SDF: Lark says:: The argument took a turn for the 'it's natural debate' which doesnt interest me at all. I dont believe it's natural but I dont believe that it matters whether or not it is anyway.
SDF: Then you won't mind Bruce Bagemihl's argument about chordate sexuality in Biological Exuberance. Go ahead and read it -- it's an interesting book, lots of great pictures.
: What I was debating was that, in my opinion, homosexuals where being anti-social through centreing everything in their life around sex and people who are interested in sociability and a society where consideration for others isnt a laughing matter should join with me to persuade homosexuals their current behaviour was unhelpful to their cause and an annoyance to everyone else.
(and later)
: Right now I believe it is not natural to be attracted to someone of the same sex
SDF: Ah but then it DOES matter, this is a supporting argument...
: but if you choose to and they do as well then fine, dont ask me to support such behaviour just tolerate it and keep it out of my sight, I think it's a distinct lack of consideration for others that make you wish to make it an issue.
SDF: Here in the US, Lark, it's the patrons of anti-gay bigotry who are making "it" an issue. You know what's wrong with Proposition 22 Lark? It's an attack upon my right to associate with whomever I please, a right supposedly protected by my bourgeois government through the First Amendment to the US Constitution. This right should clearly include marriage, the right to express my love for whomever I please, and although I have no intention of marrying anyone male or female, it must be recalled about rights that a right denied to one is a right denied to all.
(this, incidentally, is the stumbling block of all bourgeois conceptions of right -- the bourgeoisie invariably deny rights to some because capitalism is not a matter of principle but instead a compulsion of the bourgeoisie to accumulate capital in order to "stay competitive" that overrules all else about capitalism -- but that's another issue entirely)
: Oh but are you proud to be either heterosexual or homosexual? It would appear it is a good thing to be gay and proud and a bad thing, or even a silly thing, to be heterosexual and proud.
SDF: I tried to point out something about "gay pride" awhile back, Lark; "pride" is what they call it because the response to social oppression deserves a name, one that won't embarrass its users, and "pride" is the best they can do. You're still reacting to "pride" as if it really meant that.
None.
