GIASI:
Nobody here is arguing that natural acts are necessarily acceptable, so you're arguing against a straw man. But, since you insist on pursuing it: I posted a link to a multitude of studies that show the innate, genetic character of sexual orientation. If it's not genetic, then why are the identical twins of gay men more likely to be gay than straight -- even if they were raised in different homes? If it's not innate, then why is it correlated with physiological structures like finger length -- or do you think gay people choose their finger length, too?
Here is the connection I see between "natural" and "moral." I don't think that something that comes naturally is always moral. However, I believe that the burden of proof is on the person who wants to prove it's immoral. Violence comes naturally to some people, but I can say that it's immoral because IT HURTS PEOPLE. Likewise, you have to prove that acting on a gay orientation does more harm than good before I'll be convinced that it's immoral.
And gay people DON'T have the same rights. There are dozens and dozens of rights I got automatically when I got married that no gay person in the U.S. can have, even if they get medical power of attorney, name each other on life insurance, etc. I have the right to marry the person I love; my lesbian friends don't have that right. Sure, they could marry a man, but that's not the same. Be aware that the argument you are making was also made against interracial marriage. If whites can marry whites and blacks can marry blacks, then everyone has equal rights, right? No!
Aisha:
I'm trained as a therapist, and in fact I used to work at a counseling center for gay people. Psychiatrists in most of the world do NOT try to make gay people straight. The American Psychiatric Assocation does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder and says that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities." In the United States it is considered unethical for mental health professionals to try to make gay people straight, because the evidence shows that (a) it can't be done, and (b) the attempt to do so is harmful.
You want gay people to pretend that they're straight, but THAT is making a crow try to walk like a pigeon. They're crows (gay), not pigeons (straight). Why should they pretend to be someone they're not?
GIASI:
Nobody here is arguing that natural acts are necessarily acceptable, so you're arguing against a straw man. But, since you insist on pursuing it: I posted a link to a multitude of studies that show the innate, genetic character of sexual orientation. If it's not genetic, then why are the identical twins of gay men more likely to be gay than straight -- even if they were raised in different homes? If it's not innate, then why is it correlated with physiological structures like finger length -- or do you think gay people choose their finger length, too?
Here is the connection I see between "natural" and "moral." I don't think that something that comes naturally is always moral. However, I believe that the burden of proof is on the person who wants to prove it's immoral. Violence comes naturally to some people, but I can say that it's immoral because IT HURTS PEOPLE. Likewise, you have to prove that acting on a gay orientation does more harm than good before I'll be convinced that it's immoral.
And gay people DON'T have the same rights. There are dozens and dozens of rights I got automatically when I got married that no gay person in the U.S. can have, even if they get medical power of attorney, name each other on life insurance, etc. I have the right to marry the person I love; my lesbian friends don't have that right. Sure, they could marry a man, but that's not the same. Be aware that the argument you are making was also made against interracial marriage. If whites can marry whites and blacks can marry blacks, then everyone has equal rights, right? No!
Aisha:
I'm trained as a therapist, and in fact I used to work at a counseling center for gay people. Psychiatrists in most of the world do NOT try to make gay people straight. The American Psychiatric Assocation does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder and says that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities." In the United States it is considered unethical for mental health professionals to try to make gay people straight, because the evidence shows that (a) it can't be done, and (b) the attempt to do so is harmful.
You want gay people to pretend that they're straight, but THAT is making a crow try to walk like a pigeon. They're crows (gay), not pigeons (straight). Why should they pretend to be someone they're not?