![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"The truth is that whether sexuality is biologically 'hardwired' or not we do all make choices. Every one of us, gay or straight, has free will, and although our range of choices may be restricted it is not eliminated. I don't think I could have chosen to fall in love with anyone other than my partner. I could certainly have chosen to deny my love for her, date men and pretend to enjoy it, find one willing to marry me, learn to endure sex with him, and live out my life as a good heterosexual wife. It would have made me miserable; and that's why I didn't do it. But it was a choice that was open to me.
"The argument for gay rights depends on our ability to defend that choice. What we are arguing for is not the right to be gay but the right to be honest and open about it. No, we can't choose who we're attracted to; but you know what, nobody can. Whether they're based in biology, psychology, spirituality, or some combination of them all, love and desire are not things that most people experience as consciously willed and chosen--whether they're gay or straight. What we *do* choose is to accept our loves and desires instead of repressing, denying, and fighting them. We are fighting for the right to make *that* choice and to have that choice respected."
-- ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
plaidder,
2005-05-10
Yes!
What is important is the right of individuals to be free and express themselves. As Plaidder says, the right to make the choice and have it accepted.
(no subject)
I choose to marry 5 other people... same logic make it legal.
I choose to be in a community in which all 500 of us are married.. same logic make it legal.
If we are going down this road where choice is the only standard then I would suggest the government get out of marriage all together, since clearly we have thousands of choices when it comes to sex and "marriage".
(no subject)
Hey, what a great idea you've come up with! It's only something I've been aruging for most of my adult life!
(no subject)
(no subject)
As my Prime Minister said, "In a nation of minorities, you can't cherry-pick rights."
(no subject)
Thats right there fore all the above mentioned forms of marriage should be legal in your country also... what they are not?
Well I guess that makes you or your Prime Minister a Incestualphobe, Polyaphobe, Groupaphobe, and communimarriageaphobe...
Clearly YOUR cherry picking not me. What I suggested was government getting out of it all together. This mean it becomes a totally personnal matter. But what you are suggesting is Homosexual marriage has more rights then the above list.
Please make up your mind... (wink)
For the record, free will is an illusion. You affirm this when you state, "we can't choose who we're attracted to; but you know what, nobody can", and "I don't think I could have chosen to fall in love with anyone other than my partner", and "It would have made me miserable; and that's why I didn't do it." Duh... who ever chooses miserable over not miserable? Every human is a pleasure seeking / pain avoiding organic machine.
You state, "although our range of choices may be restricted it is not eliminated", to which I ask you how much is not eliminated? .0000001%? .000000000001%? Just how much are you proposing is not eliminated?
Choice! No question we make choices, the thing is we don't make them freely. We choose based upon a priori criteria and it’s from those criteria that selection is made, and thus choices are in no way made freely. To come up with a different choice one would have to have a different set of criteria, which one of course does not have. (At the time of choosing one only has that one set of criteria.)
Free will is an illusion. “We are fighting for the right to make *that* choice and to have that choice respected." Well you already have claimed that you could not have made any other choice, you have stated that you have followed the one and only course that you could have chosen. What you are really fighting for is the right to not be penalized for doing what it is that you had to do.
Philosopherknight at gmail.com
(no subject)
Namely that laws that regulate sexuality are illegal because they violate the separation of church and state.
Every single one of the laws attacking or discriminating sexual orientation come from a point of view that is essentially, a religious bias. And what's more, within the religions who don't tolerate the "deviant"(as in deviating from the norm/mean) sexual orientations, it is generally only certain sects of the religions in question.
Legislating sexuality, therefore is promoted only by certain sects of certain religions, and so passing these laws is a violation of the separation of church and state, since the people who have an issue with them are doing so on religious, not legal groundings. It is illegal for the Government to favor one religion over others in legislation.
(no subject)
I'm sure the founding fathers thought the phrase "seperation of church and state" was unambiguous, but it certainly seems that they should have spelled it out more, including floggings about the head and shoulders for the pinheads who try to slip a national religion in sideways.