Droopy wrote:Those of us who passed biology class in High School have little trouble with this claim.
If homosexuality is marginal, as you say below, then this claim doesn't apply to the situation.
This is more undigested Gay lobby boilerplate.
As I said, I provided information from two studies. I don't read "gay lobby boilerplate," whatever that is.
It is just as likely, if not far more so, that it is the practices, culture, and inherent nature of homosexuality are the primary factors driving its "underground" (hardly, by the way) marginalization within the larger society. This has always been so.
If it's as likely, please show me some data that support this notion.
In the first place, homosexuals (those who would identify exclusively and consistently as homosexual) comprise perhaps 3% of the population, so the practice itself is, indeed, marginal. Secondly, homosexual culture, and especially in during the seventies when Gay culture became much more open for critical inspection, has long, and among many of its past (especially pre-AIDS) intellectuals, been promoted as a liberating escape from the bondage of heterosexual sexual patterns, including child rearing and the traditional nuclear family. It was never concerned with heterosexual acceptance and celebration of its practices and lifestyle, and had no interest in "marriage." The original "Gay liberation" movement was interested in tolerance and ending discrimination while being left alone to pursue its own practices and relationships in its parallel culture. It is only from the eighties onward that the cry for tolerance moves to the demand for acceptance, celebration, and politically correct repression of principled opposition to the lifestyle respecting homosexuality become important, and the movement toward homosexual marriage only dates from the nineties.
I'm not talking about what the "gay liberation movement" wants. I am talking about what I think, after having thought this through. I believe very strongly that marriage is a stabilizing force in society, and it stands to reason that gay marriage would promote more stable, monogamous gay relationships, which I think are preferable to current practices.
Some of you babes-in-the-woods here who were only born in the seventies should have been with my in San Francisco in the seventies to see Gay culture up close and in mass.
I wasn't born in the seventies, Loran. I'm old. And I'm really not interested in gay culture. I'm interested in giving people opportunities to have stable and committed relationships. If marriage is too much, then civil unions are fine with me. I see this on the level of two people, not some broader, evil gay conspiracy. If two consenting adults want to commit to each other for life, we should encourage and celebrate it, whether they both have penises or not.
Nobody was talking about genetics then, and even fewer homosexual intellectuals and activists were talking about getting married, and strapping Gay culture with the very shackles of middle class, Judeo-Christian sexual ethics to which the gay subculture proudly stood in stark contrast.
I think you just made my point. A lot of gays did (and still do) proudly contrast themselves with the dominant culture. When you are marginalized, you have two options: make yourself invisible, or push back. The gay community has clearly pushed back, and it's obvious to most reasonable people that the promiscuity and health issues are a direct result of that pushback. You seem to implicitly recognize that.