| allenmaher said: 1. Highly immoral. 2. Normal, they have been around for ever. 3. Even if it is generic, inheritance is not certain due to two parents, and many things being either polygenteitc or eipgenetic. Secondly identity is usually built as a form of separation from parents. 4. Silly. There is free will. It is demonstrable. Arguments to the contrary are illogical. Or rather than constructing convoluted arguments, just let people be who they are. |
Well at no point did I mean to say that they shouldn't be who they are. I believe an individual can do as he/she wishes and though people can criticize them for it, they can't be forced to change. I don't criticize these LGBTA groups at all, in fact I support their current cause wholeheartedly. My questions are meant to be problems that arise once we've accepted them as a legitimate part of the society. My whole point is that they deserve equal rights and everything, but we should still consider that their variations are not the norm and what can be the potential issues that arise. I don't accept these things blindly like the left does, even if I do end up agreeing with the left most of the time.
1. I would rather not answer the question I posed yet. But consider retarded children. People choose to abort these. Would you consider this immoral as well? Now, there's a whole world of difference between sexual orientation and intelligence defficiency, primarily because the latter in and of itself impedes on some level on the well-being of the child and the parents and people in general (do not try to counterargue this, it's true no matter how one feels for these people), while the former does not. Nevertheless, I'd like to know whether your position remains the same with the special children in consideration or if it's changed.
Also, just because you accept people as they are, that doesn't mean that we as a society shouldn't strive for a more efficient human. That's another thing that leftists will probably disagree about, but it's worth considering.
2. Retarded children and disease-ridden people have also been around forever. This adds nothing to your argument. This is the exact thing I referred to when I said I don't think "it's a choice" is a suitable defense. They clearly should be normal in view of the law and they should not be mistreated by others due to their condition, but the issue I'm considering is different. Please follow my logic here:
There's a person who thinks she is Thomas Edison. In fact, there's a whole group of people who believe themselves to be Thomas Edison. Despite of all evidence to the contrary, they claim they feel like Thomas Edison. What would you label this group of people? If you would say anything other than confused or crazy, you're lying. Is it a bad thing that they feel like Thomas Edison, despite of evidence to the contrary? No. Is it normal? No. Should they be fixed? If they desire so, yes. If they enjoy feeling they're Thomas Edison, then they should be left alone. If we found a way to fix this state for future people so that they don't think they're Thomas Edison, should we? Would be controversial, and that's the point of my question here. I personally believe we should, but then again I personally believe a lot of controversial things so I don't want the Thomas Edison community to label me as a hater of their group, because it's nothing personal.
The transgender group of people can and should be able to do as they wish with their body. This doesn't mean that we should or shouldn't take steps to finalize that state if we could. You see what I'm doing? The two issues are separate. Right now in the world the debate is on the first issue (whether their personalities should be rejected or not), but I'm talking about the second issue (whether, if we could, we should end the deviation).
3. Just to be clear, I am not asking this question in a rethorical manner (as in, I don't pressupose an answer when I asked it). I don't have sufficient information to decide one way or the other, and the feelings I may have one way or the other are deceptive. In general, we should get rid of those. In a way, this was meant to be a trick question; we don't have enough information yet, so to say that the children wouldn't aqquire some psychological or genetic issue is unfounded at best, even if in all likelyhood it ends up being the right answer.
4. You addressed a very small part of my argument. I said you don't even have to accept my premise that there is no free will (which is a debate perhaps for another time; would love to see your arguments for free will. No sarcasm) to accept my conclusion that the "it's not a choice" defense is not well thought out. My argument here is that the LGBTA communities should focus on the fact that their variations are in no way harmful (again, so far as is reasonable) as their main argument so that their defense is better and without holes that the conservative right can attack (which they can and do).
With this post I hope to further clarify that I MEAN NO MALICE TO THE LGBTA GROUPS. I am merely asking questions that I think should be deal with.
