tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post111947222850979564..comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00Comments on The Jon Rowe Archives: Jonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1119911431539314112005-06-27T18:30:00.000-04:002005-06-27T18:30:00.000-04:00It's true that the left-handed and right-handed co...<I>It's true that the left-handed and right-handed condition are interchangeable; but given that heterosexuals can procreate but homosexuals can't, those two conditions aren't.</I><BR/><BR/>But that's just not true -- there is NOTHING wrong with gay people that makes them unable to procreate! What makes a left-hander unable to lift a barrel isn't his left-handedness -- it's his LACK of a right arm! Same for gays -- they can, and do, procreate, but ONLY with the opposite sex. They aren't "broken" in any phsyical sense, like your deaf person most certainly is!<BR/><BR/>Would i tell a deaf person not to use sign language? No more than i would tell a left-hander not to use his right arm, after his left was amputated. But you cannot simultaneously argue that homosexuality is not a handicap, and them make comparisons to the truly handicapped to prove your point.<BR/><BR/>Mentally handicapped perhaps? There's certainly nothing physically broken down there -- as proven daily by gays and lesbians down at the fertility clinic, seeking sperm donors and surrogate wombs...Martyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14777483678013218629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1119881578272223922005-06-27T10:12:00.000-04:002005-06-27T10:12:00.000-04:00Marty,Your comments illustrate that the left-hande...Marty,<BR/><BR/>Your comments illustrate that the left-handed analogy can be taken only so far.<BR/><BR/>It's true that the left-handed and right-handed condition are interchangeable; but given that heterosexuals can procreate but homosexuals can't, those two conditions aren't.<BR/><BR/>Homosexuality may perhaps best be understood as a minor disability; given that homosexual couples (at the present time) lack the ability to procreate.<BR/><BR/>We can search all we want but we will never be able to find the perfect "analogy" because analogies by nature compare "apples with oranges." Comparing "apples to apples" is comparing duplicates. All analogies have differences.<BR/><BR/>Again, let me offer an imperfect analogy: deafness. The deaf lack the ability to hear -- that's the disability part of it. <BR/><BR/>But they adapt to their circumstances by learning sign language which enables them to communicate -- not in the same way that they could with hearing -- but in a very effective and meaningful way nonetheless.<BR/><BR/>If the lack of procreation or the lack of attraction to the opposite sex is the "disability" then entering into meaningful and fulfilling homosexual relationships is the sign-language or the way to accommodate the disability.<BR/><BR/>The problem I have with your side is that you tell the homosexual person to not enter into homosexual relations or to essentially live a celibate life. A celibate life still lacks procreation or attraction to the opposite sex. Hence it still maintains the "disability" aspect of homosexuality.<BR/><BR/>That's like saying to a deaf person, while it's ashame that you can't hear, don't you dare try to communicate in any other way than the "normal" way, because using sign language is "unnatural," "abnormal," "sinful," "perverse," or whatever empty pejorative term you want to attach.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1119828765661439472005-06-26T19:32:00.000-04:002005-06-26T19:32:00.000-04:00I'm late to this party, but must object to the lef...I'm late to this party, but must object to the left-handedness metaphor. There is nothing can the right hand can do that the left cannot, and vice versa. And yet there are things that ONLY a right AND a left hand can do -- something as critical (ok, much moreso) than "opposable thumbs" in primates. <BR/><BR/>A left-hander can be taught to use the right hand, and vice versa, even if it comes unnaturally. But in the current example of same-sex couples, this is no mere "left-handedness" -- it's more like "no right handedness!"<BR/><BR/>And in every case, a right handed person who loses his favored arm, becomes left-handed pretty darned quick. Still, there are things he just can't do -- not because he favors this arm or that -- but because he's missing a <I><B>crucial</B></I> opposite. <BR/><BR/>Two left arms won't do you much good, even if you're left handed.Martyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14777483678013218629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1119709354274683152005-06-25T10:22:00.000-04:002005-06-25T10:22:00.000-04:00-- I have a question. if homosexuality is purely g...-- I have a question. if homosexuality is purely genetic, wouldnt the identical twin homosexuality rate (of separated twins) be even higher? if anything, the science thus far only makes a case (though not conclusively) that homosexuality is *partly* but not wholly influenced by nature. --<BR/><BR/>It's not purely genetic; or at least it's not genetic like eye-color or hair color. But again, the same thing can be said of left-handedness. Identical twins have higher but not indentical concordance rates re: handedness. And there are many twins where one is left-handed the other right-handed. But we still don't then conclude that being left-handed is a "life-style" choice.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1119684270490034332005-06-25T03:24:00.000-04:002005-06-25T03:24:00.000-04:00I have a question. if homosexuality is purely gene...I have a question. if homosexuality is purely genetic, wouldnt the identical twin homosexuality rate (of separated twins) be even higher? if anything, the science thus far only makes a case (though not conclusively) that homosexuality is *partly* but not wholly influenced by nature.<BR/><BR/>Gays have equal protection. I don't consider marriage a "right". The state is in its right to promote marriage as a monogamous heterosexual institution because most monogamous heterosexual relationships involve procreation and that binds parents to their children which is important for everyone. a person can do all kinds of kinky crap in the privacy of their own home and not be bothered but I can't see how marriage is a civil right. Technically speaking, gay people can marry members of the opposite sex, they obviously just don't want to. Nothing stops them from protecting eachother and providing for eachother legally, the state is not obliged, morally or as a state interest to put their stamp of approval on these unions. the state doesnt sanction polygamy but that doesn't stop threesomes from cohabitating and behaving like married couples, the state, with good reason, simply chooses not to endorse that type of setup because it isnt in the best interest of children who, last I heard, come from one man and one woman. as far as whether or not homosexuality is genetic, there is no compelling evidence that it is entirely genetic and there is some evidence that it is partially genetic. Religious people are entitled to believe as they will, same as secular people are. I imagine that if religious people find homosexuality sinful, it might ease their views if it were discovered that a strong biological component were involved. Then again, while most homosexuals are probably strongly compelled by instincts, there are still some people who enjoy experimenting. Some people dont think there's anything wrong with it, others do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1119581035512148632005-06-23T22:43:00.000-04:002005-06-23T22:43:00.000-04:00CPT: Yes -- even if one could argue something to b...CPT: <BR/><BR/>Yes -- even if one could argue something to be a biological defect or "abnormality," (I'm surprised you didn't mentioned male pattern baldness in there) "biological abnormalities" have nothing to do with the morality or "legitimacy" of the condition, and absent further evidence or argument, things that are "built in," -- that we don't choose -- like homosexuality, or premature graying are "neutral" like race or handedness.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1119556146719751742005-06-23T15:49:00.000-04:002005-06-23T15:49:00.000-04:00Love the post Jon - and I have recently been think...Love the post Jon - and I have recently been thinking of another analogy. I, like my father, and his father and mother, am prematurely gray. I began going gray (actually I am losing my hair pigment, so it goes pure white) at the age of 14 - and was completely white at some point in my 20s. My father and his father were both totally gray by age 30, his mother was totally gray by age 18.<BR/><BR/>This is not a "normal" occurrance - most human beings go gray at a much later age. But just because my hair is not the norm does not make it "unnatural" - in fact anyone who saw me would automatically conclude that the hair color was a natural phenomenon. <BR/><BR/>Those against gay rights often like to use the relatively small number of gay people to argue against its "naturalness." They also like to use the argument that homosexuality is incompatible with typical reproduction in the human species to argue it cannot be natural.<BR/><BR/>Both left-handedness, and premature graying, and vitiligo (loss of skin pigment - which is more common in those of African descent) and a whole host of other "abnormal" physical phenomenon are also present only in small numbers of people, and they may interfere with the "normal" reproduction of humans (certainly both premature gray hair and vitiligo make one look older and less attractive - so you are less likely to attract a mate).<BR/><BR/>But because no one puts any "moral" value on these traits, no one ever considers them anything but biological.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1119484886866382762005-06-22T20:01:00.000-04:002005-06-22T20:01:00.000-04:00Excellent post as usual, Jon.I think though, that ...Excellent post as usual, Jon.<BR/><BR/>I think though, that almost anyone who makes even a modest effort with an open mind will quickly come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not a choice. So what? I don't see it translating into an expansion of gay rights anytime soon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1119478682607495632005-06-22T18:18:00.000-04:002005-06-22T18:18:00.000-04:00My pleasure!My pleasure!Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1119477395191364592005-06-22T17:56:00.000-04:002005-06-22T17:56:00.000-04:00Thanks for another great post.Thanks for another great post.Bill Warehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11678665649603726370noreply@blogger.com