You do know we're not living in a teen soap-opera, yes?
A 'family' is not 2 people who go on dates, a family is 2 people who have and raise children. An endeavor of crucial importance to society - which is why the family gained its legal protection.
Now that I think of it, polygamous couples can achieve this function as well - as opposed to homosexual couples. Truly an astounding blind spot for you, what with criminalized polygamy apparently not being worth your...'advocacy'. But I'm talking logic and consistency again - not your cup of tea.
As for polygamy, that's a separate question. And even if advocating for A logically entails advocating for B, and people are failing to advociate for B, it doesn't mean advocating for A is automatically wrong.
The rationalization given for the advocacy is that 'all types of sexual relationships are equally good'.
This leads - by a very simple deduction - to advocating for homosexuality, but for polygamy, as well.
If people are advocating for homosexuality, but not for polygamy, that means the rationalization given is not the reason they're advocating for homosexuality, Stoo.
That's logic 101.
Indeed, advocating for homosexuality is a dogma - and dogmas are not big on logical foundations. Indeed, they always are 'believe and don't ask why' memes. Justification, if it exists, is always of the 'this is the right/just/enlightened/optimistic thing to believe in' kind.
How about this: I would primarily wish for star trek to concentrate on telling a good/entertaining story instead of everyone using it as a vehicle to promote - or whine over - their minutiae of political correctness?
Star Trek has a particular, rather optimistic vision of the future. Part of that is a more enlightened society that has advanced closer to true equality where matters of prejudice, ignorance and hate are behind us. The vision is part of how it tells a "good/entertaining story", it's not just here to entertain with action and adventure. If you have a problem with certain views being advocated then, I dunno, you're basically at odds with the nature of Trek?
And so in its version of 24th century society, I would have thought elimination of prejudice against homosexuality is more important than every couple being a baby-making unit. And where where equality for a section of society that is doing nothing harmful and has every right to openly be the people they are, isn't dismissed as matters of political correctness.
1 All threads discussing hot issues such as homosexuality are primarily about the real world: as said, essentially the posters complain about a lack of homosexual relations in star trek/etc because these are viewed with some social opprobium in the real world and they think homosexuality is not propagandized enough in trek/whatever medium.
You actually think your attempt to divorce this from the real world is not blatantly obvious, Stoo? Ookie-dookie.
BTW, using star trek/etc as a vehicle to promote one's PC beliefs is NOT part of good story-telling.
2 You attach your 'optimistic/enlightened' adjectives on what?
On 'homosexuality is optimistic/enlightened' or on 'all types of sexual relationships are equally good is optimistic/enlightened'?
If the former, I already covered it in this post.
Let's assume the latter (and damn the inconsistencies!):
Any society must give preferential treatment to social relations essential for its survival and flourishing - any other strategy leads to negative effects on the society. This, regardless of how many enlightened/optimistic adjectives you use to argue for the contrary.
And the social relations relating to giving birth and raising the next generation ARE essential for a society.
That is to say, I like how you tried to use the negative imagery of "baby-making unit" to argue for the contrary. Well done, Stoo.
This is true of the star trek society, as well.
Not of Iain Banks Culture society, though. Why? Because, in the Culture, humans are essentially parasites on the Culture; and weak parasites, at that - they can't even come close to straining the resources of the godlike AI rulers, no matter what they do. Nothing humans do is essential for anything.
a family is 2 people who have and raise children. An endeavor of crucial importance to society - which is why the family gained its legal protection.
A family is were children are raised.
As said:
[...]
Well - you can try to redefine the concept of 'family' all you want; your redefined concept will be, as opposed to of crucial importance to society (creating the next generation and all that), useless to society.
How does the saying go? 'You can call something a cow, but you can't milk it'.
[...]You further need to read up on the percentage of families who have and raise children vs the percentage of homosexual couples who raise children.
PS - Stoo, beamMe, congratulations. You actually made me write a long post. Oh well.
