then I think he should come right out and say it. It's unclear what, exactly, he is referring to when he talks about 'dysfunctional relationships'.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, I don't mind when OSC makes other people out to be idiots. At least he backs up his opinions, which is more than I can say for a lot of people that write these kinds of articles. *grin*
Posts: 44 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I think we need to take his statements in context with his deep feeling that marriage is something that only exists between a man and woman regardless of whether or not they have children. IMO, OSC has no problem with a married man and woman who chose not to or can't have children, his problem is still with calling same-sex unions "marriage".
posted
I think the place where his analogy breaks down is in the cost of providing the benefit to others. The home mortgage interest deduction represents a reallocation of taxpayer burdens. Therefore, extending the same or similar benefit to others would cost a lot of money. So the cost has to be measured against the benefit.
Allowing homosexual marriage carries a much lower cost. Until recently, unmarried couples had lower taxes than if they were married. Even now, there's little, if any, tax advantage to a two-income married couple. Most government monetary benefits aren't increased by marriage - welfare is based on the number of children, for example.
Some people will be forced to pay more if homosexuals get the same marriage rights - companies who subsidize medical care for families, for example. However, companies are not forced to subsidize family medical care at all, so they can adjust their subsidy policies in a non-discriminatory fashion if they feel they must recoup the small additional costs.
Given the low cost and the fact that at least some of the benefits to society of heterosexual marriage will also be provided by homosexual marriage (legal efficiency, increased family ties which lower the costs to society of sick or infirm persons, etc.), a cost benefit analysis seems likely to favor homosexual marriage anyway.
posted
I agree, what I said was not an argument but a statement of belief.
Extrapolating from that, though, we can put that meaning into his argument and it addresses your rebuttal. He calls homosexual unions reproductively dysfunctional. You argue that many heterosexual unions are "reproductively dysfunctional". But heterosexual unions in general are not. Homosexual unions are not just "reproductively dysfunctional" in general, they are in all cases.
I don't know if you have read the story in his book "First Meetings", the story about John Paul and Theresa meeting (I can't remember the name and I can't find my copy!) But OSC puts forth some interesting ideas and arguments in favor of human reproduction even under the "crowded" earth conditions in which we live. I think it is clear that Card is not overly concerned about earth's overpopulation, and feels that reproduction should not be so cavalierly abandoned.
I propose that while many feel that homosexuality benefits the earth by resulting in less reproduction, OSC does not think this is true and would argue against it. He is not "here" to answer your argument, so I am doing a shabby job at trying to fill in for him. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No longer are those who bear children out of wedlock socially stigmatized.
He thinks this is a bad thing. Personally, I think it means society is advancing.
Second, and more importantly, an issue of logic:
quote:Why in the world do Americans, who are almost obsessive about being “fair” these days, allow such an unfair system to continue? Why aren’t renters rioting in the streets, or at the very least picketing Congress?
Here’s why: Most renters fully expect that someday they will buy a house. And they know that without being able to count on that huge tax break on mortgage interest payments, it would be far harder to afford to make the transition to home ownership.
Okay, fine. But if he's going to claim this as analgous to gay marriage, I've got to take issue with it. Homosexual people will always be homosexual. Marriage will never, ever benefit them, no matter how hard they work or how much they save.
In my opinion, that's where his argument breaks down.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Extrapolating from that, though, we can put that meaning into his argument and it addresses your rebuttal. He calls homosexual unions reproductively dysfunctional. You argue that many heterosexual unions are "reproductively dysfunctional". But heterosexual unions in general are not. Homosexual unions are not just "reproductively dysfunctional" in general, they are in all cases.
beverly, I disagree that it addresses my rebuttal at all. While it is clear that he feels that marriage is only between men and women, and that an important, perhaps the most important, aspect of marriage is to have and raise children, it is decidedly not clear if he is in favor of marriage only for those couples who can, or *decide* to, have children.
It also does not address my points that there are other aspects of marriage which are beneficial to society. That, in fact, it is more beneficial to society to extend the institution of marriage to those who cannot concieve than it would be if it were to define marriage exclusively as between men and women for the purposes of reproducing....
Finally, to tack a little something on, it doesn't address the argument that there can be many different ideals in society for many different types of people. Marriage can mean one thing to society for people with children and entirely another for people who don't. That is, the ideal can be that if a couple has children, the ideal for society is that it supports that relationship and frowns on things that negatively impact the ability of that family to stay together ; but the ideal for couples without children can be scaled back such that monogamy, kindness, service to community is first and foremost.
posted
Yeah, I didn't have anything to add to your other argument points. Just the one I mentioned.
And that is an interesting idea about marriage meaning something different depending on whether or not there are children involved. But we are talking about our culture here, and generally in our culture marriage means that children are likely to follow. Because of that, things relating to marriage by nature need to be children-friendly.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on, that's not fair. You are quoting him out of context. He is not saying nor implying that the relationships are disfunctional. The term he uses is "reproductively dysfunctional relationships". I don't see how you can argue that homosexual relationships are not reproductively disfunctional, since they are incapable of reproducing.
I would have expected a better reading of the article.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with this article, as with ALL articles that attack the "fairness" aspect of gay marriage, is that OSC assumes without proving the idea that there is no social benefit to providing the same recognition to long-term gay unions that we do to long-term heterosexual unions. He claims that we have evidence that children need a father and a mother -- a claim that is frequently made by conservatives, but which ignores the fact that no such evidence exists -- and insinuates that gay marriage, rather than representing an affirmation of the importance of relationships to society, represents a surrender to immorality.
quote:If a woman and man promise to remove themselves from the marriage pool, take care of each other regardless of circumstance, provide for their children and bring them up to be responsible members of the society, then they should get special benefits.
Fair enough. This is what homosexual couples want to do.
There is no social structure currently available for homosexuals to do just this. The closest is the civil union, and I didn't notice where OSC expressed opinions on that. If he supports (or at least won't block) civil unions, I have no problem with the rest of his piece.
I don't believe I've ever seen it stated that gay parents would be, by default, "better" parents than straight ones. But I'd be willing to state that I think gay parents would be better parents than an orphanage or series of foster homes. I think a child with a gay biological parent would be better served if that parent could bond in a lasting relationship rather than stay single or stick it out in a loveless relationship.
[ April 04, 2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are two main reasons I believe that we cannot, as Storm Saxon says,
quote: I don't understand why the same ideals of fidelity and social responsibility can't be held for gay couples, just as they are held for childless or infertile couples.
1: The reasons the ideals of social responsibility can't be held for gay couples with regards to marriage is: Our marriage laws are a body of laws that have grown, from antiquity, to address the lack of parity between man and women in society, due to the fact that women bare children and have less strength as men do in the workplace. To suddenly take those laws and apply them to unions of same sex relationships is not reasonable.
2: The reason society views homosexuals differently is because they view themselves differently. Since "being gay" is so much apart of identity, we are encouraged to view them as "them." Of course this is a gross exageration, but my limited exposure to homosexuality supports this proposition in my mind--exceptions noted.
Gay marriage sounds great, but why is it necessary to have gay marriage when civil unions can afford them same legal responsibilities? I wonder if it is because homosexuals want to feel normal or want us to embrace their lifestyle as normal.
We are getting good at tolerance, but that doesn't seem to be enough. I wonder, if we pass gay marriage legislation, what percentage of the gay community would still feel gay. I don't think the issues a homosexual must go through will change, and I don't think it will offer any legal incentive that civil unions do not already offer. But it does move to make society "embrace" behavior that really is and will remain fringe.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Homosexual unions are not just "reproductively dysfunctional" in general, they are in all cases.
Not if you include artificial insemination for lesbian couples. In any case, I'm sure that scientific advances will make it perfectly possible for all gays to reproduce sometime in the next century.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or adoption. Even if its not physical reproduction its certainly a vital part of reproduction in the context of human society.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Storm that this is a well-written article, and I agree with beverly that OSC's position and its origins are known.
So there's nothing new?
Well, there's the main argument that it isn't fair of you to expect to be treated equally when it comes to things you aren't equally suited for. So far I generally agree (I think).
But then it becomes somewhat muddled, and I got confused. OSC seems to draw an analogy between "disabled" and "homosexual". The "disability" part seems to be equated with the "non-reproductive" aspect of same-gender relationships. At this point he jumps from "disabled people" to "dysfunctional relationships", applying the same basic fairness argument to both.
And his logic goes like this:
(A) IF (homosexual marriage) THEN (non-reproductive marriage).
(B) IF (non-reproductive marriage) THEN (bad marriage, or rather: "non-marriage").
Combination of (A) and (B) makes his argument.
As Storm pointed out, the problem is (B). (B) is not true. A single counterexample suffices to show that. Any marriage without kids should be annulled by this logic. This is why I'm confused. It's so obviously a logical fallacy that I keep thinking I'm missing something.
To take OSC's argument one step further, recall that truly "reproductive" means: at least two children per set of parents. So even marriages with a single child would not deserve to be called "marriage". Posts: 1045 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Come on, that's not fair. You are quoting him out of context. He is not saying nor implying that the relationships are disfunctional. The term he uses is "reproductively dysfunctional relationships". I don't see how you can argue that homosexual relationships are not reproductively disfunctional, since they are incapable of reproducing.
I would have expected a better reading of the article.
And I would expect a better reading of you of both my response and his own article. I'm not saying it's not true in some ways, I'm saying that it could have been phrased better so people understand exactly what, and who, he exactly means. As I already pointed out, he never says that he is addressing his phrase towards gay people, so the reader has to assume. But assuming that he is speaking of gay people, many gay men can reproduce if they ahve sex with women or if they are sperm donors. Many lesbians can reproduce if they are artificially inseminated or have sex with men. So, in this sense, his phrase is wrong when it comes to reproducing. But, is he only addressing reproduction? Isn't he saying that the relationships themselves are dysfunctional on a social level because they can't, or won't, have children? There is a strong indication of that in his article.
I do understand what you are saying, mph, as far as it not being insulting. It does read to me as insulting, but I understand why it is not insulting to you. I just think that there has to be a better word to use than dysfunctional, even if he is strictly speaking of the reproductive capabilities of a couple.
posted
I am interested in some of the points Alexa makes. Marriage was originally about binding men to the women they impregnate, helping those women to better raise children in a world where it was difficult for them to survive without a provider and protector.
Obviously our world has changed a lot since then, thus the arguments many make in favor of changing the age-old meaning behind marriage (man + woman).
Also, the issue of asking us to embrace it as normal with the word "marriage". Many of you have read my past posts where I clearly stated my views on homosexuality based on my faith. I have reasons for my viewpoint above and beyond the passages found in the Bible. I have issues with being asked to embrace gay union as normal.
I do view homosexuality as a disability. A homosexual is not "able" to desire to participate in a man/woman relationship. I suppose you could flip that and say that solid heterosexuals are disabled also. But what advantage is there in having the ability to be attracted to your gender?
I understand that not everyone believes as I do. But telling me I and my children must accept as normal what I can not (without abandoning my beliefs) is a troublesome issue to me. Don't know if it is troublesome enough to warrant legislation, though.
Edit: I am wondering, to what extent is gay marriage desirable because it is currently not available? Once it is made widely legal, will the fascination fade? Will there really be more stable, committed homosexual unions then their were before? I don't know.
posted
What I accept as normal is that human sexuality exists as a range. The overwhelming bulk of them in the middle are attracted primarily to the opposite sex. A small minority is off to one side and is attracted to the same sex only. Between them is a range of people who are attracted to both sexes, in varying degrees. On the far end is another small section of people who are not attracted to either sex. Where you land on this range depends on your genetics, your upbringing, your sexual imprinting, your sexual experiences.
What I accept as normal is that there will always be a small portion of humanity that is homosexual, just as there will always be a small portion of humanity that is left-handed or redheaded. And I fail to understand why allowing them a means of forming a recognized, long-term relationship is in any way a threat to heterosexual marriage. I'd like to see commitment reinforced, no matter the gender of the participants.
[ April 04, 2004, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And I fail to understand why allowing them a means of forming a recognized, long-term relationship is in any way a threat to heterosexual marriage.
I'm not quite sure how it is a threat to my marriage myself. But, considering I do believe that sexuality exists in a range just as you described, I believe that gay marriage will effect the sexual orientation of future generations. It doesn't threaten my marriage, but I do look at it as a threat to my children. I was raised in a world that encouraged heterosexuality. If I was raised in a world that encouraged homosexuality, I might very well be homosexual. By "encouraged" I don't mean just directly but indirectly as well.
But again, I recognize that not many people feel this way and this is one threat that I am probably just going to have to deal with as a reality.
For me, I don't think that public acceptance of homosexuality is going to cause that much of a change in the overall sexuality of the human race. There may be more experimenting or indulgence, but frankly there's always been a fair amount of that and most people still come out of puberty strongly heterosexual.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, beverly. You rock. I don't agree with your some of your posts, but you write so clearly and politely that it's very easy for me to sympathise with your view, if that makes any sense.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It that truly is the case, then I am not overly concerned about it because it does not really adversely effect me. I am trepidatious though, because I do not share your certainty. I think experimentation is different than being raised with the idea from infancy. But only time will tell, neh?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you both Storm and Chris. I fear to offend when I am open about my feelings on this matter, but my desire to be understood is also very strong. I appreciate the respect and politeness that I have felt here.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I need to become a writer... as soon as possible... So I can at least counter OSC's arguements... No one is trying to abolish marriage... Homosexual marriage would not have an adverse affect on society. It's like worrying about the barbarians at the gate, picking at the walls and foundations of society and ignoring the ones inside the gate. What negatively effects marriages are personal matters on the inside of marriages... Which is not to say that outside forces can't effect marriage, but it's not homosexuality we have to worry about...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly - it's obvious to me that you speak with respect for other people, with love for families (both yours and others), from a strong personal belief, and from loyalty to your society. We may differ in the specifics, but the ideals and dreams are the same.
[ April 04, 2004, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I see it, it is completely accurate to say that homsexual parnerships are reproductively disfunctional. They are not capable of reproducing on their own. The fact that they have to resort to adoption/artifical insemination/sperm donation in order to reproduce means that they *are* disfunctional in that regard.
Storm -- It wasn't until the third time through your first post that I see that I didn't understand it the first time. Sorry. But you quoting "reproductively disfunctional" as "disfunctional" did a lot to throw me off course. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are not capable of reproducing on their own. The fact that they have to resort to adoption/artifical insemination/sperm donation in order to reproduce means that they *are* disfunctional in that regard.
Right, but in the long run with genetic alterations they might not need any external measures at all. Or people could just change gender, like in Ian M. Banks's Culture books.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, just for the record, I would be more than willing to see marriage be exclusively defined to mean those people who have children and then call everything else civil unions. I think children and parents *are* important to society, and if society wants to recognize those people who take on that burden as the only ones being truly married, that's super and I think 'fair'.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Then its not a particularly useful or meaningful meaning of reproductively disfunctional.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Right, but in the long run with genetic alterations they might not need any external measures at all. Or people could just change gender, like in Ian M. Banks's Culture books.
When those exist, then it would make sense to base our laws on them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You still have yet to show a good argument for homosexual people not being allowed to marry (or at least have civil unions), and there have been several arguments put forward for homosexual marriage/civil unions that closely follow traditional arguments for marriage (solidarity of the family, stability of society, better environments for kids, and all that), so one would presume they are at least tolerable arguments.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of gay couples adopting, while I would rather see children go to stable, healthy heterosexual couples, I think that having stable parents is worlds better than being bounced around foster homes. Stable, healthy gay couples can provide this. To be able to say, "That's my mom" or "That's my dad" and have that anchor in life is so important. But I also like the "mom and dad combination" pattern to continue to be imprinted as much as possible on the rising generation, and that is not provided by gay couples.
From what I understand, babies are in high demand, especially "white" babies (or anyway, babies of the parents' race). It is the "non-babies" that are not getting placed. If someone could convince me that gay couples were more likely to adopt "non-babies", I would stand up and applaud.
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, a gay couple, like a hetero couple, would probably prefer babies and thus create more competition for babies and not ease up the foster situation much if at all.
So I guess my conclusion is that I am concerned about gay couples competing with hetero couples for babies, the children in highest demand who are usually not part of the "foster" crisis.
Edit: I guess my real point is that those who say that gay marriage will benefit society by helping the foster care situation does nothing for me.
quote: You still have yet to show a good argument for homosexual people not being allowed to marry (or at least have civil unions), and there have been several arguments put forward for homosexual marriage/civil unions that closely follow traditional arguments for marriage (solidarity of the family, stability of society, better environments for kids, and all that), so one would presume they are at least tolerable arguments.
Fugu, who is this comment directed at? I am not trying to make this argument, I am not sure who here is.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Also, it is reasonable to assume that homosexual couples would adopt less wanted babies in at least the same frequency that non-homosexual couples would adopt the less wanted babies -- thus reducing the number of babies in the foster system even if they adopt only at the rates of the general population.
In other words, even if your suppositions are completely accurate, your argument still falls flat, because some couples do adopt less wanted babies.
And as homosexual couples are definitely familiar with being excluded for reasons of intolerance, it may very well be that they are more accomodating (though history's record on similar situations is mixed).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I've got to say, those of you who disagree with Card on this subject are being FAR nicer to him this time around. [takes a huge sigh of relief at not having to leap in and defend him against rabid opponents] Thank you.
[ April 04, 2004, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize that the way people respond to him has a lot to do with the way he writes his columns?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu -- I haven't tried to present any arguments, because all the arguments that I can think of have already been debated to death. But to me, the one I find most compelling is that that by definition, marriage is between man and woman just like by definition, brothers are both male. Calling homosexual relationships marriages makes as much sense to me as declaring 11:00 AM noon (something that my state started doing today [die, daylight savings time!]). It's not noon, no matter what it's called, and it's not marriage.
But you asked about civil unions. I don't have anything to say about that, because I don't know what I think or feel about that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going a bit reflexively preemptive there, I apologize. What I was responding to was actually the common followup to statements like you made.
Re: what you just said, throughout much of history marriage was between a man and as many women as he could get to join him. Also throughout much of history marriage was between a man and girls as young as twelve. Also throughout most of history, a wife was a man's property.
We have changed the definition of marriage repeatedly throughout history.
Re: OSC's columns, I think he would find that were he more respectful to other people, other people would be more respectful to him, though I strive to be polite myself. Similarly, I think he would find if he did some basic fact checking and didn't make absolute statements when absolutes were not present he would find that his arguments were better received.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I hadn't thought about it that way. Just as some hetero couples adopt less desired children, gay couples would also. There is still my lingering concern though, it is a matter of weighing benefits.
But since I am not in the loop of making decisions for the nation (nor do I have any brilliant ideas on how I would run things) I will just stick to talking about how I feel to others.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weighing benefits is important, yes, but its not all about benefits. Its also about justice, and privileges, and respect, and equality.
Human beings are selfish, but I firmly take the position that we should not always take positions because they have the most benefits for us, but consider other people as important in and of themselves, and remember that society is an ecology, not a monolith.
posted
Yes. The homosexual community wants respect for their lifestyle. And there are many not willing to give it, and many who are actively against legitimizing it. And thus we have an impasse.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case the homosexuality is asking for respect for their committed relationships, whatever lifestyle those relationships fall under.
Despite the insistence of OSC, homosexual people live as many varied lifestyles as hetereosexual people. There are conservative, uptight homosexual people who don't like to talk about sex; there are party animal homosexual people who like to, well, party; there are middle class homosexual people who live in a nice neighborhood near Williamsburg with their partner and love to have their nearby family over (this would be a pair of my aunts). There is no "homosexual lifestyle" any more than there's a black lifestyle or a white lifestyle. Homosexual people take part in the lifestyles around them, just like everybody else; there's a bias towards more liberal lifestyles, but that's hardly surprising as conservative groups anathemize them.
The difference is that when homosexual people fall in love and eventually have sex with their lovers, the paired lovers are of the same sex.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry if you got offended at the term lifestyle in regards to homosexuals. I wish I could think of a term that will not offend. I don't see how what I said is offensive at all.
So let me re-phrase. Homosexuals want homosexuality to be accepted in society. There are others that want to make sure that it never is. *This* is what I was trying to say. Is *that* offensive?
I'm just a little frustrated. No matter how hard I try to not be offensive, somebody gets offended. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
But you quoting "reproductively disfunctional" as "disfunctional" did a lot to throw me off course. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
