Yep, its as natural as a square peg going into a round hole. What can any rational individual say, really?
You could say what's true: You don't know what causes people to be homosexual, you don't know if it has some kind of suvival value that you haven't recognized yet, and that until you do know all the facts you have decided to stop practicing your innate bigotry against them.
Lots of married women stay in abusive marital relationships simply because she is incapable of providing for herself or her children on her own.
Lots of unwanted pregnancies are intentionally aborted simply because the mother cannot provide for an extra child.
Lots of mothers are, either forced to give up promising careers or are forced to work instead of concentrating on being mothers full time.
If motherhood is a right, then these situations point to some prejudice towards that right, no?
No, prejudice is something that people practice against each other. The situations you outlined are simply circumstances that exist because of bad choices or even bad luck. Passing laws against a group of people you don't like in order to hurt them is prejudice--kind of like the Jim Crow laws against black people or the discriminatory ones against gay people.
Gay men have no right to motherhood, regardless.
Anyone who does the work has the right to help children--call it motherhood or something else--you are splitting hairs for the sake of argument.
Motherhood still cannot manifest from a lesbian relationship.
Right, now that's PREJUDICE. Single moms can't do it either then, can they?
These facts are still facts no matter how many times you call me a bigot.
No, you are a bigot because you parade your ignorance around with the intent of hurting those you dislike.
Where's the contradiction?
You said that the rights were based on the UDHR, which means that the rights did not exist before the UDHR gave them a basis to exist. Then you said they existed previously.
Hadn't the status of women changed since the udhr? Aren't laws being crafted as we speak in all corners of the world to legitimize the principles embodied in the udhr?
It has changed some in some places, but it's not in any way universal nor can it be proven that the UDHR was the cause of the changes. Women are still victimized all over the world.
Remember, the principles of the udhr are self-evidently true, even without the declaration. What the declaration did is simply to formalize what everyone has known all along.
So what? Nobody has to pay attention to the UDHR any more than they have to obey the laws or obey the Bible, or the Koran. It's a piece of paper that you are using in a vain attempt to make an argument against people you don't like.
The first casualty in a legalized gay marriage is logic.
And baloney, no matter how thinnly sliced, is still baloney. Love is love, it's only people like you who throw up faux arguments to express your own hates and fears.
A gay who wants to mother a child is a situation that is ENTIRELY contingent -- hence not an inalienable right.
You of course don't tell us upon WHAT it is contingent in your mind, but I will mention that ANYONE who wishes to have a baby is in a situation that is ENTIRELY contingent upon finding the resources to create, birth, and care for that baby. It's no different for any of us.
It is only indeterminate in the social context, NOT biological.
You have it backwards actually, in any social situation you can simply ask the person in question, but from a biological context the mixing of primary and secondary sex characteristics makes it impossible to provide a scientific definition of male or female. Remember that as long as there are some things that don't fit into the theory, then that theory is either incomplete or is not correct. When you have a normal appearing and functioning male with the XX chromosome pattern that suggests that our understanding is incomplete.
And I was reactng to that particular link. It's not like you provided any other link that I could peruse, now, did you?
Of course I did. I gave the link to Dr. Chappell's presentation and I have cited at least two other books based on peer reviewed journal papers.
We already know that some attributes are controlled by particular genes. Some, of course, we still don't know. This includes homosexuality. Since we still don't know, we really can't say for sure it is genetic, can we?
The people doing the research say that the preponderance of evidence suggest a genetic basis, the twin studies alone make it almost impossible for it to lack a genetic component. It's much like many of the diseases that we know have a genetic component, but we haven't been able to tease out exactly what or where it is.
Rational people will wait till we know before we pass judgment.
