Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan90  Ouch Revan, you hurt my feelings. 
Note that I am NOT arguing whether or not being gay is nurture or nature neither am I arguing whether or not political beliefs are nurture vs nature.
What I am suggesting is that nature vs nurture is not relevant in the argument.
The child has a chance of being distressed if he happens to be gay in the couple's family just as the child has a chance of being distressed if he happens to be a radical right-wing in a same-sex couple's family.
@Pseudojim: This is why I posted the question on identity. Your arguments seem to convey that just because a quality is innate, it is more important than other qualities. Why should it be? (Revisit identity question posted above).
And the ideology is not about being gay, the ideology is that sexual orientation should be fully accepted, and this is the ideology that is restricting the couple in the news. |
Re: the question of innateness, yes, it is more important. If one disagrees with another's political persuasion, one is easily able to criticise the thought processes which lead to the persuasion in the first place... debate is possible. Such disagreements naturally occur, since people think differently. The criticism is against one's choice, not the fibre of their being.
If on the other hand, one disagrees with another's innate nature, no such criticism is possible. It becomes bigotry. That's where the difference lies.
[edit]
Quote:
|
The child has a chance of being distressed if he happens to be gay in the couple's family just as the child has a chance of being distressed if he happens to be a radical right-wing in a same-sex couple's family.
|
THIS is truly irrelevant.
so what?
in the former case, he is being discriminated against for the nature of his very being. How is that fair?
in the latter, he is being discriminated against for his political stance. Fair play. You can rationalise such disagreements.