P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Gender IS an objectively relevant feature in terms of reproduction and the sex organs of any individual ARE physiologically and objectively known to be used in reproduction. It is the same sex marriage advocate who is reframing the question as a “subjective” one by trying to rewrite what sex is for, when clearly sex IS FOR reproduction no matter how prejudiced the same sex advocate’s subjectivity is against that fact.It is clearly about two viewpoints, both of whom have many adherents.
Until and unless you can show that one of them is objective, it is necessarily about two subjective viewpoints. You want the state to give yours preferential treatment, which is where the golden rule hits you hard between the eyes.
Really, you can show objectively that the legal institution of marriage must ‘biologically’ be what you claim and not what I claim?
Please do. This would finally be an answer to my question.
This is an abuse of the question of subjectivity on the part of the same sex marriage advocate because clearly gender and sex are REAL features in the REAL world and play an essential role in human reproduction, which IS their essential biological function.
Again, it is the gay individual who parallels a racist because it is they who are using personal abhorrence or distaste against known facts and making their subjective preference an issue against what is decidedly objective reality.
The gay individual is not “neutral” on the issue of gender as an unbiased person ought to be.
An unbiased individual would look at skin colour (because it is irrelevant) as a non-issue in civil rights. Likewise, an unbiased individual who has no stake in the matter would look at gender as crucially important in terms of sexuality and reproduction. It is only when reproduction is oxymoronically dismissed as irrelevant to marriage that the issue phantasmically arises. Objectivity should be solidly based upon the hard facts of reality not upon deluded wet dreams about it.