Just having some stray thoughts, which I present, while they are still fresh.
No-one can 'win' a 'red herring' competition. But that's not the intention of it anyway. The real purpose is to troll away central issues, which are
inconvenient and can't be met in a meaningful way.
Allusions can be made, without openly stating untenable accusations, through the use of 'floating' definitions;
a "perversion" can be:
a/ A deviation from a sexual norm (social, ideological or 'natural').
b/ A deviation from or a twisting of any norms not specifically sexual (and as above).
c/ An insult.
In the same vein, "fascism" can be
a/ A political system, centering around nationalism and a hierarchial system of an elite ruling 'the masses'.
b/ Any ideological system, which implies a hierarchial elite deciding on 'values' for everybody else.
(as I have used the word 'fascism' on this thread, maybe I should emphasize, that I'm using definition b).
Nature have norms. But it doesn't manifest any special mechanisms directed against deviations from said norms. In that case no mutations would have
much of a chance.
In the context of homosexuality, maybe nature would increase this norm-deviation to the point, where overpopulation is no longer a threat for mankind
and the planet as a whole. But I'm no 'Avatar' (=the movie) fan, so this is just an idle hypothesis (wish it would be true though).
A valid point against using the backdoor as entrance is, that it can add to the risk of transferable diseases. And as 'alluded' (see above) the bad
guy homosexuals can be stereotyped into a collective group of socially and ethically irresponsible types, who would never dream of using such methods
as medical tests, before starting on their promiscuous escapades.
But as they are doing it anyway (using the backdoor, at least some of them, sometimes), a legalized marriage would clearly diminish the risks of such
socially destructive behaviour. They would settle down and become 'responsible citizens' (from a homophobic perspective. My perspective is, that most
homosexuals already are respectable).
Female homosexuals obviously don't have the equipment making such specific transfer of illness possible, so there should in any case be no objections
whatsoever for their marrying each other.
Such crusades for the protection of mankind from diseases are ofcourse praiseworthy. But in a statistical context, the african situation with an
already high percentage of HIV and rapes in their thousands being the order of the day, the energy used in saving-mankind-crusades would be ten times
better applied, if the african problem, and not homosexuals, would be seen as THE problem.
This would ofcourse in some cases require a reorientation on religious doctrines or some visit to a shrink to get rid of obsessional phobias, but the
CAUSE would be worth it. And where would we be without worthwhile causes.
Lost in wishy-washy tolerance and peace.
edit on 23-11-2010 by bogomil because: Because of not having english as my first language