[Psudo]

I'm kinda flooding the thread, but I had another thought in response to:

ThePenguin wrote:

It's not as if we could stop the attraction we feel for people of the same sex

Are we discussing homosexual attraction or actions in response to those attractions? I totally oppose any criminalization of thoughts, urges, or intents unconnected to actions due both to privacy issues and the impossibility of enforcement. But in all laws, it is not the urges and thoughts we criminalize but actions. We don't arrest people for thinking about murdering their boss, or fine them for considering jaywalking. Lusting after another's spouse is not leverage in a custody case, but an affair with other's spouse is. If any law is created regarding homosexuality, it should never be the attraction to the same sex that is criminalized even if pursuing that attraction is declared to be a crime.

[Kjorteo]

Token introductory sentence, because beginning the post with a quote makes it not align properly.

Psudo wrote:

I can think of secular reasons to oppose gay marriage (reproduction and propagation of the species, higher STD rates, blah blah). Who decided the argument was saints vs. sinners?

The argument has been made by others before, and I will repeat it here, that establishing reproduction and propagation of the species as the main goal of marriage would lead to disastrous ethical implications. Would you prevent sterile couples from getting married? Would you prevent marired couples from getting sterilized? Some people just plain don't want children, you know. Besides, the line between sexual orientation and child-raising has been blurred by modern technology. We have managed to almost completely separate sex from reproduction. Heterosexual couples can use birth control or get sterilized. Homosexual couples can adopt. Lesbian couples can get in vitro fertilization. Making the argument that homosexual couples contribute less to the species, and should thus be banned, is not only cruel; it's incorrect.

As for higher STD rates, banning an entire practice because of some irresponsibility is overkill, and is completely unfair. That's kind of like when they tried Prohibition in the United States. Or like trying to establish some government board in charge of testing and issuing "permission to have children" licenses and outlawing birth without one, due to the fact that some people are terrible mothers.

Psudo wrote:

I think that's too few arguments. For example, you fail to define what an "adult" is. If a nation wants to pass a law saying anyone over the age of 9 is of the age of consent, does that inherently make it moral for a 10-year-old to sleep with a 65-year-old? Any fix to that either 1) creates an arbritrary line-in-the-sand age requirement for consent (which makes sex between a one-month-too-young individual and a one-month-too-old individual 'statutory') or 2) creates an age range limitation as an additional criteria above and beyond mere consent.

Well, of course no system of determining adult status and the ability to make informed consent will ever be perfect, for that very reason. There are ten-year-olds right now who are already more mature than some sixty-five-year-olds will ever be. In the absence of a magical way to determine mental age, I would stick to the legal definition, where a consenting adult is someone who has reached the legally-set age of consent, is of sound mind, and is not under duress. No, legally lowering the age of consent to 10 wouldn't make it right to sleep with a 10-year-old just on an ethical level, but I somehow doubt that's going to happen anyway. I'll take this system, because it's the best we have.

Besides, once again, you seem to be implying that homosexual couples are the only ones to which this would apply. How would you determine whether a man and a woman are allowed to be married, if adult status and consent are flawed?

Psudo wrote:

Are we discussing homosexual attraction or actions in response to those attractions? I totally oppose any criminalization of thoughts, urges, or intents unconnected to actions due both to privacy issues and the impossibility of enforcement. But in all laws, it is not the urges and thoughts we criminalize but actions. We don't arrest people for thinking about murdering their boss, or fine them for considering jaywalking. Lusting after another's spouse is not leverage in a custody case, but an affair with other's spouse is. If any law is created regarding homosexuality, it should never be the attraction to the same sex that is criminalized even if pursuing that attraction is declared to be a crime.

I question the moral implications of equating homosexual relationships with murder, but I see your point on thoughts vs. actions, and suppose this is just a simple disagreement on whether or not homosexual actions are wrong.

[JJ]

Psudo wrote:

On another note, why is an opposition to gay marriage inferred to be inherently religious in nature? Is it necessary to be a religious zealot (or religious at all) to side against gay marriage? I can think of secular reasons to oppose gay marriage (reproduction and propagation of the species, higher STD rates, blah blah). Who decided the argument was saints vs. sinners?

Well, for me at least, I can't help but see religious undertones when I see the extraordinarily disproportionate hostility to which homosexual couples are being persecuted by a flurry of anti-couple legislative tactics.

The fact remains that there are millions of homosexual couples living together, all over the United States. Most state have now passed constitutional bans on gay marriage, and most of those bans have in turn banned any sort of civil union status for gay couples as well. I think that latter point is extremely important, yet it often gets lost in the discourse.

I can understand, on some level, the desire to keep marriage separate and heterosexual only, for reasons of culture and history and so on. But what is being said when a state passes a law saying that absolutely no "legal incidents" under any title shall ever be allowed to any same-sex couple, ever? The only message I can infer from such a heavy-handed approach is "we don't approve of your lifestyle and don't think you should be living together." That's really no one's business, and can only have religious motivations, in my view.

My problem is really less about gay marriage per se, and more about the hostility which is inspiring all these pre-emptive bans. I think Governor Schwartzenegger's opposition was much more fair, he's basically said that legalizing gay marriage is not a priority, but if the courts determine it to be a key legal right he will accept it. I think that's a fair approach, since at its core this is really a legal issue, and should not be colored as an "us versus them" culture war.

[EBounding]

The best solution to this would be to remove government from marriage all together. But then you're axing a huge voting bloc, so that's never going to happen.

[Kjorteo]

JonUNA wrote:

Well I understand what JJ was getting at with this toon, in that it is strange that former dictatorships would allow gay marriage before a country like the US would. However, I think it's only useful to note that Canada, South Africa and any number of countries began to recognize gay marriage only because of judicial activism.

As I said before, "judicial activism" is quite often used as a buzzword by grumpy conservatives who don't like their regressive laws being declared unconstitutional.

Personally, I feel that allowing any religious ceremony to convey legal weight, even the most traditional heterosexual Baptist wedding, is a violation of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, and should be struck down. I'm not making this up just because I think it would be fun to ban weddings; I'm looking at the First Amendment, where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and deciding that this is wholly inconsistent with the practice of recognizing some religious ceremonies (Christian weddings) but not others (pagan rituals, or those certain rogue Christian churches here and there that hold gay weddings.) At best, it favors one religion (or several religion) over another (or others,) and at worst, it establishes and acknowledges religious ceremonies with legal status in the first place, abridging the separation of Church and State.

Now, think about this: If you woke up one day, and it had announced that the Supreme Court suddenly decided to revoke legal status for all weddings, can you even begin to imagine how many cries of "judicial activism" would be thrown about? Especially on FOX News.... Yet, as I just explained, that's not really "activism" so much as realizing that certain laws and practices just don't mesh with the United States Constitution.

Yes, people overwhelmingly vote in favor of more regressive principles and practices. They always have. The United States South used to be an invincible Democratic stronghold, until Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. Since then, it has turned into an invincible Republican stronghold. Clearly, the voters favored keeping society segregated, but should we have kept the status quo due to majority opinion? The Constitution was written specifically to defend the individual and the small groups against the pressure of vast majority opinion. It says that no matter how outvoted you are, that's okay; you're still free. The courts interpret the Constitution, and strike down regressive laws accordingly. They are only human, of course. There can be some bias even at the Supreme Court level, depending on which party appointed the justices. It's the best system we have, though, and I assert that "judicial activism" is why the Constitution has survived for as long as it has.

[Dogmeat]

Hey guys, long time Filibuster reader, first time poster, etcetera...

Quote:

As the member of a family of attorneys (father, stepfather, two grandfathers, uncles, etc) I can tell you that the marital "benefit" for tax reasons is not only "overstated," but a complete farce in the United States. There are several marriage penalties not being mentioned.

As the member of a family of attourneys, one would think that you would be able to grasp the larger picture here. You also have basic humanitarian rights that same sex couples are denied, such as hospital visitation. And here's one I know firsthand... immigration.

Here in Australia a very similar stance to the US has been adopted. Same sex marriage is completely banned. No civil unions, no legal recognition, nothing at all. You're either married to someone of the opposite sex or you're not. My partner and I met online, we have been in a long-term relationship and spend what time we can with the expensive plane tickets and lengthy stays. We have wanted to live together as a couple for a long while, but I live in Australia and he lives in Mexico, and neither government will recognize us as a couple or provide a visa so we can be together. Even if we married in Spain (his home country) where it's legal, Australia no longer recognizes same sex marriage certificates from other countries, thanks to a recent law by our prime minister, John Howard. My partner desperately wants to live here in Australia with me, and in order for him to do that he has to move his college studies here, at great expense, for a student visa. We then have to live together for a year, without room-mates or any other form of financial support other than my own meager salary, which will barely support me on my own much less pay for a university course up front and then support the both of us for twelve months. After all that, we get an intermediary visa and are treated as a de facto couple, with no legal rights.

If one of us had been of the opposite sex, we would be allowed to live together with full marriage benefits and no question upon getting a visa and later on complete citizenship, based on nothing more than the fact that we are legally married as a straight couple. Yeah, no discrimination here...

Quote:

Ad ridiculum. The problem is far more complex than our Canadian counterparts seem to view it. By your own admission, you hardly understand your own government - a fact which probably makes gay marriage easier, since convention reigns over law. But in the US, where there are more attorneys than in the rest of the world combined, these are very serious questions. Also, where do we draw the line? Why is homosexual marriage permitted and bigamy or polygamy banned? While many nations in the world allow 13 year olds to marry 46 year olds, why are we labeling similar pairings in our nation as child molestation (See Warren Jeffs). I'm not advocating these things, I'm just saying that the line is a very gray one, and the only thing that currently demarcates it is our prejudice against such things.

Absolutely! And it's prejudice that prevents same sex couples from marrying, or at least gaining legal recognition. I have no issues with polygamy, on the provision that all parties are consenting. As for the actual AGE of consent, I think that needs to be left up to the nation itself, and is more a question of when someone is biologically capable of making a mature and rational decision, rather than an issue of morals.

[gattsuru]

ThePenguin wrote:

The actual reality is closer to the fact that the citizens of the country get milk. After some time, some citizens have grown lactose intolerant. Try as they might, milk just isn't working for them. It's true that they may choose not to drink the milk since no one is forcing them to, but then why can't the government just let them have a different kind of milk instead? It doesn't even have to be milk, it could just be juice-- provided they could still have some form of drink since everyone else is entitled to it.

Er, even in the case of children, the government is not required to provide lactose-free alternatives simply because they don't like the taste of milk. In the case of adults, the concept is just insulting : the government should not be our nanny.

It's also not an apt comparison : we're talking capabilities to do an action that arises as a natural results in the milk comparison, while gay marriage is a matter of government recognition of a legal status. I don't think your comparison is any more accurate than the water fountain one, even if it does make your side easier to agree with.

Quote:

It's easy for straight people to say, "Just deal with it," like a Muslim in Saudi Arabia would tell non-Muslims when it comes to practicing their religion on their soil. But when you try and see it from the minority's perspective, it really sucks.

Sucks is having anyone with a certain type of neurology intentionally electrocuted and/or starved. Sucks is being, or being the victim of systemic eugenics even if you'd be able to live a normal life. But that's not what we're talking about, here, and hasn't been the fate of homosexual individuals for decades. But the fights against former, under the flag of autistic rights, doesn't matter to anyone here. Not having a judge make funny noises in a crowded room... not so sucky. Apparently gets a lot of attention, but this isn't exactly a strong argument.

We're not talking about making gay sex illegal. There's no such thing, first of all, due to Blanchflower v. Blanchflower, and Lawrence v. Texas makes it impossible to ban such things. We're not talking about telling you you can't do anything on our soil, at least not in regard to what you or you lover do. We're talking about what the government is forced to recognize, and I fail to see why this, of all things, is significant.

Quote:

It's not as if we could stop the attraction we feel for people of the same sex-- believe me, if I could I would. I've always told my friends that if I had the option to be straight, I will. Everything is there for you and there's nobody questioning whether or not you just have it wrong, whether or not you should be able to adopt, whether or not you should get married, whether or not you should get tax breaks, etc. Life is just that much easier.

There has actually been some advancement in training bisexual responses : no real surprise, given that such actions seem to be basic in our ancestors. Wouldn't recommend it, though, as it's all as much crap as anything else Lovaas made up or was associated with, and the attempts to create heterosexual-only behavior are total disasters.

I fail to see what this has to do with the matter, though : we're not talking about your physical or mental responses, nor the natural progression of those. We're talking about government recognition of a fairly abstract concept, and not only that, in complete alteration of the past few thousands of years of understand of that concept.

Quote:

And to be honest, I don't even feel the need to get married as the romanticized version of the word goes. I just believe that I should be entitled to the same benefits and privileges as the next person, regardless of the gender of the person I'm with.

And in order to do that, you're redefining words that are old as the hills (even pro-homosexual behavior cultures did not allow what we consider gay marriage), as well as give further credence to the concepts of "rights" that only exist because the government gives them to you, and only apply to groups of people.

And, even better, you're willing to ignore the massive political backlash the current mechanism will cause, while completely ignoring how easy it would be to simply fight individual smaller cases of discrimination (the infamous contested wills or closed hospital rooms, for example) 'til people think of gay partners as already being married in function if not form, a tactic that's been far more effective for other civil rights groups.

[Psudo]

Kjorteo, you ignored my point about religion.

Kjorteo wrote:

Besides, once again, you seem to be implying that homosexual couples are the only ones to which this would apply. How would you determine whether a man and a woman are allowed to be married, if adult status and consent are flawed?

We're getting dangerously close to supporting arranged marriages. After all, anyone with kids old enough to consider marriage is certainly old enough to qualify as an adult when opining on the topics of sex and marriage. =] As Apu from the Simpsons mentioned merely 1 in 20 arranged marriages ends in divorce.

(Yes, the preceding paragraph is tongue-in-cheek.)

Kjorteo wrote:

I question the moral implications of equating homosexual relationships with murder, but I see your point on thoughts vs. actions, and suppose this is just a simple disagreement on whether or not homosexual actions are wrong.

I didn't mean to equate homosexual relationships with murder in terms of scale or violence or anything, and apologize if I did so. Personally, I think the adultery comparison was the most accurate; both involve sex drive overriding societal norms to engage in consensual sex. Also, neither are criminal charges, nor should they be.

However, since we are debating homosexual actions only, how does that alter the claim that gays are "born that way"? One cannot be born acting. One can be born with a predisposition to act a certain way, but if that predisposition is to act immorally we are still accountable to resist that predisposition. If "All men are Created Equal", then we must account to them equal ability to resist their predispositions if they so choose.

And the argument of prejudice -- it ceases to be a question of treating individuals differently because of their birth traits, as with racism or sex discrimination. If an element of choice pervades homosexuality (which, when treating it as homosexual action alone, it must), we are instead treating people differently for how they act. It cannot be prejudicial discrimination to treat people differently based on how they act; how else can people be treated?

Treating people badly for their attraction is discrimination, and I oppose it. Homosexual (in the sense of attraction) individuals should never be denied jobs, adoption rights, or legal status due to their attraction. But the same cannot inherently be said for practicing homosexuals based on the same arguments.

I recognize that discrediting the arguments defending the practice of homosexuality is not the same as offering arguments condemning homosexual practice. I haven't demonstrated homosexuality to be wrong, but rather demonstrated that several arguments defending it as a civil right are flawed.

Kjorteo wrote:

Personally, I feel that allowing any religious ceremony to convey legal weight, even the most traditional heterosexual Baptist wedding, is a violation of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, and should be struck down. I'm not making this up just because I think it would be fun to ban weddings; I'm looking at the First Amendment, where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and deciding that this is wholly inconsistent with the practice of recognizing some religious ceremonies (Christian weddings) but not others (pagan rituals, or those certain rogue Christian churches here and there that hold gay weddings.)

The problem with this argument is that the recognition of marriage ceremonies is totally equal in regards to what religion (or if a religion) supports the ceremony. Pagan rituals are just as respected as Baptist or Catholic ceremonies. My brother-in-law got married in a pagan ritual, as his bride was pagan. I was married in a civil ceremony with no religious representation at all. It is not the religion that tips the scales of legal recognition, but the parties being married.

---

I could rant about judicial activism vs. proper judicial ruling and how the right misuses the term "judicial activism", but it seems of lesser relevance.

---

J.J. - I agree with you when you say that there are religious undertones in "extraordinarily disproportionate hostility" to homosexuals (for example, the fanatical slimeballs that run godhatesfags.com), but there remains a sensical, rational, (most importantly) secular argument against gay marriage as well. Lumping all opposition to homosexuality as "religious" in nature creates a straw-man argument to be destroyed by separation of Church and State, leading to the false impression that the argument over gay marriage is philosophically over. The debate is not sufficient until secular arguments against gay marriage are heard.

I refused to have my position defined by extremist fanatics with whom I do not agree.

[Antropos]

Hello everyone. I'm a long time reader of Filibuster Cartoons and I'm very thankful for the special features (such as the Guide to Canada and other various essays and charts) that helped me learn more about Canada. Thank you, JJ.

---

Quote:

there remains a sensical, rational, (most importantly) secular argument against gay marriage as well

As far as I've seen, the only non-religious argument is that SSM (or civil unions) are somehow harmful to the state, since it fails to provide child-baring couples. Others have already shown this to be logically incorrect and false, but nobody addressed the alarming Fascist notes in that statement.
The idea that a person or a couple exist to serve the state, or that their the purpose of their union is to serve the state by providing offspring does not only violate any basic human morals, but also the very spirit of the Constitution.
A person does not serve the state, but the state exists to serve any and all people living in it. The only exception to this is when a person seriously and visibly harms another.

Your other argument - higher STD rates - isn't even worth considering since it's both factually and logically wrong. What people are more predisposed to get and transmit STD - people that leave in a socially and legally accepted rough frame that make adultery harder, or people that know they have no chance of forming a family and are considered morally inferior?
Not so surprisingly, recent studies in countries that have allowed some sort of same sex unions (if I'll find the study again I'll link to it) showed a drastic decrease in STD.

You've implied that the act of homosexual sex is immoral:

Quote:

if that predisposition is to act immorally we are still accountable to resist that predisposition

Could you explain to me by what "rational, secular" moral values can homosexuality be describes as immoral? Can you do it without degrading to ridiculous "slippery slop" arguments that the fundies are so fond of?

Eventually, since neither you, nor anyone else has provided any evidence for the harm that may be caused to heterosexuals from SSM (except for the usual judicial nitpicking), you fail to show why would a secular person oppose SSM.

Quote:

I refused to have my position defined by extremist fanatics with whom I do not agree

Nevertheless, it is. Those angry, bearded Jews, Muslims and (beardless) Christians are the only people that can produce coherent and (pseudo) moral arguments against SSM. You're either with them or against them.

[Psudo]

Antropos, your post adds nothing new to the conversation.

I have given no arguments condemning homosexuality (except as examples of the existence of secular arguments, which I still failed to argue for myself). I have intentionally avoided giving arguments against homosexuality, and have expressly drawn attention to that lack of condemnation. Your implication that I lean towards fascism or religious extremism are more strongly stated and have less basis in fact than any condemnation of homosexual sex from me.

You provide even more examples weak pro-gay-marriage arguments when you dismiss all arguments against gay marriage as "Fascist" or "judicial nitpicking" and declare baselessly that I am either with the religious fanatics or against them. Perhaps I would be with them if I were throwing stones at homosexuals or promoting legislation criminalizing public displays of homosexual affection. I'm not doing any such thing.

And what "slippery slope" argument did I ever use?

Anyone who denies the existence of moderate views on an issue suggests their own position is radical. You seem to do this with your "Us or them" rhetoric.

[Psudo]

Here's a new secular argument regarding homosexuality that you may not have heard before.

For homosexuality to have survived countless generations of human history into the modern era, one of the three following statements must be false:
1) Homosexuality reduces reproductive likelihood.
2) Homosexual attraction is a genetically hereditary trait.
3) Evolution accurately describes how genetic traits develop.

If all three statements are true, the reduced prevalence of homosexual genes in further generations would gradually reduce the frequency of homosexual individuals until the number reached zero. Obviously this has not happened, so one of the above statements must logically be false.

I suspect it to be #2. Evolution has a very strong scientific backing, and it seems pretty resonable to say homosexuals have a decreased interest in procreative sex.

If homosexual attraction is, in fact, not a genetically hereditary trait, what is it? A psychological trait? A spiritual trait?

Which side of the argument is religious now?

[Swarm]

Are you assuming that because a trait is present within someone's genes, it is obviously going to be a dominant trait and manifest itself?

Is genetic predisposition a form of mind control?

Psudo wrote:

Which side of the argument is religious now?

The side that takes a religious position, e.g. the big guy on the cloud told me he hates fags as much as I do so we shouldn't let them get married.

[Antropos]

I'll continue to argue that all opposition to SSM draws from either fascism or religious extremism until you prove me wrong - something you failed to do.

You're against SSM and aren't decent enough to say why you're against it. In almost all of your comments you've implied that either SSM or the act of homosexual sex is morally wrong or can be considered as such, but never explained why. For some reason, all of your arguments (the ones that weren't composed of irrelevant legal nonsense) were either of possible reasons to condemn SSM or ones that are widely supported by anti-SSM and homophobic religious groups.
Since you're so good at hiding your motives, I had no other option but to assume that you're condemning homosexuality as well. I'm sorry to say that I didn’t think you have the audacity to advocate believes which you don't support. If it's some sort of an intellectual exercise, you should stop it now - you're not making a very good case.

Now, having said that, I think that you should come out and say why are you opposed to SSM or civil unions and whether or not you think homosexual sex is morally wrong.
Since I've already told you my position on this issue (it's not immoral, the current situation is needlessly harming same-sex couples, therefore their status should be changed and they be given equal rights as straight couples) you say yours, so that I wouldn't have to play hide-and-seek with your different arguments, guessing whether they are sincere or mere examples.

Quote:

You provide even more examples weak pro-gay-marriage arguments when you dismiss all arguments against gay marriage as "Fascist" or "judicial nitpicking"

I don't dismiss all arguments as fascism or nitpicking, just the ones you've made. I'm well aware that there could be other arguments, but I'm also aware that they could come only from the religious side.

Quote:

if I were throwing stones at homosexuals or promoting legislation criminalizing public displays of homosexual affection

You don't have to. There are more subtle ways to harm and alienate homosexuals from public life. One of those ways is to deny them the equality they deserve.

Quote:

And what "slippery slope" argument did I ever use?

Saying that the current definition of the right to marry (two consenting adults...) could lead to "10-year-old to sleeping with a 65-year-old" is a "slippery slope" argument.

Quote:

Anyone who denies the existence of moderate views on an issue suggests their own position is radical. You seem to do this with your "Us or them" rhetoric.

You were the one to bring up the slavery issue. I disagree with JJ because in my opinion the SSM issue goes far beyond the legal field (hence my hostility for the different legal arguments). It even goes beyond homosexual rights. If it were just a legal issue, it wouldn't have caused so much uproar around the world, in countries with completely different legal systems.
This is indeed a culture war against one of the most common prejudices in the human race and the various murderous religions that support it as God's will. It's "us or them" because ideologists (a.k.a. fundies) are never satisfied with the current state of affairs, and once they win this round they'll go after the straights by prohibiting and preventing the development of different STD medicine (which is already happening in US).
The word "radical" doesn't intimidate me. Label me as want - it's always better than dealing with the actual arguments.

-----

Your latest argument shows a great deal of ignorance in biology.
In addition to what Swarm have said, non-dominate traits can be constantly maintained in the population, if the number of the individuals is large enough. The more the gene/s are prone to mutate, the less individuals are needed to maintain a constant homogenous presence.

Here's a completely unrelated example:
CF (Cystic Fibrosis) is a common, usually recessive, autosomal disease, which has a very large variety of causes and effects. Many CF types are either deadly or cause sterility.
One would assume that without advanced treatment, most CF patients won't reproduce and the disease would simply die out. Nevertheless, same types of CF have a very stable occurrence rate in all populations, though the frequency of the different types of CF and CF in general may vary in different ethnic groups.

Quote:

Which side of the argument is religious now?

Definitely yours. Religious people adore bogus scientific arguments.
----

And one comment to Swarm:

Quote:

Is genetic predisposition a form of mind control?

Yes, it is. People aren't attracted to sea iguanas not because of our upbringing, but because our genes tell us not to. Even seriously mentally ill people, who can't be effectively effected by their environment, are still attracted to humans.
Though our intellect is capable of certain deviations, those are very rare, are almost never the prime choice and/or have many human properties.

[Kjorteo]

Psudo, I apologize for failing to specifically address your argument regarding the link between homophobia and religion. I was too eager to dissect everything else, and the statement that you can oppose homosexuality for non-religious reasons seemed basic enough to me that I didn't have to specifically agree with it. Please don't take my lack of response as ignoring the point or trying to evade it. It was more like an unspoken "Well, yeah, duh."

As for everything said since then, I don't especially want to post my counter-arguments, as others already have and I do not wish to mindlessly repeat them. I will, however, ask you this: the argument you seem to be making is that homosexuality itself is not immoral (thought crimes, etc.) but homosexual acts are. Why? What's so bad about consenting adults of the same sex getting together and doing...well...anything? It is entirely possible to separate heterosexual attraction with actual heterosexual acts, yet you haven't made the claim that actual heterosexual sex is wrong. Why the double standard?

[Swarm]

But isn't it possible for negative influences to block our predispositions to whatever example you like? In theory, with the right enviromental conditions, you could raise people who are attracted to sea iguanas. I say in theory because strangely enough no one has ever tried.

Basically, it's not absolute, is it? Predisposition can be overriden with other forms of control.