Wellwisher said:
For the sake of argument, we assume homosexuality was natural.
A good assumption; reality is always a safe assumption.
Opposing homosexuality would also be natural, since this would a way to create a balance of instinctive imperatives.
Potsherd.
The former would be based on survival of the individual; being true to one's nature.
Potsherd.
While the latter is based on survival of the species.
Overpopulation presents a greater threat to the species than the natural occurrence of homosexuality. Indeed, were homosexuality so detrimental to the species, the trait would eventually select out; yet nature continues to create homosexuals, or, to put it in religious terms, God still blesses the conception and birth of homosexuals, and wills that they should exist.
The mother animal protecting her young balances the needs of the future of species, reflected as her baby, versus her own survival needs.
Laughably irrelevant.
In other words, if we all decided to become homosexual, with no sexual interest in the opposite sex ....
It is called
"The↱ Choicer↱ Challenge↱".
The impending threat of extinction, would create an instinctive backlash, connected to the survival of the species; the mother will protect the children at her own risk. A backlash would help restore a balance.
It's quite the fantasy. Why is cruelty so important that people must invent fantasies like this in order to justify it as a virtue?
The liberal dual standard tends to side with one of the two options, allowing individual choice, without regard to the needs of the survival of the species.
The "liberal dual standard" is thus revealed as exactly what it is,
a bigoted delusion.
This dual standard perpetuates a backlash, because the balance is artificially being induced to far to the left. There are more try-sexuals than there would be under a state of balance; too many faux homosexuals. These have a higher rate of attrition.
Yeah, we know that the backlash is justified by a delusion. That much has been apparent for a while.
If you look at animals, and what appears to be homosexual behavior, this is mostly done as foreplay, dominance or rape. When males dogs try to hump each other, it is for dominance, not love.
When you look at what appears to be heterosexual behavior, it is mostly done as foreplay, dominance, or rape.
And when gay penguins settle into routine domesticity as life partners?
The bottom dog is rarely a willing participant, unless he feels dominated. But even at that, there is no final coitus.
You do recognize the ethical question your argument presents?
Okay, this is how it goes:
Dude is spending that much effort thinking about dogs fucking.
Now, do we get to laugh, or is this significant of something else? To wit:
• Dude gets really, really drunk, for some reason ends up whipping it out in front of everybody, yes, we get to laugh and give him all manner of shit down the road. ("Dude, remember that time ...?")
• We do not, however, get to laugh when the developmentally impaired person is whipping it out because he doesn't know any better.
• Here's the catch: If Dude who got really drunk and whipped it out says, "Yeah, and I think I have a drinking problem", then at that point we all stop laughing and either help or get the fuck out of the way.
See how this works? We don't get to laugh at that sort of impairment. It has to do with human dignity, a notion we're all aware you have little care for.
So the question becomes whether we get to laugh at how stupid you're being, or whether that appearance of stupidity is significant of some manner of impairment that is beyond your control.
It is more social hierarchy theatrics. Dogs have crested a balance between the needs of the individual and the species. I would guess those who instinctively opposite all homosexual behavior, sense this line has been crossed.
No, they spend too much time thinking about homosexuals and homosexuality.
The POV of religion is, if homosexual sex was off the table, there would be no complaint.
The point of view of religion is based on a fantasy. It is an artifical construct. You overlook the fact that even if God exists as something more than simply the way things are, It is still ineffable. How we frail, finite humans shape our notions of God is more significant to our daily lives, communities, societies, and general human endeavor than God Itself.
If we assume one has sex 1 hour per day, every day, that is still only about 5% of the person. There is no beef with the other 95% of the person. This does not cross any instinctive line. The social problem is connected to the 5% being waived as a flag, so it appears like 95%. This is a democratic tactic used to divide people ; mutual overreaction, so they can get a block vote.
What is striking to me about how much time and effort homophobes put into dwelling on gay sex is that it still sounds and reads like gibberish that exists merely to give a person a pretense of a reason to talk about gay sex.
In the Military service, it was don't ask and don't tell, for many years. Most people don't pry into the intimacy of others.
Little over twenty, and never sincerely.
To the other, one of the things your point specifically overlooks is a longstanding social custom by which heterosexual men would of their relations with women. It's a quieter phenomenon these days because the culture is, indeed dynamic, and in my own generational cohort it has been interesting to watch how men have adjusted to parenthood, because it's true, having a mother, or having a sister, doesn't seem to have rung our bells about how men in general treat women in general within our society. And while there is obvservably a range of reaction and response and adjustment, there are significant numbers in which certain forms of sexism persist such that many of us, when we encounter it, think, "Dude, you have a daughter." And in many cases the question simply comes down to whether one actually needs to say that to the person or not. But generally coinciding with my generation's increased paternal engagement in daily parental and domestic affairs is an increasing, "Dude, not cool," reaction to certain forms of sexism.
But, for instance, I was born under Nixon; talk about a bad sign. The period in which I grew up is one in which a backlash against equal rights for women―also framed as an extinction paranoia in a significant range of the societal discourses―and our role models pretty much swam easily and blissfully in a sea of presupposing misogyny.
My point being that when you say,
"Most people don't pry into the intimacy of others", you are overlooking the amount men would talk about who they bedded, and in that context even "Don't ask, don't tell", was a one-way street. Before Clinton signed that compromise, the military was actively hunting for homosexuals in its ranks. And even after, when they ostensibly weren't, it turns out they were.
The strange thing about your sort of posts is that they are based on a series of presuppositions that are exactly the opposite of reality, and you make no effort to support such extraordinary claims. Rather, you present these bizarre constructions by which bigotry somehow becomes noble necessity. And your reliance on curiously awful dwellings on sexual behavior is just ... well, it says more about you than homosexuals, dogs, or rapists. It isn't so much a thin pretense you offer for drawing these issues into a common realm, but rather the amount of effort required; this is significant of something. It's just an unsettling prospect, trying to figure out just what.
____________________
Notes:
Savage, Dan. "The Choicer Challenge". The Stranger. 25 May 2011. TheStranger.com. 10 April 2015. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=8308624
—————. "Herman Cain, Choicer". Slog. 20 October 2011. Slog.TheStranger.com. 10 April 2015. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/20/herman-cain-choicer
—————. "Ben Carson: Being Gay Is a Choice and Prison Proves It". Slog. 4 March 2015. TheStranger.com. 10 April 2015. http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/sl...ot-being-gay-is-a-choice-and-prison-proves-it