RationalWiki:What's wrong with being straight?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is intended to gather user opinions about various issues affecting heterosexuals. It is intended as a consciousness raising exercise in reply to RationalWiki:What's Wrong with Being Gay?

While many people have a pretty good idea about why people discriminate, I want some help. Basically, I'd like the users here to either tell me (1) what they hear about the below issues or (2) what they feel about the below issues. Please expand upon your beliefs (or those you report here), with at least three sentences, if you can.

I hope this can also spark a debate.... but I'd rather keep the actual debate as to the issues on the talk page.

Different-Sex Marriage[edit]

Ought couples of a different sex be able to marry, using that term?

  • Sign here with your signature (~~~~).
  • Yes.מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום 20:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
  • No. All marriage is wrong. humanUser talk:Human 20:23, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Marriage should not have anything to do with the Government. -All Hail Tuna 23:59, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • No. Teh ban on gay marriage should be expanded to straight marriage too. Marriage keeps you tied down to one partner and one place, and *shudder* raising kids. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves? Secret Squirrel 17:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, any church should be able to marry anything to anything as many times as they permit. That doesn't mean that it should be legally recognized... I feel that all marriages should not be legally recognized. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • The term "marriage" carries immense emotional and religious charge; for this reason alone, government cannot be a just arbiter of what couples (or triads, tetrads, pentads ...) may use it. Furthermore, the fact that government persists in trying to do so perpetuates the absurdity of two adamantly opposed sides attempting to present to relatively rational bodies (courts and legislatures) rational-sounding arguments for their passionately-held beliefs about a fundamentally irrational dispute. This may or may not end well (and may or may not ever end), but we can count on many years of entertainment. Arcadia 04:29, 26 February 2009 (EST).
  • As marriage is a legal commodity, it's probably illegal not to. Supreme Gamesmaster Yddisac 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Different-Sex Civil Unions[edit]

Ought couples of the different sexes be able to engage in a secular ceremony that would result in rights and benefits accorded to married couples, just using the phrase, "marriage"? In other words, ought couples of different sexes be allowed to be joined by "Civil Union"?

  • Sign here with your signature (~~~~).
  • Yes. מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום 20:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
  • I think all unions should be civil, unless a good injury-free fight is your favorite foreplay. humanUser talk:Human 20:34, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • They can call themselves whatever they like -All Hail Tuna 00:00, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Not sure where "civil" comes in here or what that means in relation to unions. Are those company unions? Good lord, I can't support that. The only unions I support are the independent kind where teh workers pit themselves against teh bosses. Company unions are for Republicans and slaves. As for different-sex, sure! Men and women can both join unions. Secret Squirrel 17:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • I believe all secular/legal unions should be civil unions. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. I'm thinking of doing this. Totnesmartin 05:15, 26 February 2009 (EST)
  • No reason not to. Supreme Gamesmaster Yddisac 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes


Should it be legal for employers to decline to hire, decide pay, or terminate an employee, based on sexual orientation? Phrased otherwise, "should employers be allowed to discriminate against heterosexuals?" Phrased in Conservapedia-ese, "should employers be compelled to accept heterosexuals?"

  • Sign here with your signature (~~~~).
  • No. The market probably would force them to recruit from the 93%, or what ever the figure is, of heterosexuals, however.מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום 20:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Termination might be a bit strong; I think upon the first sure signs of the dread disease in regards to hetersexualness, sterilization should promptly be effected. humanUser talk:Human 23:31, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Employers should be compelled to accept whomever their collective bargaining contract with teh union says they should accept. Secret Squirrel 17:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • There should be no discrimination irrelevant to the job description. Supreme Gamesmaster Yddisac 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Should participants in "different sex" sex be forced to drink centrally-produced fluoridated water?

  • Sign here with your signature (~~~~).
  • Yes. Sapping their bodily fluids is possibly the only way to reduce their anti-social persuasions. humanUser talk:Human 21:25, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • No. No government has teh right to forcibly medicate their population with anything, whether it's Ritalin, fluoride, or faith-based opiate of teh masses. Secret Squirrel 17:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, since the rise of bottled water, cavities in children and adults has risen in proportion to its popularity in a dose-response manner. Water being necessary for survival of a human being is already being provided to the population by utilities, anything that is reasonably necessary to all human beings, bears little to no risk of complications, and is an essential nutrient (such that the body cannot produce it itself) should be available to people. If you don't like the flouridation, you can buy a filter :P --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Nothing should be forced. Supreme Gamesmaster Yddisac 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Conduct or Status?[edit]

Is heterosexuality a conduct (a mere act, which can be suppressed) or an inherent characteristic of the individual, immutable or otherwise? What legal ramifications should your answer have?

  • Sign here with your signature (~~~~).
  • Status, although, insofar as it manifests itself in society and sexual acts, a conduct. מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום 20:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
  • It's a choice. Sexual behavior is a really small part of human life no matter whom a person is attracted to, so any lifestyle in which somebody constructs their identity around their sexuality - instead of, say, their career or their hobbies - is a perverted lifestyle choice. If you're having sex more than a few times a year you're having too much and you need to balance out your life with other things. Secret Squirrel 17:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • It's a choice imposed on the person in question by the members of the poopsite sex. You are indistinguishable from being asexual if you aren't getting laid. ThiehCP≠Child Porn? 03:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You're confusing sex with love here. Supreme Gamesmaster Yddisac 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Should the state be able to criminalize heterosexual conduct, status, or both? Why?

  • Sign here with your signature (~~~~).
  • No. Autonomy, consensuality, etc. מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום 20:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
  • On this one, at least, I agree with the spotty twerps. Heterosexuality may be a perversion, but it should not be criminalized. humanUser talk:Human 20:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, I think criminals should be banned from having sex with teh State. What was teh question? Secret Squirrel 17:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Uh... no? What's supposed to be the problem? Supreme Gamesmaster Yddisac 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Is heterosexuality "immutable"? Immutable means, inherent, and unchangeable, or so deeply linked with personality that it cannot be changed without great hardship.

  • Sign here with your signature (~~~~).
  • Yes, although if it can be changed with great hardship, the extent to which it is immutable is moot. מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום 20:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
  • No. See also: jail and the navy. humanUser talk:Human 20:53, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • No, loving people of the opposite gender is a choice. It's just that nobody remembers making it. But it's a choice, mmmk? -All Hail Tuna 00:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Nothing is immutable, and anyone who tells you otherwise is in denial of teh vast possibilities of human potential. It just requires learning to access that unused 90% of your brain. Somewhere in there is the ability to be whatever the hell you want to be. Secret Squirrel 17:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Mu. The question assumes that heterosexuality is a monolithic phenomenon, the same in all people in whom any of its manifestations occur, and with the same cause. I see no rational reason to believe any of this, and so I think the question as written is meaningless. Arcadia 04:36, 26 February 2009 (EST)
  • There's no good reason to choose heterosexuality besides desiring children (which can be solved with adoption), so given the overwhelming numbers of heterosexuals in the world, it's probably immutable by reasonable techniques. Supreme Gamesmaster Yddisac 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Ought heterosexuals be treated for heterosexuality? Voluntarily, involuntarily, or both?

  • Sign here with your signature (~~~~).
  • No. מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום 20:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. It is a contagious genetic disorder that has single-handedly done more to exacerbate the overpopulation problem than any other ailment. humanUser talk:Human 20:52, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • I don't see any problem here that can't be solved with a global one-child policy. Secret Squirrel 17:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • As with a number of psychological conditions, these things only require treatment if it is making a serious impact upon someone's life. If they feel they need to receive therapy for it, then they should be allowed to... it shouldn't be mandated either way. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • I is with Eira. Supreme Gamesmaster Yddisac 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Only if they want to.


Should heterosexual couples be allowed to adopt children at all? Should different restrictions apply?

  • Sign here with your signature (~~~~).
  • Yes; no. מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום 20:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
  • No; yes. If they can't make their own tadpoles by swimming in sex goo, perhaps God in all Her wisdom intended them to put their life's energies to other use. humanUser talk:Human 20:54, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • No. Adoption is an abortion avoidance complex. Abort 'em. Secret Squirrel 17:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes�. The children are already in this world, and should a consenting adult choose to take responsibility for one or more, then why the hell not? --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes and no, in that order. Supreme Gamesmaster Yddisac 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)