I enjoyed reading this one a lot more than most of his other civ watch stuff. He manages, for the most part, to present his argument in a non-inflammatory manner without sneering too much at the 'other side's' arguments or demonizing them or brushing them aside by reducing them to silly rhetoric.
For the most part. I think it's unfortunate that he uses 'dysfunctional relationships' to describe what I can only assume is predominantly aimed at homosexuality, if not homosexuality exclusively. I don't think he defines what he is arguing against so that the reader can really make a decision one way or the other as to the validity of his argument. In any case, I think he could have chosen a better word than 'dysfunctional'. Words like this cripple his argument and make people not want to pay attention to him, just as if I were discussing religion with a Mormon and called LDS 'dysfunctional' for one reason or another.
Aren't childless marriages 'functional' for society? I think so. I think his argument fails because he never elaborates on why childless marriage shouldn't be sacred in its own way. Surely society benefits from life long monogamy? Surely individuals do as well? Surely we all benefit from the ideal of marriage, of only having sex with your soul mate or your true love? Aren't these things true regardless of whether children are in the picture? I think so.
quote: So when you hear someone talk about how “extending marriage to gay people” is “simple fairness,” think again. Is it fair to the children who will grow up in a society that insists on magnifying any trace of reproductive dysfunction? Is it fair for all of us to be forced to raise our children without public encouragement for reproductive normality and monogamous, heterosexual, lifetime marriages?
The loss of public encouragement that he speaks of, if it exists, is not because of gay people or gay people getting married. I don't understand why the same ideals of fidelity and social responsibility can't be held for gay couples, just as they are held for childless or infertile couples.
quote: Just as there are people who for reasons of their own will always be renters, who never get to benefit from that tax deduction for homebuyers, so there will always be people excluded from the joys and responsibilities of marriage and child rearing.
Very weak argument that essentially boils down to 'life isn't fair'. Can be used to explain away pretty much everything.
quote: But it should provoke, not sympathy, but scorn when some of those unfortunate people demand that special protection for marriage be abolished solely because they have no personal desire to participate in it.
I have no idea what this means. Why don't gay people and infertile people who want to get married want to participlate in 'marriage'? Very confusing.
quote: Instead they demand that their non-marriage relationships be called marriage, and that public schools from now on should teach all of our children that those reproductively dysfunctional relationships should be held up as equally valid models for our children to aspire to.
Reproduction is now a choice. Many heterosexual married couples choose to not have children. Is he arguing that marriage should come with the expectation of reproduction if it's to be called a real marriage? That's fine if he wants to argue that, but if that's his argument then I think he should come right out and say it. It's unclear what, exactly, he is referring to when he talks about 'dysfunctional relationships'.
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
Good post, Storm!
quote:Is he arguing that marriage should come with the expectation of reproduction if it's to be called a real marriage?
That's exactly how it sounds to me. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thank you for replying, Sal. I was beginning to get a complex. Posted by AeroB1033 (Member # 6375) on :
Heck, I don't mind when OSC makes other people out to be idiots. At least he backs up his opinions, which is more than I can say for a lot of people that write these kinds of articles. *grin*
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Storm, I think we need to take his statements in context with his deep feeling that marriage is something that only exists between a man and woman regardless of whether or not they have children. IMO, OSC has no problem with a married man and woman who chose not to or can't have children, his problem is still with calling same-sex unions "marriage".
[ April 04, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I would say it's abundantly clear he feels that way. Unfortunately, that's not an argument. That's a statement of belief.
edit: what i mean to say is that what you wrote is not an argument. He makes an argument, which I responded to.
[ April 04, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the place where his analogy breaks down is in the cost of providing the benefit to others. The home mortgage interest deduction represents a reallocation of taxpayer burdens. Therefore, extending the same or similar benefit to others would cost a lot of money. So the cost has to be measured against the benefit.
Allowing homosexual marriage carries a much lower cost. Until recently, unmarried couples had lower taxes than if they were married. Even now, there's little, if any, tax advantage to a two-income married couple. Most government monetary benefits aren't increased by marriage - welfare is based on the number of children, for example.
Some people will be forced to pay more if homosexuals get the same marriage rights - companies who subsidize medical care for families, for example. However, companies are not forced to subsidize family medical care at all, so they can adjust their subsidy policies in a non-discriminatory fashion if they feel they must recoup the small additional costs.
Given the low cost and the fact that at least some of the benefits to society of heterosexual marriage will also be provided by homosexual marriage (legal efficiency, increased family ties which lower the costs to society of sick or infirm persons, etc.), a cost benefit analysis seems likely to favor homosexual marriage anyway.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I agree, what I said was not an argument but a statement of belief.
Extrapolating from that, though, we can put that meaning into his argument and it addresses your rebuttal. He calls homosexual unions reproductively dysfunctional. You argue that many heterosexual unions are "reproductively dysfunctional". But heterosexual unions in general are not. Homosexual unions are not just "reproductively dysfunctional" in general, they are in all cases.
I don't know if you have read the story in his book "First Meetings", the story about John Paul and Theresa meeting (I can't remember the name and I can't find my copy!) But OSC puts forth some interesting ideas and arguments in favor of human reproduction even under the "crowded" earth conditions in which we live. I think it is clear that Card is not overly concerned about earth's overpopulation, and feels that reproduction should not be so cavalierly abandoned.
I propose that while many feel that homosexuality benefits the earth by resulting in less reproduction, OSC does not think this is true and would argue against it. He is not "here" to answer your argument, so I am doing a shabby job at trying to fill in for him. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Two things here.
First, a difference of opinion:
quote:No longer are those who bear children out of wedlock socially stigmatized.
He thinks this is a bad thing. Personally, I think it means society is advancing.
Second, and more importantly, an issue of logic:
quote:Why in the world do Americans, who are almost obsessive about being “fair” these days, allow such an unfair system to continue? Why aren’t renters rioting in the streets, or at the very least picketing Congress?
Here’s why: Most renters fully expect that someday they will buy a house. And they know that without being able to count on that huge tax break on mortgage interest payments, it would be far harder to afford to make the transition to home ownership.
Okay, fine. But if he's going to claim this as analgous to gay marriage, I've got to take issue with it. Homosexual people will always be homosexual. Marriage will never, ever benefit them, no matter how hard they work or how much they save.
In my opinion, that's where his argument breaks down.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Extrapolating from that, though, we can put that meaning into his argument and it addresses your rebuttal. He calls homosexual unions reproductively dysfunctional. You argue that many heterosexual unions are "reproductively dysfunctional". But heterosexual unions in general are not. Homosexual unions are not just "reproductively dysfunctional" in general, they are in all cases.
beverly, I disagree that it addresses my rebuttal at all. While it is clear that he feels that marriage is only between men and women, and that an important, perhaps the most important, aspect of marriage is to have and raise children, it is decidedly not clear if he is in favor of marriage only for those couples who can, or *decide* to, have children.
It also does not address my points that there are other aspects of marriage which are beneficial to society. That, in fact, it is more beneficial to society to extend the institution of marriage to those who cannot concieve than it would be if it were to define marriage exclusively as between men and women for the purposes of reproducing....
Finally, to tack a little something on, it doesn't address the argument that there can be many different ideals in society for many different types of people. Marriage can mean one thing to society for people with children and entirely another for people who don't. That is, the ideal can be that if a couple has children, the ideal for society is that it supports that relationship and frowns on things that negatively impact the ability of that family to stay together ; but the ideal for couples without children can be scaled back such that monogamy, kindness, service to community is first and foremost.
[ April 04, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, I didn't have anything to add to your other argument points. Just the one I mentioned.
And that is an interesting idea about marriage meaning something different depending on whether or not there are children involved. But we are talking about our culture here, and generally in our culture marriage means that children are likely to follow. Because of that, things relating to marriage by nature need to be children-friendly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Come on, that's not fair. You are quoting him out of context. He is not saying nor implying that the relationships are disfunctional. The term he uses is "reproductively dysfunctional relationships". I don't see how you can argue that homosexual relationships are not reproductively disfunctional, since they are incapable of reproducing.
I would have expected a better reading of the article.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem with this article, as with ALL articles that attack the "fairness" aspect of gay marriage, is that OSC assumes without proving the idea that there is no social benefit to providing the same recognition to long-term gay unions that we do to long-term heterosexual unions. He claims that we have evidence that children need a father and a mother -- a claim that is frequently made by conservatives, but which ignores the fact that no such evidence exists -- and insinuates that gay marriage, rather than representing an affirmation of the importance of relationships to society, represents a surrender to immorality.
It's a nice line, but preaches to the converted.
[ April 04, 2004, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:If a woman and man promise to remove themselves from the marriage pool, take care of each other regardless of circumstance, provide for their children and bring them up to be responsible members of the society, then they should get special benefits.
Fair enough. This is what homosexual couples want to do.
There is no social structure currently available for homosexuals to do just this. The closest is the civil union, and I didn't notice where OSC expressed opinions on that. If he supports (or at least won't block) civil unions, I have no problem with the rest of his piece.
I don't believe I've ever seen it stated that gay parents would be, by default, "better" parents than straight ones. But I'd be willing to state that I think gay parents would be better parents than an orphanage or series of foster homes. I think a child with a gay biological parent would be better served if that parent could bond in a lasting relationship rather than stay single or stick it out in a loveless relationship.
[ April 04, 2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
There are two main reasons I believe that we cannot, as Storm Saxon says,
quote: I don't understand why the same ideals of fidelity and social responsibility can't be held for gay couples, just as they are held for childless or infertile couples.
1: The reasons the ideals of social responsibility can't be held for gay couples with regards to marriage is: Our marriage laws are a body of laws that have grown, from antiquity, to address the lack of parity between man and women in society, due to the fact that women bare children and have less strength as men do in the workplace. To suddenly take those laws and apply them to unions of same sex relationships is not reasonable.
2: The reason society views homosexuals differently is because they view themselves differently. Since "being gay" is so much apart of identity, we are encouraged to view them as "them." Of course this is a gross exageration, but my limited exposure to homosexuality supports this proposition in my mind--exceptions noted.
Gay marriage sounds great, but why is it necessary to have gay marriage when civil unions can afford them same legal responsibilities? I wonder if it is because homosexuals want to feel normal or want us to embrace their lifestyle as normal.
We are getting good at tolerance, but that doesn't seem to be enough. I wonder, if we pass gay marriage legislation, what percentage of the gay community would still feel gay. I don't think the issues a homosexual must go through will change, and I don't think it will offer any legal incentive that civil unions do not already offer. But it does move to make society "embrace" behavior that really is and will remain fringe.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Homosexual unions are not just "reproductively dysfunctional" in general, they are in all cases.
Not if you include artificial insemination for lesbian couples. In any case, I'm sure that scientific advances will make it perfectly possible for all gays to reproduce sometime in the next century.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Or adoption. Even if its not physical reproduction its certainly a vital part of reproduction in the context of human society.
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
I agree with Storm that this is a well-written article, and I agree with beverly that OSC's position and its origins are known.
So there's nothing new?
Well, there's the main argument that it isn't fair of you to expect to be treated equally when it comes to things you aren't equally suited for. So far I generally agree (I think).
But then it becomes somewhat muddled, and I got confused. OSC seems to draw an analogy between "disabled" and "homosexual". The "disability" part seems to be equated with the "non-reproductive" aspect of same-gender relationships. At this point he jumps from "disabled people" to "dysfunctional relationships", applying the same basic fairness argument to both.
And his logic goes like this:
(A) IF (homosexual marriage) THEN (non-reproductive marriage).
(B) IF (non-reproductive marriage) THEN (bad marriage, or rather: "non-marriage").
Combination of (A) and (B) makes his argument.
As Storm pointed out, the problem is (B). (B) is not true. A single counterexample suffices to show that. Any marriage without kids should be annulled by this logic. This is why I'm confused. It's so obviously a logical fallacy that I keep thinking I'm missing something.
To take OSC's argument one step further, recall that truly "reproductive" means: at least two children per set of parents. So even marriages with a single child would not deserve to be called "marriage". Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Come on, that's not fair. You are quoting him out of context. He is not saying nor implying that the relationships are disfunctional. The term he uses is "reproductively dysfunctional relationships". I don't see how you can argue that homosexual relationships are not reproductively disfunctional, since they are incapable of reproducing.
I would have expected a better reading of the article.
And I would expect a better reading of you of both my response and his own article. I'm not saying it's not true in some ways, I'm saying that it could have been phrased better so people understand exactly what, and who, he exactly means. As I already pointed out, he never says that he is addressing his phrase towards gay people, so the reader has to assume. But assuming that he is speaking of gay people, many gay men can reproduce if they ahve sex with women or if they are sperm donors. Many lesbians can reproduce if they are artificially inseminated or have sex with men. So, in this sense, his phrase is wrong when it comes to reproducing. But, is he only addressing reproduction? Isn't he saying that the relationships themselves are dysfunctional on a social level because they can't, or won't, have children? There is a strong indication of that in his article.
I do understand what you are saying, mph, as far as it not being insulting. It does read to me as insulting, but I understand why it is not insulting to you. I just think that there has to be a better word to use than dysfunctional, even if he is strictly speaking of the reproductive capabilities of a couple.
Edited for even more clarity.
[ April 04, 2004, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I am interested in some of the points Alexa makes. Marriage was originally about binding men to the women they impregnate, helping those women to better raise children in a world where it was difficult for them to survive without a provider and protector.
Obviously our world has changed a lot since then, thus the arguments many make in favor of changing the age-old meaning behind marriage (man + woman).
Also, the issue of asking us to embrace it as normal with the word "marriage". Many of you have read my past posts where I clearly stated my views on homosexuality based on my faith. I have reasons for my viewpoint above and beyond the passages found in the Bible. I have issues with being asked to embrace gay union as normal.
I do view homosexuality as a disability. A homosexual is not "able" to desire to participate in a man/woman relationship. I suppose you could flip that and say that solid heterosexuals are disabled also. But what advantage is there in having the ability to be attracted to your gender?
I understand that not everyone believes as I do. But telling me I and my children must accept as normal what I can not (without abandoning my beliefs) is a troublesome issue to me. Don't know if it is troublesome enough to warrant legislation, though.
Edit: I am wondering, to what extent is gay marriage desirable because it is currently not available? Once it is made widely legal, will the fascination fade? Will there really be more stable, committed homosexual unions then their were before? I don't know.
[ April 04, 2004, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I wonder if it is because homosexuals want to feel normal or want us to embrace their lifestyle as normal."
Yep. Let's move on.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What I accept as normal is that human sexuality exists as a range. The overwhelming bulk of them in the middle are attracted primarily to the opposite sex. A small minority is off to one side and is attracted to the same sex only. Between them is a range of people who are attracted to both sexes, in varying degrees. On the far end is another small section of people who are not attracted to either sex. Where you land on this range depends on your genetics, your upbringing, your sexual imprinting, your sexual experiences.
What I accept as normal is that there will always be a small portion of humanity that is homosexual, just as there will always be a small portion of humanity that is left-handed or redheaded. And I fail to understand why allowing them a means of forming a recognized, long-term relationship is in any way a threat to heterosexual marriage. I'd like to see commitment reinforced, no matter the gender of the participants.
[ April 04, 2004, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: And I fail to understand why allowing them a means of forming a recognized, long-term relationship is in any way a threat to heterosexual marriage.
I'm not quite sure how it is a threat to my marriage myself. But, considering I do believe that sexuality exists in a range just as you described, I believe that gay marriage will effect the sexual orientation of future generations. It doesn't threaten my marriage, but I do look at it as a threat to my children. I was raised in a world that encouraged heterosexuality. If I was raised in a world that encouraged homosexuality, I might very well be homosexual. By "encouraged" I don't mean just directly but indirectly as well.
But again, I recognize that not many people feel this way and this is one threat that I am probably just going to have to deal with as a reality.
[ April 04, 2004, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well spoken.
For me, I don't think that public acceptance of homosexuality is going to cause that much of a change in the overall sexuality of the human race. There may be more experimenting or indulgence, but frankly there's always been a fair amount of that and most people still come out of puberty strongly heterosexual.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, beverly. You rock. I don't agree with your some of your posts, but you write so clearly and politely that it's very easy for me to sympathise with your view, if that makes any sense.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It that truly is the case, then I am not overly concerned about it because it does not really adversely effect me. I am trepidatious though, because I do not share your certainty. I think experimentation is different than being raised with the idea from infancy. But only time will tell, neh?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thank you both Storm and Chris. I fear to offend when I am open about my feelings on this matter, but my desire to be understood is also very strong. I appreciate the respect and politeness that I have felt here.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I need to become a writer... as soon as possible... So I can at least counter OSC's arguements... No one is trying to abolish marriage... Homosexual marriage would not have an adverse affect on society. It's like worrying about the barbarians at the gate, picking at the walls and foundations of society and ignoring the ones inside the gate. What negatively effects marriages are personal matters on the inside of marriages... Which is not to say that outside forces can't effect marriage, but it's not homosexuality we have to worry about...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Beverly - it's obvious to me that you speak with respect for other people, with love for families (both yours and others), from a strong personal belief, and from loyalty to your society. We may differ in the specifics, but the ideals and dreams are the same.
[ April 04, 2004, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The way I see it, it is completely accurate to say that homsexual parnerships are reproductively disfunctional. They are not capable of reproducing on their own. The fact that they have to resort to adoption/artifical insemination/sperm donation in order to reproduce means that they *are* disfunctional in that regard.
Storm -- It wasn't until the third time through your first post that I see that I didn't understand it the first time. Sorry. But you quoting "reproductively disfunctional" as "disfunctional" did a lot to throw me off course. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sorry. I will try to be more clear.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:They are not capable of reproducing on their own. The fact that they have to resort to adoption/artifical insemination/sperm donation in order to reproduce means that they *are* disfunctional in that regard.
Right, but in the long run with genetic alterations they might not need any external measures at all. Or people could just change gender, like in Ian M. Banks's Culture books.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And, just for the record, I would be more than willing to see marriage be exclusively defined to mean those people who have children and then call everything else civil unions. I think children and parents *are* important to society, and if society wants to recognize those people who take on that burden as the only ones being truly married, that's super and I think 'fair'.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Of course, gay couples should be allowed to adopt, too.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*shrug* Then its not a particularly useful or meaningful meaning of reproductively disfunctional.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Right, but in the long run with genetic alterations they might not need any external measures at all. Or people could just change gender, like in Ian M. Banks's Culture books.
When those exist, then it would make sense to base our laws on them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You still have yet to show a good argument for homosexual people not being allowed to marry (or at least have civil unions), and there have been several arguments put forward for homosexual marriage/civil unions that closely follow traditional arguments for marriage (solidarity of the family, stability of society, better environments for kids, and all that), so one would presume they are at least tolerable arguments.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
On the subject of gay couples adopting, while I would rather see children go to stable, healthy heterosexual couples, I think that having stable parents is worlds better than being bounced around foster homes. Stable, healthy gay couples can provide this. To be able to say, "That's my mom" or "That's my dad" and have that anchor in life is so important. But I also like the "mom and dad combination" pattern to continue to be imprinted as much as possible on the rising generation, and that is not provided by gay couples.
From what I understand, babies are in high demand, especially "white" babies (or anyway, babies of the parents' race). It is the "non-babies" that are not getting placed. If someone could convince me that gay couples were more likely to adopt "non-babies", I would stand up and applaud.
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, a gay couple, like a hetero couple, would probably prefer babies and thus create more competition for babies and not ease up the foster situation much if at all.
So I guess my conclusion is that I am concerned about gay couples competing with hetero couples for babies, the children in highest demand who are usually not part of the "foster" crisis.
Edit: I guess my real point is that those who say that gay marriage will benefit society by helping the foster care situation does nothing for me.
[ April 04, 2004, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: You still have yet to show a good argument for homosexual people not being allowed to marry (or at least have civil unions), and there have been several arguments put forward for homosexual marriage/civil unions that closely follow traditional arguments for marriage (solidarity of the family, stability of society, better environments for kids, and all that), so one would presume they are at least tolerable arguments.
Fugu, who is this comment directed at? I am not trying to make this argument, I am not sure who here is.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was talking to mph.
Also, it is reasonable to assume that homosexual couples would adopt less wanted babies in at least the same frequency that non-homosexual couples would adopt the less wanted babies -- thus reducing the number of babies in the foster system even if they adopt only at the rates of the general population.
In other words, even if your suppositions are completely accurate, your argument still falls flat, because some couples do adopt less wanted babies.
And as homosexual couples are definitely familiar with being excluded for reasons of intolerance, it may very well be that they are more accomodating (though history's record on similar situations is mixed).
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
By the way, I've got to say, those of you who disagree with Card on this subject are being FAR nicer to him this time around. [takes a huge sigh of relief at not having to leap in and defend him against rabid opponents] Thank you.
[ April 04, 2004, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You do realize that the way people respond to him has a lot to do with the way he writes his columns?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
fugu -- I haven't tried to present any arguments, because all the arguments that I can think of have already been debated to death. But to me, the one I find most compelling is that that by definition, marriage is between man and woman just like by definition, brothers are both male. Calling homosexual relationships marriages makes as much sense to me as declaring 11:00 AM noon (something that my state started doing today [die, daylight savings time!]). It's not noon, no matter what it's called, and it's not marriage.
But you asked about civil unions. I don't have anything to say about that, because I don't know what I think or feel about that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that people just got tired out from fighting about the previous one.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was going a bit reflexively preemptive there, I apologize. What I was responding to was actually the common followup to statements like you made.
Re: what you just said, throughout much of history marriage was between a man and as many women as he could get to join him. Also throughout much of history marriage was between a man and girls as young as twelve. Also throughout most of history, a wife was a man's property.
We have changed the definition of marriage repeatedly throughout history.
Re: OSC's columns, I think he would find that were he more respectful to other people, other people would be more respectful to him, though I strive to be polite myself. Similarly, I think he would find if he did some basic fact checking and didn't make absolute statements when absolutes were not present he would find that his arguments were better received.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Fugu, I hadn't thought about it that way. Just as some hetero couples adopt less desired children, gay couples would also. There is still my lingering concern though, it is a matter of weighing benefits.
But since I am not in the loop of making decisions for the nation (nor do I have any brilliant ideas on how I would run things) I will just stick to talking about how I feel to others.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Weighing benefits is important, yes, but its not all about benefits. Its also about justice, and privileges, and respect, and equality.
Human beings are selfish, but I firmly take the position that we should not always take positions because they have the most benefits for us, but consider other people as important in and of themselves, and remember that society is an ecology, not a monolith.
[ April 04, 2004, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes. The homosexual community wants respect for their lifestyle. And there are many not willing to give it, and many who are actively against legitimizing it. And thus we have an impasse.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In this case the homosexuality is asking for respect for their committed relationships, whatever lifestyle those relationships fall under.
Despite the insistence of OSC, homosexual people live as many varied lifestyles as hetereosexual people. There are conservative, uptight homosexual people who don't like to talk about sex; there are party animal homosexual people who like to, well, party; there are middle class homosexual people who live in a nice neighborhood near Williamsburg with their partner and love to have their nearby family over (this would be a pair of my aunts). There is no "homosexual lifestyle" any more than there's a black lifestyle or a white lifestyle. Homosexual people take part in the lifestyles around them, just like everybody else; there's a bias towards more liberal lifestyles, but that's hardly surprising as conservative groups anathemize them.
The difference is that when homosexual people fall in love and eventually have sex with their lovers, the paired lovers are of the same sex.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm sorry if you got offended at the term lifestyle in regards to homosexuals. I wish I could think of a term that will not offend. I don't see how what I said is offensive at all.
So let me re-phrase. Homosexuals want homosexuality to be accepted in society. There are others that want to make sure that it never is. *This* is what I was trying to say. Is *that* offensive?
I'm just a little frustrated. No matter how hard I try to not be offensive, somebody gets offended. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ok, Fugu, but I don't think my position is harming anyone, and I don't hold the position for my own benefit or even just that of my family. I believe it is about the greater good of society. But it is simply my belief, YMMV. Key word: belief. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
beverly -- I don't feel you've made clear enough what your position is for me to evaluate whether its harming anyone; also, its important to note that almost any position will harm someone for some definition of the word harm.
Re: homosexual lifestyle. If that's the only difference, its not an impasse. The Supreme Court of the United States has quite clearly stated that what goes on in the bedroom is Constitutionally no business of government when the only objection is either that it is between people of the same sex or that it is a type of sex commonly undertaken by members of the same sex.
As such, if that is the only foundation for law against such relationships to be based on, it fails.
[ April 05, 2004, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
AllI am saying is we should not allow homosexual marriages, as the laws that have developed ragarding different aspects of marriage, like children, has evolved to support the male-famale gender inequalities.
I say give homosexuals civil unions and then let the appropriate laws develop around civil unions. Man-Man or Women-Women relationships, by their structural differences will require different laws.
If homosexual couples want heterosexual couples to not just "tolerate," but "embrace" their lifestyle, then they can encourage heterosexual individuals to forgo traditional marriage and get civil unions.
But to give the same status and laws to same gender unions that heterosexual unions have, does not make sense to me--from a legal or social perspective.
[ April 05, 2004, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Alexa,
quote: Our marriage laws are a body of laws that have grown, from antiquity, to address the lack of parity between man and women in society, due to the fact that women bare children and have less strength as men do in the workplace.
What do you mean by "women... have less strength as men do in the workplace"? Are you talking about brute strength or do you think that women are less capable of having a successful career than men?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I don't want to go into the whole "successful career" myth, but I do see what Alexa is saying. It is a fact that, historically, women have long had great difficulty competing with men in the workplace. This is not an indication of relative intelligence or capability, but rather a simple statement of cultural fact. Marriage laws, with property rights, insurance arrangements and traditional divorce settlements, reflect this. These laws are beginning to evolve with changes in culture, but I think what Alexa is trying to say is that heterosexual union and homosexual union have unique and disparate histories, and it can be argued that there should be unique sets of laws governing the two situations. These laws can not only reflect unique histories and present conditions, but can evolve independently as cultural paradigms evolve around them.
It is an interesting position. One that I had not previously considered, but it does make some good sense. I'll have to think on it.
Posted by knightswhosayni! (Member # 4096) on :
Speed, women have only been encouraged to join the workforce since the fifties. Of course there's going to be a difference historically.
Ni!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AllI am saying is we should not allow homosexual marriages, as the laws that have developed ragarding different aspects of marriage, like children, has evolved to support the male-famale gender inequalities.
Alexa, I would be curious what laws you are referring to?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:the laws that have developed ragarding different aspects of marriage, like children, has evolved to support the male-famale gender inequalities.
So, by your definition of the development of law over time, the move to legally support gay marriage would be a fitting tribute. As it is, there are currently plenty of inequalities between hetero- and homosexuality. Like the laws that were put into place to address gender inequalities then, new laws are being put into place to addres inequalities now. What is the difference?
And for the record, gay couples CAN get married, they just can't get recognition for that marriage in all public institutions. I have attended religiously sanctioned gay marriages at a variety of churches (2 Christian and 1 Unitarian Universalist) and in the eyes of those congregations and in the eyes of the God they believe in, these marriages are sanctioned and holy. People may debate what THEIR interpretation of what THEIR God would think, but the fact is that there are a lot of different ideas of what God thinks on these issues. The government shouldn't be in the position to pick and choose from those ideas.
fil
[ April 05, 2004, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
fil,
You say,
quote: So, by your definition of the development of law over time, the move to legally support gay marriage would be a fitting tribute. As it is, there are currently plenty of inequalities between hetero- and homosexuality. Like the laws that were put into place to address gender inequalities then, new laws are being put into place to address inequalities now. What is the difference?
The difference is the inequalities addressed in current marriage laws are derived from the inequalities in man-women relationships. The TYPES of inequalities homosexuals face are different then the inequalities of man-woman relationships. For example, men still make on average more then women; women, unlike men, can give birth and feel the sense of motherhood.
I know someone named K. K is the mother of three and got a divorce. She claims she fought for custody of her kids. Well, she lost.
Stop, open your mind, and think. Are there any conclusions you are making about a mom who fought for custody of her kids and lost? Let's add to the equation that the dad makes about $9.00/hour and is not wealthy by any standard....What are you feeling right now?
If you think she did not win custody because she is VERY unstable, you are right.
If the roles were reversed, and you think of a guy who fought for custody of his kids and lost, would you feel the same about him as K?
You shouldn't, not because you your some judgmental *explicative*, but because laws are designed to keep the children with the mom. If K would of shown ANY sign of stability, she could of won some type of custody.
There are assumptions about motherhood that the laws honor. There are all sorts of legal battles to determine if guys are being treated fair, and there are more and more joint custody battles where the man is winning partial custody. But still, these battles are tied to the male-female role expectations, the women’s movement, the rights of dads, and inequalities by nature of the difference of men and women. These legal disputes are *evolving* from man-women relationships.
Man-man or woman-woman relationships are structurally different. If Rosie married Ellen, adopted a baby and then got a divorce, there is no precedent to determine by what standard either one would get custody. Is it determined by tho makes the most money? Is there a standard of stability? Do they get joint custody? What if one moves to the other coast?
The structural difference between same sex unions, would require a different type of laws that are not founded in the man-woman paradigm of family law.
quote:And for the record, gay couples CAN get married, they just can't get recognition for that marriage in all public institutions.
Of course. I have a friend who married in the woods without involving the government, but since we are talking about legal implications and social status of having the public recognize gay marriage, self proclaimed marriages aren't really what we are talking about.
Storm Saxon,
As I have a full time job, a part time job, a Masters Class, and I am in the middle of pregnancy, I have not had time to look up specific laws. Give me some time. I am at work, but I have a good acquaintance (a lawyer who specializes in family law) who can help me be more specific. I will try to contact him tonight.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Is there a difference between fairness and equality?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think you basically answered my question in your response to fil, Alexa.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is there a difference between fairness and equality?
Yes, there's definitely a difference between the two. For example, a criminal court proceeding could be called unfair if it did not allow the defendant to compel witnesses to testify, but if all defendants were treated this way it would not be unequal.
The concepts are related, but not identical.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Next exercise: What is a situation which is fair, but not equal?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Another question: is there anything more important than fairness and equality? In other words, can something be right, but not equal and/or fair?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It can, if it is for the benefit of society But it is hard to determine what is best for society without taking every member into consideration and not just a handful of groups clumped together into a stereotype. After all, if the country prides itself on freedom and equality, it must live up to that standard.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: The structural difference between same sex unions, would require a different type of laws that are not founded in the man-woman paradigm of family law.
Yes, this is true, but totally pointless as a reason not to go forward with legally recognizing gay marriage. There have to be all sorts of paradigm shifts because of cultural changes. You make the example yourself. Current bias of the court shows that in divorce cases, the children typically go to the mother for custody as a rule and only in situations like the above (a very unstable mother) would they go against that. This has to change because the culture of the US right now is NOT the dad bringing home the bacon while mom slaves in the kitchen while herding a flock of children. To put that bacon on the table (and to even own a table) couples often both have to work and because of this change, one would HOPE that the courts would change their views on custody.
More importantly, your example has nothing to do with gay couples. There is a crisis in America with couples divorcing left and right and children being raised by single parents or having to deal with hopping between two homes and two sets of parents. This is all BEFORE gay marriage is legalized.
Precedent is set by courts willing to make the call and simply adding a new wrinkle to the old problem shouldn't be a reason to not do something. That is why the courts are there, to constantly set precedent on new situations and interpretations of the law. I hope Rosie and Ellen stay together with their newly adopted child, but if they don't and can't work it out themselves, I hope that they find a court willing to think a little and not be afraid to set new precedent as their historical counterparts did.
fil
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Is there more to marriage than children's rights?
OSC's article tightly ties marriage and parenting together. As a married man without a foreseeable biological child in my future, I worry about talk like this. Does he mean that my Reproductively Disabled Marriage is not worthy?
Of course not.
Nor is he asking that proof of fertility be displayed before the wedding. If that were the case, weddings could only occur at the maternity ward. Bastardization would be the mark of marital legitimazation.
OSC is not suggesting I leave my wife and find a more fertile female more appropriate for my genetic demands.
There are benefits that I recieve from my marriage that are dear to me.
I know that I will have someone in my hospital room if I am ill.
I know that I will have someone sharing my retirement if we both live that long.
I have someone who shares my economic life, allowing us to pull our resources and be a greater whole than either of our parts.
I can check into a hotel with my wife, and get a single bed legally.
We share credit cards. We share tax returns. We share our lives.
We can adopt children.
When we adopt my wife will quit her job to take care of the children, and her health will be covered by my insurance.
We love each other.
Now, there are forms and legal certificates that can allow much of this to be done by a gay couple. Under a "Civil Union" most of the rest of this will be allowed, in certain states, in various degrees, depending on whatever laws pass at any given time.
My marriage gives me the same rights no matter which state I travel too.
Civil Unions will be done by states, so medical coverage gauranteed in New York may disappear during a vacation in Florida. Equal division of assets in law in California my be null and void if one of the couple moves to Arizona with both of their assets. A legal anniversary romantic get away in Hawaii might end up in an arrest if the couple has a 1 day lay-over in Texas, and checks into a hotel room together.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: What is a situation which is fair, but not equal?
Some might argue that the tax code is "fair" in some respects but not equal. For example, one might think it is fair that the rich in the country who control the most amount of money might pay more in terms of taxes than those that have less to contribute. It would be unequal in that the proportion is larger for a person of significant wealth compared to a person with less money.
How is fair measured? Equal can be pretty subjective on its own but at least can have some value that can be measured. Fair seems to be a bit more subjective than that.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Of course. I have a friend who married in the woods without involving the government, but since we are talking about legal implications and social status of having the public recognize gay marriage, self proclaimed marriages aren't really what we are talking about.
I disagree, I think it is what we are talking about, at least in part. When a legally recognized church (or churches) recognizes a marriage in their institution, it isn't some "self-proclaimed" marriage that you are talking about. This was church led, church sanctioned and in all ways meaningful to the couple and those in attendance as any heterosexual union. The only difference is the legal matter. So maybe, as some have pointed out, maybe this is a good time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and recognize civil unions of any sort and let the religious institutions define what in their world view they will accept.
Here is where fairness gets off the bus. The biggest opponents to gay marriage are merely religious wolves in sheep clothing. We know this because there really isn't any non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage. If you take the religious out of it, then you are left with thin and potentially damaging rhetoric.
I really do like Alexa's points as they are at least trying to point out a secular reason, but they really don't stand up to much scrutiny. Fear of how courts might have to set new precedent doesn't work, for me at least. And as noted, OSC's points only work if we assume he is only refering to gay couples with this whole "reproductively dysfunctional" couples thing. If we just take him at face value, then any couple not together for the express purpose of making a baby with each other really isn't a marriage. Which if fine if you want to walk down that road, because that is one of the few roads you can walk down without invoking the Bible. But you are going to anger a bunch of couples without kids due to lack of desire to have kids, lack of ability to have kids or lack of resources to have kids.
But you would have to include those folks, to be fair. If you throw in adoption as an option or artificial insemination, then you legitimize all couples, gay or straight, with the exception of those who don't want kids or don't have the resources to support kids. Is that fair? Is that a road folks want to go down? How can you not if you a) want to be fair and b) want to keep it non-religious.
fil
[ April 05, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kasie,
quote:He thinks this is a bad thing. Personally, I think it means society is advancing.
I'm curious about this statement. I may or may not disagree with you. If you mean to say that it's an indication of cultural advancement that out-of-wedlock parents are no longer insulted, ostracized, shunned, and disrespected, etc., then I agree with you. I think doing such things is rarely, if ever, helpful to parent or child, and is also frequently born of self-righteousness.
But I disagree if you are saying that it's an indication of cultural advancement that out-of-wedlock child-rearing is now viewed as less harmful and more acceptable than it was in the past. (This is one way the part I quoted could be interpreted.)
While it's hard to seperate the two-stigma and ostracizement, and an opinion (I would use the word 'knowledge') that single-parent households are not the ideal, I think it's an important distinction. While I recognize that frequently, it's actually better for the home to have but one parent, by no means do I think it's an improvement that single-parenting lifestyles are more acceptable than they once were.
quote:Homosexual people will always be homosexual.
They will? I am personally on the fence on this issue, and don't see how anyone without an ideological axe to grind could not be. There is not, to my mind, any scientific data remotely uncontested that leads to this conclusion.
As a political matter, that makes little difference to me. Whether or not it's genetic or a matter of choice to some degree, I don't care.
J4
Edit: Looking over that, I was a bit unclear. So to clarify my position: I do not believe that single-parent children are doomed to failure, or that couples should stay together no matter what 'for the sake of the children', or that a single-parent cannot be a dynamic, loving, and powerfully good guide in their child's life.
However, I am sometimes unsettled by the belief (not stated anywhere in this thread) that single-parent and dual-parent households are equally desirable when it comes to the ideal child-rearing situation. It is from this unease that I began this post. Hopefully, I've made myself more and not less clear, heh.
[ April 05, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Homosexual people will always be homosexual.
I was not so sure about this argument either. There are plenty of biographies written by people who were gay but became straight, and now have happy marriages with someone of the opposite sex.
I personally know a guy that has gone back and forth between gay and straight, and isn't sure how to classify himself. Maybe he's just confused, but there's nothing to say that a gay person will never be interested in a marriage with someone of the opposite sex.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Plenty of biographies? Care to point out some? There is a small population of people who claim to have changed sexual orientation, but it remains exceedingly rare.
Now, there are plenty of gay people who have had marriages with people of the opposite sex, such as Oscar Wilde, but as he engaged in homosexual relationships his entire life its somewhat hard to suggest he switched orientations.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
fil,
thank you for the compliment, especially considering that you disagree with me.
I do take exception to
quote: The biggest opponents to gay marriage are merely religious wolves in sheep clothing.
I disagree because later on you talk about the bible. The implication is that the only arguments against gay marriage are found in the bible. Those who believe in the bible's view are religious wolves.
I do not see this as an argument between Christians and anti-Christians or liberals or whatever term people are using these days.
I do not see oriental cultures rushing to sanction gay marriage. The argument really boil down to whether you think it is good for society, and you don't need an opinion of the bible to hold a position for either side.
Whether homosexuality is genetic, a choice, a curse, a blessing, or something to be proud of, it is still fringe. There are a lot of behaviors that are stigmatized with homosexuality that the homosexual community is not condemning.
Lets take for example the newly ordained homosexual priest. We pat ourselves on the back for how tolerant we are becoming, and yet, we place a man in ecclesiastical power who left his wife and kids and committed adultery. Oh, his partner was a man, so we should be place him on a pedestal of social advancement.
My point is that in the homosexual community there is a sense of "anything goes." If it makes you feel good, go for it. I think the biggest reaction to homosexual marriage is the fear of endorsing the fringe. When the fringe becomes the norm and anything goes...well there is a legitimate fear of what that means for our country.
As a thinking adult who believes the morality of laws is based on the idea of consent, I think we should give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. As someone who is concerned about the environment I live in, the anything goes mentality needs to be respected for the damage it can do. And I am not just talking about homosexuality, I am talking about a great deal many things. The homosexual movement is notorious for moving more and more fringe into mainstream. Those who feel this is dangerous have legitimate concerns. I agree with OSC that it is scary to label opposition as hate speech.
How can we ensure same rights without endorsing behavior we disagree with? I like the idea of civil unions with same legal rights, but Dan_raven makes a good point that civil unions are determined on a state by state basis and are inferior.
Maybe it won't make any difference to society if gays marry. Maybe it will help. Maybe it will hurt. Maybe it will be disappointing to homosexuals. Marriage, or the dissolution of marriage, seems to create a lot of heart aches and financial ruin.
But to label opponents as religious wolves is unfair.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And PSI, some people are bisexual. Sounds like your friend is.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
M_P_H
quote:Yes. The homosexual community wants respect for their lifestyle. And there are many not willing to give it, and many who are actively against legitimizing it. And thus we have an impasse.
I think legally legitimizing homosexual marriage will not create the respect for their lifestyles homosexuals are demanding.
I go back to having a new type of union that homosexuals can persuade heterosexual unions to participate in, if they want to expose the bias of traditional marriage. I know of at least one professor who would have a civil union over a traditional marriage. When civil unions become the norm, then homosexuality will achieve its goal.
Too bad civil unions are legally inferior to marriages still.
I am holding off on what laws in family law are built around man-woman unions until I can do research.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm trying to find some information about reparative therapy. It's useful to find stuff about it from first person sources.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:Lets take for example the newly ordained homosexual priest. We pat ourselves on the back for how tolerant we are becoming, and yet, we place a man in ecclesiastical power who left his wife and kids and committed adultery. Oh, his partner was a man, so we should be place him on a pedestal of social advancement.
Insert appropriate Catholic priest hyprocrisy here. The exception to prove the rule doesn't fly with me. The only reason this is huge is because it is new in this church. There are plenty of open gay clergy in other christian and non-christian churches but those tend to be more liberal ones. The Anglican church worldwide isn't seen as very liberal so this was huge. Unless you are making a point that all gay priests are adulterers, I can't see what this has to do with fairness in marriage laws.
quote: My point is that in the homosexual community there is a sense of "anything goes." If it makes you feel good, go for it. I think the biggest reaction to homosexual marriage is the fear of endorsing the fringe. When the fringe becomes the norm and anything goes...well there is a legitimate fear of what that means for our country.
Really? How so? For any one instance you show me that supports your homosexual "anything goes" stance, I can show you a dozen, a hundred or more instances of "anything goes" in typically heterosexual venues such as television, movies, radio and even literature. One could argue there has been a "legitimate fear" of this sort of attitude since Elvis shook his hips on stage nearly 60 years ago. Or when the flappers had the gall to show a knee or two. Society didn't crumble when Monroe's skirt flew up over the sewer grate.
quote:But to label opponents as religious wolves is unfair.
I agree, it might have been a bit strong. Maybe a more non-offensive metaphor... a fish in duck's clothing? A man in woman's clothing? My point, though, is that if you scratch an opponent to gay marriage, you are much more likely to find folks of a religious and conservative bent than someone coming from a more secular point of view. Why did I bring this up? To bring it back to the point of the original post...is it fair? Is it fair that one aspect of one religion's teachings dictates how society will live. Not all christian churches endorse gay marriage and at the same time, not all christian churches oppose gay marriage. Why the government would take a side on this issue points to the fairness issue. Take the religion out of the discussion and I still don't see much in the way of rational argument left.
Honest, I really do like the discussion around "family law" and OSC's points lead in that secular direction, but this is even more a slippery slope because by omitting the relgion, you are left with vague issues like "reproductive function" being a defining point of marriage and when that happens, you lose your target audience because suddenly straight couples are going to be brought into the mix. That is fair, right? I mean, if we take OSC's basic meaning, and yours Alexa, then we would have to skew to a thin definition of what a marriage is and even more thin, what a family is.
Law has had to set all sorts of new precedents with "what is family" long before gay marriage hit the scene. With donor wombs, donor sperm, donor eggs, open adoption, closed adoption, foster-to-adopt programs, divorce, kinship care, etc. all sorts of things are topsy turvy and society stil has failed to crumble as predicted.
You are far from a wolf! Unless you are a nice, well spoken wolf!
fil
Posted by Bartleby147 (Member # 6149) on :
quote: AllI am saying is we should not allow homosexual marriages, as the laws that have developed ragarding different aspects of marriage, like children, has evolved to support the male-famale gender inequalities.
Since when does the fact that we've always done it that way in the past mean that we should keep doing it that way in the future? One of the greatest strengths of a liberal society like the United States is that we constantly critique and question past assumptions. That's how you improve, by looking at what exists and seeing if it's possibly to make it better.
Prior to 1900 the America electoral system had evolved based on the conception that only men could vote. Then the nineteenth amendment came along and changed everything. Women's suffrage flew in the face of established laws and dogmas, and things worked out fine. I challenge anybody to explain to me how the ninenteenth amendment hurt the United States. So why should we be scared to look at the way things are now and try to make them better?
Whatever you feel about gay marriage, the argument that "we've always done it this way, so how can we change now?" just doesn't hold water.
[ April 06, 2004, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Bartleby147 ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:My point is that in the homosexual community there is a sense of "anything goes." If it makes you feel good, go for it. I think the biggest reaction to homosexual marriage is the fear of endorsing the fringe. When the fringe becomes the norm and anything goes...well there is a legitimate fear of what that means for our country.
Careful, you're running the risk of ruining a perfectly good argument with dumb statements like this.
The "gay community" bears as much resemblance to homosexuals in general as the Hollywood community bears to the rest of us. You could just as easily say that in the teenage community there is a sense of anything goes, or that all politicians are crooks... Do not define the group by its extreme members. the people you see wearing black leather in parades are not the same ones as the people living quietly down the road from you.
[ April 06, 2004, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Since many may have not read the site Syn pointed to, here's a little summary:
Its the story of a leader in the ex-gay movement; first, he got lots of professional help. Second, he had a very strong faith for most of his life (and still does). Third, he is now openly gay.
Some things of note:
He never stopped having homosexual feelings, except for short periods of time after shock therapy.
He never had heterosexual feelings.
The other people he was with in the ex-gay movement similarly all still felt homosexual feelings, they just worked to suppress them.
He is raising kids, with the full support of his former wife (she did not encourage anything, but she loved him and understood it).
He mentions in passing that a very prominent leader in the ex-gay movement had been exposed as a fraud, having had sexual relationships with several of his male clients throughout his leadership.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Alexa, think of it this way. Mormons are far more homogenous than many communities out there, at least in lifestyle. Yet it would still be a gross injustice to characterize the Mormon community in a sentence or two, except possibly in a very narrow way related to a few central tenets of their belief. Certainly impossible to encompass their entire lifestyle.
Well, the homosexual community, insoshort as there is one, is much less homogenous. The Log Cabin Republicans, for instance, are a pretty good sized group considering how few openly practicing homosexual people there are. As I stated earlier, there are homosexual members of every societal group, pretty much.
What occurs, however, is a kind of statistical bias. Certain groups and types of groups tend to drive out homosexual members. Those groups are almost uniformly conservative in nature. Thus, the presence of homosexual people in groups which are not those types of groups will be disproportionately high. This is not a characterization of the homosexual community, its just an explanation why there is a slight bias towards a certain kind of community.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Lets take for example the newly ordained homosexual priest.
If you are talking about Rev. Robinson, get your facts straight. He’s been an ordained priest for nearly 30 years, he was recently consecrated Bishop.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
[ April 06, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
you are right...and this is in general to everyone else on this thread, that I crossed the line. It was an attempt to understand why the majority of peopel (not just christian) oppose gay marriage. I am not just talking about America either. I mean Japan, Korea, China, I am sure Africa, the Middle East, Russia....what is the opposition to. I was tryng to elaborate what people feel and that this upheavel it is not a "Christian" response--altho christianity has certainly been very vocal.
What are people afraid of?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Synethesia,
In my years in the church, I could never imagine anyone saying
quote: Sometimes one of the guys would get so mad about it he would scream, and say that no one is born gay, that gays are faggots and god would not create faggots.
God, I hope this individual made this up. It is so horrible I can not comprehend such a reaction. Shudders. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The sad thing is, I don't think he was making it up... This sort of so-called therapy does a lot of damage to already paper thin self esteems...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
People are afraid of Change.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: homosexual lifestyle. If that's the only difference, its not an impasse. The Supreme Court of the United States has quite clearly stated that what goes on in the bedroom is Constitutionally no business of government when the only objection is either that it is between people of the same sex or that it is a type of sex commonly undertaken by members of the same sex.
It seems to me that what the supreme court ruled about was outlawing private practices in the bedroom. Having one's homosexual relatinoship legally sanctioned as marriage is not private. I don't see how that applies.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
fugu -- If I understand you, you are saying that although homosexuals tend to be more liberal, it is wrong to assume that they are more liberal? I'm not being facetious -- it really looks to me like you are saying that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A law against homosexual marraiges would not be by nature unconstitutional, under the current court, but it isn't just about what the law says, its about what the intent and reasoning behind the law were. And the Supreme Court has made it quite clear that if the only reasoning is founded around what people do in the bedroom wrt homosexual sex, a law cannot stand.
Now, such a law probably would stand in practice even were that the "real reason", simply because people often state other reasons, regardless of whether they might enact a law based on those reasons alone or not (and the courts do try to stay out of determining intent as much as possible).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I'm saying that homosexuals are found disproportionately in more liberal groups than conservative ones, but that this will naturally occur simply because more conservative groups make homosexuals feel unwelcome (I certainly wouldn't feel welcome were I advised to try shock therapy).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I've heard of several accounts of this type of reparative therapy, mostly out of Utah, though I was never offered aversion therapy myself. My own experience struggling against homosexual tendencies was while I was in the military. My bishop arranged for me to talk with an LDS therapist "off the record" so as not to endanger my standing in the USAF. The therapist wasn't particularly helpful, not dealing with the issue of homosexual feelings at all, but preferring to explore my disfunctional family situation, which I was already learning to deal with on my own.
I was given some pretty strange advice from other bishops, though. I was advised strongly that what I needed was to get married and the feelings would go away. I was also advised that this wasn't something I should discuss with a prospective wife. I wonder how many other LDS homosexuals have gotten similar advice. I bet that would account in part for the large number of married, gay, LDS men I have met who were either cheating on their spouses or have gotten divorced.
[ April 06, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That is, there's no reason to ascribe disproportionate homosexual representation in liberal groups to any "liberal tendency" in homosexuality. It can be readily ascribed to natural group dynamics of feeling welcome. There are plenty of conservative homosexuals out there, they're just less often members of conservative organizations, having left because they did not feel wanted.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Here is a more general important question I have.
Should the law allow people to do whatever they want, as long as they are not taking away the rights of others. I want to branch of from homosexuality and go into the realm of government influence in personal lives. Is there anything you can think of that the government has the right to outlaw that is done in the privacy of your own home and does not affect others?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Nope. Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I can think of one...and I see legal debates on the horizen. The implications of of this ever being legal is truely frightening.
What about child pornography where the pornography is computer generated? As CGI gets more advanced, what is the legal code of conduct in your opinion Storm?
Is it freedom of expression or is it a truely sick act that should be illegal?
[ April 06, 2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
That's a pretty interesting question in and of itself. You should post that in a thread of its own. (Not that I'm worried about derailing this thread, but you'd probably get interesting opinions from people who aren't reading this thread.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
no harm, no foul, in my opinion. It's like taking a picture of someone with a knife sticking out of their chest versus drawing someone with a knife sticking out of their chest. No different.
in any case, it's already been deemed illegal.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
I can't see how it'd be possible to outlaw homemade images that stay in the home.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I know it is illegal, but what I am trying to determine if it is justified to be illegal. If it is justified, then there is precedent for the government to regulated private behavior.
I do find the precendent does exist because the damage spamming that type of porn would be on the public good is overwhelming in my mind.
btw, I am taking both responses, putting them in quotes and will post a new thread.....
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Keats, I agree. Further, it would lead to outlawing books like the Fire and Ice series and the like that merely describe underage sex.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Can someone provide a link to where this was made illegal? I definitely remember reading that it was declared legally protected speech. Was this overturned?
[edit: I'd look myself, but I'm not doing searches on "virtual child pornography" from work. Sorry.]
[ April 06, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Have you seen the stuff coming out of Japan right now?
None of those girls look a day older than 10 years old.
quote:Is there anything you can think of that the government has the right to outlaw that is done in the privacy of your own home and does not affect others?
Smoking marijuana fits nicely here. Yet the government makes it illegal.
Of course I am of the opinion that they have no right to do so.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I do find the precendent does exist because the damage spamming that type of porn would be on the public good is overwhelming in my mind.
At that point, though, your parameters that you set in your first post of not effecting others are no longer in effect.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
please post on the new thread?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I do find the precendent does exist because the damage spamming that type of porn would be on the public good is overwhelming in my mind.
In all seriousness, I find the damage of the ordinary type of porn to be overwhelming.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
In what overwhelming ways has it damaged you?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
But you quoting "reproductively disfunctional" as "disfunctional" did a lot to throw me off course. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)