{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Dredd:
1/13/2013 12:16:45 AM
2
Abnormal isn't necessarily problematic, but it s bit something we should ignore and deem normal like everyone wants to. A lot of people say homosexuality is normal, but this is just not the case. To grant rights to people with an abnormal condition, where the rights are relative to the condition, is ignoring the fact that its a problem and portraying the notion that homosexuality is an okay trait. It's about cultural perception. And if I may note, homosexual culture isn't a very clean or classy one.
English
-
[quote]And if I may note, homosexual culture isn't a very clean or classy one.[/quote] I believe the word '-blam!-' may have been invented to describe people like you. 'Homosexual culture'? What the hell is that? Am I part of a striaght culture that binds us all into one unified way of acting? #bellend
-
Alright, so if you're willing to grant that abnormal isn't always a problem, then you then have to establish that homosexuality is abnormal in such a way as to be a problem. If homosexuality is not 'a problem', the rest of your argument can't go forward. So why is homosexuality a problem? I'm pretty sure this brings us back to biological imperative, which I addressed a bit in my previous post. So a same-sex couple can't produce children. Less say your significant other is sterile, is it immoral to be allowed to marry them over someone who can produce children?
-
In regards to your last question, not necessarily. Being sterile is indeed a biological problem, yes, however I don't see it as big of a problem as homosexuality. Homosexuality is a lot more than missing a few reproductive properties since the two organisms aren't compatible for reproduction at all. Also, I would say it is slightly immoral to marry them (the sterile significant other) over someone who is able to produce children. I would like to continue my family name and culture, and continue to produce for my species.
-
Edited by Baha: 1/13/2013 12:42:17 AMI'd say what you would want isn't really relevant, but I know you're mostly just alluding to biological imperative which is totally fine. At this point my argument is that biological imperative shouldn't even be a factor in whether same-sex couples can marry. It is not what we use to define morality or acceptable behavior. This is why we have prohibitions against -blam!- (sexual assault), and why we don't stigmatize people who choose to remain single or just not reproduce in our laws.
