{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/13/2013 12:22:26 AM
1
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?
English
-
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.
