Being Straight is a Lifestyle Choice

Published on June 7, 2005 By Common Sensei In Politics

Benefits for straight married couples make no more sense than benefits for homosexual couples do. Because deciding to cohabitate with a person of the opposite sex, procreate, all that -- well, it's a lifestyle choice. Those people who argue that being straight is pure biology, like being black or white, need to wake up and smell the pheromones.

Nobody makes you act on your urges, whatever they are -- heterosexual or homosexual. And yet straight people seem to think they deserve some sort of compensation for giving into their urges while denying people with differing urges the same compensation. Deny them all, I say. Let everybody fend for themselves, and let the chips fall where they may.

Given all the people who think that that homosexuality is purely a personal choice, I must conclude that giving into any physical urge must be an anomaly. Therefore, a life of pure abstinence is the only natural choice for the human who wants to live his/her life to the fullest. Don't have sex with the same sex if you want to. Don't have sex with the opposite if you want to. Don't eat. Hell, don't even breathe. Those are all physical urges. You must deny them.

Where do we draw the line? It might be easier and more beneficial to a free society to give people the freedom to make their own choices. And if we don't support compensation for some of those choices (the dirty sex ones) then why support them for all the dirty sex ones? After all, there's only a couple of inches between sticking a penis into a vagina and sticking it into an asshole. And we've ripped the country apart over those couple of inches.

Don't give the homos any rights based on their sexuality. This is fine with me. But stop giving heteros rights, too. To hell with all you weak specimens who can't control your physical urges.

Comments (Page 2)

Common Sensei

on Jun 07, 2005

Ted >> Thanks for the most interesting comment I've had yet, one that had some real conviction.

But I'm not debating anyone's claim to the title of "family" -- I'm just saying that people can call family whatever they will, and every citizen gets the same rights. That means no marriage compensation for anyone.

bakerstreet

on Jun 07, 2005

Hate to bust in on your ignorance, but married folks without kids have had it worse than single people for a long time. That's the 'marriage penalty' that has been addressed recently.

Maybe you should outline what kind of breaks or compensation you are bitching about.

Dr Guy

on Jun 07, 2005

I don't support compensation for necrophiliacs or bestialiacs, either. Although it says much for your own mindset that you would take sex between two consenting adults and liken it to sex with animals and dead people.

you did not specify 2. how about 1 and a dog? 3? 1 and a corpse? you opened the door. i am equating nothing. i am just stepping through metaphorically.

Common Sensei

on Jun 07, 2005

married folks without kids have had it worse than single people for a long time

I always thought it was a punishment until they fulfilled the command to be fruitful and multiply. So the breeders are my true enemy here? Just checking.

Common Sensei

on Jun 07, 2005

i am just stepping through metaphorically.

A metaphor is a comparison. Which means equating one thing with another.

bakerstreet

on Jun 07, 2005

If you don't know what kind of compensation you are talking about, then you don't know if the compensation exists, and maybe you don't know enough to be whining about the government paying heterosexuals to screw. Perhaps it would be better to know what they hell you are talking about before you start blogging.

Common Sensei

on Jun 07, 2005

Why, I was calling for no compensation for everybody. You seem to think there should be some.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 07, 2005

Common Sensei, here is the mindset that is being further by everyone who wants to weaken the legal and social definitions of "family""husband""wife" and even "minor child".....

Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers,
and homosexuals in general, can occur only as
complementary facets of the same dream. -- David Thorstad http://www.nambla.org/

When arguing for "Freedom" be careful whose "freedom" you are concurrently arguing for!

ParaTed2k

on Jun 07, 2005

Ted >> Thanks for the most interesting comment I've had yet, one that had some real conviction.But I'm not debating anyone's claim to the title of "family" -- I'm just saying that people can call family whatever they will, and every citizen gets the same rights. That means no marriage compensation for anyone.

Thank you!

You may not be arguing about what people can call "family" but you are arguing for a change of the legal and social definition of "family". Of course anyone who feels the need can say people are "like family", but it is through the legal and social definitions that what you call the "benefits" come. Many people argue that all this talk of "gay marriage" is nothing more than a means of weakening the family unit in our society. Your article goes far to reinforce their point.

Common Sensei

on Jun 07, 2005

No, I'm arguing that "family" is a meanignless and stupid concept, and "marriage" even more so.

bakerstreet

on Jun 07, 2005

Ah, well, then you are deranged. Should have guessed. Family as a concept is as old as humanity, and without it we wouldn't be where we are. Take an anthropology class sometime.

Dr Guy

on Jun 07, 2005

A metaphor is a comparison. Which means equating one thing with another.

No, it is an hypothesis. You do not need a comparison for a metaphor.

dharmagrl

on Jun 07, 2005

I'm arguing that "family" is a meanignless and stupid concept, and "marriage" even more so.

Are you married? Do you have kids? What leads you to this revelation?

Dr Guy

on Jun 07, 2005

I'm just saying that people can call family whatever they will, and every citizen gets the same rights.

And there we have you again. People can call it whatever they will. So how can you deny dogs and women, men and boys, polygamy, etc.?

OhioKen

on Jun 07, 2005

I always thought it was a punishment until they fulfilled the command to be fruitful and multiply. So the breeders are my true enemy here? Just checking.

I have to wonder here...are you playing devil's advocate for the sake of debate? If so, that's cool. I'm all for a good debate.

Or, are you honestly saying that there is no intrinsic value whatsoever to the propogation of the species? Because the 'benefits' of which you speak are ultimately given for that reason.

If the 'breeders,' as you put it, don't breed, we start to run out of humans. Unless you want to maybe start "human farms" where people are bred and raised. Or maybe you're going futuristic and want a society of clones or something. Then your argument totally rocks. Other than that, you're advocating the gradual extinction of the human race by lack of propogation. And that sucks.

Just checking.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!