Originally Posted by Spoticus
We could contrast homosexual sex with other interesting moral conundrums and hypothetical scenarios all day long. But homosexual sex is not moral or immoral based on it's association with any other topics.
I think we can agree on that. For instance, most conservatives say homosexual sex is wrong b/c some homosexuals are overtly promiscuous. A ridicules correlation because that entirely disregards the fact that some aren't promiscuous.
My point being: Just as homosexual sex is not necessarily immoral because of the fact that promiscuity is immoral, homosexual sex is not necessarily moral because of the fact interracial marriages are moral.
Eventually you have to examine an issue as a stand alone entity.
Spoticus, I have to say I really disagree with the idea of homosexuality having
to be examined as a stand alone entity. The human journey is one of progress and working against one injustice helps us to understand another. That's why leaders of the civil rights movement for black Americans are able to connect the dots
to the civil rights movement for GLBT Americans. They saw how clever arguments were used against their equality and they're quick to recognize such arguments now.
Also, Spoticus, in your last post it sounds as if you're putting the fundamentalist argument of promiscuous-homosexuals-so-no-marriage-equality on the same plain as GLBT activists' case of interracial-marriage-struggle-parallels-our-struggle. In other words, they should both be dismissed from the dialogue on homosexuality.
I can't agree with that. I feel the fact that the scenario I presented was not
hypothetical but just some 30 years in our past makes it very relevant and I hope other activists continue working to draw the parallels between interracial marriages not being recognized with our marriages not being recognized.
In other words, I'm not trading my queen or bishop for their pawn.