I was checking out which OSC books I don't have (been a bit behind in my reading) and ran across this discussion on amazon.com in which one of the people discussing how bigoted and hateful OSC is against gays put up this link.
Some quotes from that link:
"Orson Scott Card, according to People for the American Way, has advocated for the criminalization of homosexuality."
and...
"He also wrote, “Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage…”"
I haven't been on this board for awhile, but I'm pretty sure this is pure bunk. Maybe you guys can correct some this trash?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:has advocated for the criminalization of homosexuality
IIRC, the advocacy consists of voicing support for laws that already exist against sodomy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Wow, I am reading the article that Sean M put up and I am blown away. OSC generally offers a balanced and insightful look into whatever topic he is writing about.
I don't think that is the case with this.
I was ready to jump to OSC's defense, to tell off those people saying, "You simply misunderstood, OSC would never say anything hateful or bigoted!", and instead I'm having serious trouble getting through the article at all.
I'm not going to stop loving OSC's writing, but this article has seriously hurt my image of him and his status as a hero in my book.
I'm married, heterosexually, and have two children, a 17 month old son and a 2 month old daughter. And let me say this much, the topic of gay marriage in no way effects my marriage, or society's view of my marriage, or the value of my marriage.
Just like the rampant divorce rate and the extreme commonality of adultery have nothing to do with my marriage.
Because my marriage is a personal bond between me and my wife.
This topic has nothing to do with society or ability to have children or anything else. It's about freedom.
This is still basically a free country. And freedom isn't clean and neat, it's messy.
You don't like what your neighbor is doing? Too bad, as long as it doesn't directly hurt you, then it's none of your business.
The cool part is, if your neighbor doesn't like what you are doing, it's none of their business either!
Yay freedom!
Let the gays marry. It only effects your marriage if you choose to let it.
If you want to live in a country where divorce, adultery, homosexuality and premarital sex are policed by society, with public executions by stones, go live in one of the countries that still do it that way.
This here is America baby, land of the free and home of the brave.
Sometimes it takes some bravery to put up with the stupid crap your fellow Americans do (reality tv).
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:It only effects your marriage if you choose to let it.
OSC's argument isn't about an individual's marriage, IIRC. It's about protecting and promoting his standards of marriage generally, across the greater culture and society.
The change--and it is an enormous legal and cultural change-- would not affect my marriage. It may affect my descendants' relationships, though, including their marriages.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Let me just say this. I am a libertarian, and as such I do not believe that it is the place of our government to legislate morality.
You don't think it's good for same gender marriages, then raise your children with that ideal.
Our "culture" is a fragmented, multifaceted melting pot mishmash of awesome, great, good, decent, poor, bad, horrible and evil ideas and moralities. We must all choose what to sample from the many choices in the cultural buffet line.
To try and legislate your personal beliefs is not freedom.
OSC is saying that to call a same gender union a "marriage" causes actual harm to the institution of marriage.
Which is ridiculous.
We are not children, or simple minded or plants, which simply react to stimuli. We have free will and make choices.
It is evil to legislate morality.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"It is evil to legislate morality"
Is it evil to legislate against murder, or against rape, or against child abuse, or against fraud, or against theft? That's legislating morality too, you know.
I'm very supportive of same-sex marriage, but this is a nonsensical expression.
One can argue that it's evil to legislate against *adult consensual relationships*. But the reason it's evil is for the same reason it would be evil for private citizens to penalize gay people -- nothing in particular about the combination of *legislation* and morality.
quote:To try and legislate your personal beliefs is not freedom.
Whose beliefs are we supposed to try and legislate? If we debate on a law about intellectual property, and you say e.g. that copyright should expire at 20 years, and I say that copyright should expire at 5 years, and a yet third person argues that copyright shouldn't exist at all, each of us is trying to legislate their personal beliefs about what is proper for society.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:IIRC, the advocacy consists of voicing support for laws that already exist against sodomy.
Scott, isn't this basically the same thing, at least with regards to Card's intent behind supporting these laws? He's been quite clear with why he wants them on the books.
In other words, "Card supports the continued criminalization of homosexuality," (specifically because it's important to restrict any sort of public approval of homosexuality as a viable mainstream relationship option).
I don't know if he's expressed an opinion on laws specifically prohibiting consenting sexual activity such as sodomy between heterosexual adults, but frankly I would be incredibly skeptical that he would support them if they didn't already exist with this useful (from a practical, anti-homosexuality stance) application already in place.
[ March 03, 2011, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Aris, you got me...being sloppy and not finishing my thought to completion.
Of course murder, rape, etc are a moral issue, what I meant was that any action can be seen as immoral but that if there is no victim, if no one is directly and obviously harmed by that action, it is evil for government to legislate against it because some find it offensive or sinful.
As to legislating personal beliefs, I was more speaking of personal beliefs, not everything you think. For instance, would it not be evil and ridiculous if the US Government declared that blue was now the best color, and that all other colors were banned, or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one and only true god and all who do not follow his noodly goodness would be beaten to death with fettuccine?
It is one thing to say that gay marriage is wrong or evil or sin or whatever.
Is is an entirely different ball of wax to demand that it be (or remain) illegal to marry whom you see fit.
So, let's try it again.
It is evil to legislate your morality where that morality causes no direct harm to others.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: It is evil to legislate your morality where that morality causes no direct harm to others.
Now you have to define harm in a way that is acceptable to everyone. Good luck!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I decline!
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
I agree better with you now, Stone_Wolf_ -- but have patience with me as I make some further nitpicky comments: my arguments don't really affect the conclusion, which I agree with, but I believe your own argumentation could be strengthened from some more precise terminology.
For example:
quote:As to legislating personal beliefs, I was more speaking of personal beliefs, not everything you think. For instance, would it not be evil and ridiculous if the US Government declared that blue was now the best color, and that all other colors were banned,
'Blue is the best color' is a *preference* -- a more clear term than "personal belief". And yeah, it's both wrong and ridiculous for a society to try to enforce preferences that harm noone.
Let me add here a quote I read in lesswrong : "One of the successes of the Enlightenment is the distinction between beliefs and preferences."
Beliefs, whether currently testable or not, in the end have an absolute truth-value -- they're either true or false depending on whether they are consistent with reality.
Preferences aren't absolute, each person has their own. So it's not JUST wrong, it's (as you say) ridiculous to enforce one particular preference on a whole society, especially if it concerns private things and private relations.
quote:or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one and only true god and all who do not follow his noodly goodness would be beaten to death with fettuccine?
Now, the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Blessed Be His Noodly Appendages) is indeed a belief, not a preference. But what makes it wrong for society to legislate in favour of that belief, or to promote it in schools, or to penalize unbelievers, is NOT that it's a "personal" belief nor even that it's religious belief -- but rather that it's an *unverified and unverifiable* belief.
Consider for example the hypothetical that all Christianity's claims had real evidence backing them up. For example: Imagine you can put the communion bread and wine under the microscope and can see for yourself that the bread and wine have been miraculously transformed to flesh and blood.
Or imagine we discover a past-viewing machine (like in "Pastwatch: The redemption of Christopher Colombus) and we can see by ourselves that Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, got resurrected, etc -- we can verify for ourselves that every miracle occurred just like Christianity claims.
If such was the case, if the belief had *real* evidence backing it up, and no evidence against it, it not only wouldn't be wrong, it would be morally *required* for the state to teach it in schools -- because then Christianity (atleast the historical parts, not necessarily the ethical or afterlife parts) would have been scientifically validated.
Currently evolution has such scientific validation, and Christianity doesn't, which is why (though they are both beliefs), teaching the former is morally required and teaching the latter is morally... dubious at best. Much like teaching astrology and palm-reading would be.
quote:It is evil to legislate your morality where that morality causes no direct harm to others.
You're trying to generalize your argument and you have the general correct idea (not banning things that do no harm) - but the opponents of SSM would poke holes in this position too by saying "So, if some Starwars fan wants to call himself 'Jedi Knight', should the state issue him a card that recognizes him as a 'Jedi Knight' just because it does no direct harm? Let gays *call* themselves married, but why should the state recognize them as such"?
That's the problem with generalized arguments. You try to express a more general idea, but what you end up doing is letting holes in your argument.
Here's my own argument about why I consider it wrong for states to deny same-sex marriage to gay people: because I think that such discrimination hurts gay couples *and* society at large, and that recognizing same-sex marriage would help both the couples *and* society.
I don't need to generalize it into some greater ethical concept -- in discussing SSM, I prefer to first just talk about the consequences of legalizing SSM by itself. More general ethical theories *do* exist behind it (consequentialism in my case: that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on its expected consequences, and a certain set of values I have (like diversity preffered over conformity))...
...but they're not directly relevant to the point. I prefer the specific over the abstract.
Again apologies -- I've been too nitpicky, especially since I do agree with your conclusion -- but I just found it an opportunity to discuss some theoretical points that might be of interest. Sorry again.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Aris Katsaris I'm not surprised that we agree and of course I don't mind a little nit-picking, heck this is a discussion board right?
I agree with your arguments between "belief" and "preference"
Allow me to pick a nit or two myself...
quote: Currently evolution has such scientific validation, and Christianity doesn't, which is why (though they are both beliefs...
Evolution is not a belief, it is a theory. Theorems are flexible, adapting to best evidence, and are often abandoned or at least highly modified as new facts present themselves.
Belief spans the gap of proof or evidence, with a personal conviction that generally requires faith.
Which, on a personal note, is why I don't believe in God, but I do have a theory about it.
And yes, if you go to the DMV and fill out a change of name form they will indeed issue you an ID card for "Jedi Knight". Really.
Expressing my hatred and disgust of over-legislation is not just a "generalized argument" it is an ideal. Freedom is an idea that only has as much power as we are willing to fight for it to have.
I have zero problems with OSC's beliefs and religion nor his public pronouncements of the aforementioned. I do however have very large, angry and violent problems with his using the law as a weapon to inflict his judgment on others.
What makes this country great is our freedom. As we slip further and further away from that fundamental concept of independence we lose that greatness.
I do understand why you would want to limit the discussion to SSM, but as up in arms as I am about this, I would be equally ruffled by someone who advocated a limiting of OSC's (or anyone's) 1st amendment rights to say all that stuff I'm up in arms about.
Then again I am a Libertarian, and I do believe in liberty.
quote: I prefer the specific over the abstract.
I am not gay, I have no friends or family who are. This not by choice exactly, there have been some acquaintances, who preferred the company of their own gender.
My point is, I don't really care about the SSM thing for itself, but for me the specific issue at hand is the use of law to tread on freedoms.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Evolution is not a belief, it is a theory.
Theories are falsifiable beliefs that are backed by evidence. I believe evolution, so evolution is one my beliefs. Likewise I believe that the Earth revolves around the sun. That's again my belief. It's also a *true* belief of mine, because it coincides with reality.
Mind you I was a bit sloppy with language too, both Christianity and Evolution (or Heliocentrism, or General Relativity) are models of the universe which can be discussed in the abstract. Beliefs are *personal* -- a specific person's acceptance of Christianity (or a scientific theory) is their personal belief. not Christianity (or the theory) by itself.
Christianity is a religion, while Evolution or Heliocentrism or General Relativity are scientific theories because they are based on evidence and produce falsifiable predictions.
But religious beliefs and scientific beliefs are both different subsets of the "belief" superset.
quote:Belief spans the gap of proof or evidence, with a personal conviction that generally requires faith.
There's nothing in the definition of the word belief that says it requires faith. Once upon a time, religions tried to use evidence themselves: The first recorded scientific experiment was when Elijah and the priests of Baal both tried to prove their hypotheses about whose god was real: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/
Elijah won. He wasn't reported as requiring faith from his viewers - just the evidence of their own eyes. "You saw fire falling down from the sky, when *I* called on *my* god, but not when *they* called on *their* god. So my God is proven mightier."
Wouldn't it be nice if God's modern-day believers and God himself acted in the same way? Let all the religious people gather in one place, then let the catholics pray for a unambiguous miracle, and then let the protestants pray for same miracle, and then the orthodox christians, the muslims, the Jews, etc... whichever group's prayer produces the miracle, it wins.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
According to dictionary.com
Belief:
–noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Posted by Damon (Member # 12512) on :
I disagree with OSC on one point: that anti-sodomy laws should stay on the books. Now, the [/i]federal[/i] government has no business telling Nebraska or Houston to get rid of their anti-sodomy laws, but those governments should do so on their own.
I think homosexuals can and should do whatever they want: live together, create children in whatever way appeals to them (surrogate moms? good friends and turkey-basters? Don't care, none of my business) have whatever kind of sex appeals to them, make out in the middle of a restaurant and only get the same annoyed looks hetero couples do, whatever. God bless the gays, and may many gay couples live together in exclusive relationships for their whole lives.
But it's not marriage, any more than a factory is a house or a grocery store is a charity. A government might seek to alter the definitions of those words to include those things for legal purposes, but it doesn't make them what they aren't.
It's telling to me that in all of human history, even in places and time periods where homosexuality is respected and even idolized, like ancient Greece and parts of Pre-Colombian America, did not refer to homosexual relationships with the same word as their word for "marriage." In Greece, it was very common for married (to a woman) men to also have male lovers. Marriage was one thing, their male/male sexual relationships were another.
Greece is particularly relevant to this discussion. Greek philosophers discuss at length the role of marriage in society: it's the social institution that unites the Apollonian and Dionysian aspects of humanity and allows them to coexist. It's the reason comedies always end in a wedding: marriage brings order to our chaos in a critical way we don't really understand. Marriage is sacred. Not in the "because god said so" sense, but in the "we know this is important even though we don't understand it at all." way.
And I also agree with OSC that whatever damage gay marriage might do to society, it will pale in comparison to what we've already done with widespread divorce and single parent acceptance. But just because the airplane window already got hit by a bullet, cracked, but didn't buckle, we should go ahead and poke at it?
And yes, I feel marriage is that vital, that sacred: I agree with the ancient greeks on that front. I could be entirely wrong. Aristotle (who loved him some young boys by the way) could be wrong. I don't really want to take that chance with society though, not with the call being made by a handful of judges with lifetime appointments and nobody to answer to. It's a discussion we need to be able to have without people calling each other bigots. We need to begin to toss out the strawman argument that "the only argument against gay marriage is religious" and be willing to talk about the real issues.
If the Greeks, in all their ritualized integration of homosexuals, didn't institute gay marriage, we need to ask ourselves why, and why their homosexual population didn't really seem to mind it.
So thank you OSC, for a well-written secular argument against judicial redefinition of societal institutions. Maybe the debate can actually begin in an honest way someday.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You must not bring up the Greeks in this argument. The Greeks didn't have "gay" relationships the way we have nowadays. You're talking about men with boy lovers. Even the men who had wives. Plus, you don't want a Greek marriage if you're a woman. Women had NO rights in Greek and Roman culture. Marriage back then was more women as chattel than a woman in a relationship based on love and respect. Fact is, marriage has evolved over the ages from an aliance between two different families to what we have now. Yes, we have divorce, single parents, folks having kids out of wedlock, but it's not as if that is a new invention. Too many folks act as if there was some sort of Golden Age of Marriage that is being destroyed, but this isn't the case at all. The way I see it, gay marriage equals, here, have a piece of the pie. Gay people work, pay their taxes, start lives together, why should they be denied the right to get married because folks like OSC have a problem with it? Because folks like him choose to focus on something that is NOT hurting gamilies. Wher e is this same outcry for things that really hurt families, like child abuse and domestic violence? It's must easier to focus on gays instead of those important issues. Folks should not use religion as an excuse to bother a group of people anymore than Mormons should ban coffee, tea or alcohol because they don't drink it and neither should Muslims ban pork and booze.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Wher e is this same outcry for things that really hurt families, like child abuse and domestic violence?
I think we've had this conversation before. There is an outcry against these things. Note, however, that homosexual marriage marks an enormous difference in the way that our society carries out a fairly important function.
That delta is what makes the issue loom large, Synesthesia.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
How though? It's not that different other than it being two men and two women. Not like, say, polygamy. It's still two people who want to share their lives and build a life together.
You seriously do not see NOM taking out big ads telling husbands not to abuse their wives. And vice versa. I think they harp way too much on the gay issue. It should NOT be that big a deal.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Synesthesia makes a great point, that the idea, traditions, customs and cultural meaning of "marriage" have changed dramatically over the years.
Change is difficult, painful, uncomfortable and inevitable.
There was a time when divorce and adultery were all but unheard of. It was also a time when beating your wife and children was a common and accepted practice.
Ever heard of the phrase "the rule of thumb"? It was a common practice, even in my grandmother's time (according to her at least) that a man could beat his wife with a stick the diameter of his thumb and be okay in the eyes of the law.
Times change. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Exclusive sexual partnership is not part of the legal definition of marriage any more. Society doesn't ostracize or stone to death adulterers. The government does not force divorce or jail time on the unfaithful.
Til death do us part isn't either. Half, half the marriages in this country end well before rigamortis.
All this talk about keeping marriage "the way it has been since bla bla bla" is all so much empty hot air over a ship that has already sailed.
Look, I'm married, and I take the sanctity of my marriage very seriously, but at the end of the day there are only two people in this whole world who's actions affect my marriage. Mine and my wife's. Period.
quote:I think homosexuals can and should do whatever they want: live together, create children in whatever way appeals to them (surrogate moms? good friends and turkey-basters? Don't care, none of my business) have whatever kind of sex appeals to them, make out in the middle of a restaurant and only get the same annoyed looks hetero couples do, whatever. God bless the gays, and may many gay couples live together in exclusive relationships for their whole lives.
But it's not marriage, any more than a factory is a house or a grocery store is a charity.
I'm going to start calling the place that I live a housey, and not a house, because while it functions in every single aspect as a house, it is painted blue, and therefore is not, nor could ever be truly called a "house" because a real house could never ever be painted blue.
I don't get it, seriously. I want to call my housey a "house" but since you don't like the color blue it would make your house less of a house if I called my blue domicile by that noun.
In the time it took me to write this post 2,083 people (mostly children under the age of five) have died of starvation, water borne disease or AIDS.
This world has serious problems, real and deadly evil sh*t is happening, and two people of the same gender wanting to be called "married" just ain't that big a deal.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:How though? It's not that different other than it being two men and two women.
That's a huge difference; it prompts a serious reevaluation of gender roles, social dynamics and child-rearing, just to start.
quote:Synesthesia makes a great point, that the idea, traditions, customs and cultural meaning of "marriage" have changed dramatically over the years.
Sure. I'll note one thing though: in most western civilization, marriage has been between one man and one woman. Even in cultures where polygamous relationships were allowed, there were few that permitted homosexual partnerships, or solemnized them.
There is a lot of cultural inertia to shed. Saying that the inertia doesn't really exist, or that people should just *stop* somehow isn't going to convince anyone.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: There was a time when...adultery [was] all but unheard of.
While I agree with much of your post, Stone_Wolf_, I'm a little skeptical of the above. Adultery is a common element of pretty much every culture that features marriage.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's just that gender roles and social dynamics and child rearing HAVE ALREADY been re-evaluated. Which is kind of good. Gender roles have evolved a lot over the ages. I don't see why it should be men do this and women do that. Makes more sense to me if folks do what they are best at in a relationship instead of what their gender says they should be best at. I'm terrible at cleaning, for example.
Perhaps we are evolving to accept homosexuality relationships. There are some cultures that accepted them. Native American ones for example did. We've learned more about sexuality over the ages, for example, it probably isn't caused by distant fathers, being gay. We really should focus on more important issues than whether or not gays want to marry.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
ScottR- my problem with the "traditional" definition of marriage is that for the majority of history, marriage made me property of my husband. Yea there are exceptions, but overall, it pretty much sucked for women. Holding to something merely because it is tradition is wrong. Or every one's favorite response- slavery was a tradition. The important question should be what is right.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Ever heard of the phrase "the rule of thumb"? It was a common practice, even in my grandmother's time (according to her at least) that a man could beat his wife with a stick the diameter of his thumb and be okay in the eyes of the law.
False. That spurious etymology is really annoying.
Unless your grandma was over 300 years old, she was misinformed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
LoL, my grandmother will be so upset! I'll tell her though.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Ever heard of the phrase "the rule of thumb"? It was a common practice, even in my grandmother's time (according to her at least) that a man could beat his wife with a stick the diameter of his thumb and be okay in the eyes of the law.
False. That spurious etymology is really annoying.
Unless your grandma was over 300 years old, she was misinformed.
Thanks for posting that. I've often told people that about the phrase "rule of thumb", now I find out I was misinformed.
They say things come in threes. I often told people that "Wilmer the gunsel" in The Maltese Falcon was the same actor who became Jim Rockford's father in The Rockford Files. I told my wife this, then went to verify it at IMDB.... wrong.
And I also often told people that Paul Scofield, Oscar-winner for "A Man For All Seasons" played human, Klingon, Romulan, and Vulcan characters in the original Star Trek.... also very wrong.
What next? Does the Earth really orbit the Sun?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ostriches do not stick their heads in the sand. Nor did Mama Cass die of choking on a ham sandwich. Also lemmings don't jump into the ocean.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:What next? Does the Earth really orbit the Sun?
Only ever other Wednesday. The rest of time time it spells out "Eat at Joe's".
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: According to dictionary.com
Belief:
–noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
So you agree with me that the theory of evolution is a belief, according to definition (1), as I indeed do believe evolution?
The four definitions you give are really all specialized subsets of definition (1).
E.g. (3) "belief in <someone>" (whether that someone is a parent or a god) is used as shorthand for "I confidently believe that <someone> will not let me down". So "belief in" is again a subset of the "belief" superset.
And (4) just mentions religious beliefs -- which, again, a subset of beliefs in general.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: ScottR- my problem with the "traditional" definition of marriage is that for the majority of history, marriage made me property of my husband. Yea there are exceptions, but overall, it pretty much sucked for women. Holding to something merely because it is tradition is wrong. Or every one's favorite response- slavery was a tradition. The important question should be what is right.
Sure. I've found that with most folks who talk about traditional marriages or families, they are only taking in maybe the last 200 years or so of history. Few of the people who I've seen use the phrase ALSO mean "...and in addition to opposite-gender marriage, the woman is the property of the man."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Your statement was "in most western civilization" not in most western civilization in the past 300 years. In deed, many people specifically state numbers like 2000 years.
ETA- so, if we accept when people say traditional marriage, we don't mean that which has been true for much of history, but the parts that they like of marriage (man and woman, love match, no ownership, no polygamy) then what is the power in it being traditional? We have already discarded many aspects of marriage from the past so it isn't like we are saying for 2000 years this system has worked. Instead we are saying, well, we took marriage, changed it in these ways and that has worked so now no more changing?
[ March 08, 2011, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: scholarette ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Aris K: I do like a theoretical discussion as much as the next nerd, but come on! You can't argue with the dictionary.
scholarette: Well said!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Scholarette:
Er...are you asking me to try and put a time limit on when something can be considered 'traditional?'
My point in saying this:
quote:I'll note one thing though: in most western civilization, marriage has been between one man and one woman. Even in cultures where polygamous relationships were allowed, there were few that permitted homosexual partnerships, or solemnized them.
...was to note that even though other aspects of marriage have changed, the element of it being between a man and a woman has not throughout most of western history.
But you are correct: that something has been done forever does not make it right. It DOES make it harder to change though, which is why I also noted the incredible inertia behind the idea that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Holding to something merely because it is tradition is wrong. Or every one's favorite response- slavery was a tradition.
Of course, I don't know anyone who argues that the main reason to oppose SSM is in honor of tradition.
I kind of doubt that slave owners felt that their actions were ethical based on the fact that their daddy held slaves, too.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that people didn't question the ethics behind slavery because it was simply what was done and had been done. I think that if forced to consider their actions, they believed it was ethical because they did not believe the slaves were deserving of rights and freedom. Which actually does kinda parallel the gay marriage argument- people against it don't believe that gay couples deserve marriage.
I agree that there is inertia to be overcome. I just think that the inertia is irrelevant to the conversation, just as the tradition of slavery should be irrelevant when it was outlawed.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Of course, I don't know anyone who argues that the main reason to oppose SSM is in honor of tradition.
quote:Two brave gay Malawians decided to get engaged. They did it publicly, throwing a party to celebrate. A court sentenced them both to 14 years in prison with hard labour. A crowd stood outside the courtroom jeering as they were led away.
This is awful news, but it contains a seed of hope. Because the arguments used to justify this outrage are so flimsy that they cannot stand the test of time. Betsy Chirambo, an adviser to Malawi's president, said:
"It is not our culture for a man to marry a man." [She added]: "That is not even in our constitution. Some of these rights are not good for our culture."
To say "we don't do this because it is not in our culture" is just a fancy way of saying "we don't do this because we don't do it." It is a perfectly circular argument.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Aris K: I do like a theoretical discussion as much as the next nerd, but come on! You can't argue with the dictionary.
I know my point seems a bit too abstract right now (against my own recommendation about preferring the specific over the abstract) -- but my more general argument is that by assigning religious beliefs to their own special category, we're indirectly and improperly helping shelter them from the scrutiny that we're willing to test every *other* belief (scientific, political, etc) with.
We shouldn't be saying "oh, that's a religious belief, ofcourse it can't be tested", which has been the default fallback positions of all religions since science triumphed over faith as the provably most accurate methodology. We should be saying "that's a belief, so like any other belief, let's put it to the test."
People *have* put them to the test, after all: People have searched for Noah's ark, and for the cultures described by the Book of Mormon, and so forth -- and they have failed to find evidence of such. That should have significantly decreased the number of believers in such things -- same way that scientific theories tend to become disbelieved when experiments disprove them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...and they have failed to find evidence of such. That should have significantly decreased the number of believers in such things...
Should? Really? That's why faith is a part of the definition of belief. You are using the wrong measuring stick if you really think people should abandon their religion because there is no proof.
I'm sorry Aris Katsaris, but you seem to getting the words belief and fact confused and mixing in a healthy dose of oversimplification and dogmatism.
quote:FACT –noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. 5. Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
I feel pretty strongly that it isn't anyone's business to judge or scrutinize people's beliefs (unless invited to do so by the belief holder). Belief is a very personal and individual level of opinion and should not be up for public debate or condemnation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:"It is not our culture for a man to marry a man." [She added]: "That is not even in our constitution. Some of these rights are not good for our culture."
To say "we don't do this because it is not in our culture" is just a fancy way of saying "we don't do this because we don't do it." It is a perfectly circular argument.
The statement by the government representative and the rephrasing by the article writer are not equivalent.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Should? Really?
Yes, really.
quote: That's why faith is a part of the definition of belief.
Oh, for God's sake (no pun intended). Even if I agreed to use your definition of the word belief as the only one valid one (thus ignoring other subsets of beliefs, like political beliefs which we call "ideologies", and scientific beliefs which we call "theories", etc) -- it then just means that they should also lose their faith.
Or is that a taboo concept, that I consider it a good thing if people lose their faith in false gods?
quote:You are using the wrong measuring stick if you really think people should abandon their religion because there is no proof.
And my very point is that there's only one stick. Back when religion could intelligently compete with non-religion, religion didn't even *pretend* there was more than one stick. As I said: Elijah is said to have called the onlookers to believe the evidence of their own eyes after an experimental test. Jesus was written as producing miracles for all to see. Likewise with Moses. Gideon even *challenged* God to produce miracles, and God indeed produced them.
Miracles, evidence, proof... recorded (in truth or falsehood) so that people could believe that there did exist miracles, evidence and proof.
And that somehow makes you think that religion doesn't concern itself with proof? That it uses a different "measuring stick"?
Besides sheer coercion, that's practically the only measuring stick it used! Back in the days before science, religion used to say "See my proof here. Judge the evidence of your own eyes. Believe in me because you (or atleast your ancestors) have SEEN my power to be awesome." Religion used to say that the reason to believe was BECAUSE God had proven himself, because he *had* provided evidence. It didn't say "believe, because faith is good", it said "believe, because these things are PROVEN TRUE!"
The only reason religious people are suddenly saying evidence and proofs aren't necessary is because said evidence in favour of their position aren't as convincing anymore, compared to the much larger volume of evidence against it.
That's the only reason they're saying the score doesn't matter -- because they've lost the game. If they had said that *before* they lost, then they might have been more convincing.
quote:Belief is a very personal and individual level of opinion and should not be up for public debate or condemnation.
Oh, and you aren't now publically judging and condemning my own belief that we should publically judge and condemn beliefs?
Or is it only supernatural beliefs about gods that we must not condemn? Is "gods" the only concept that must escape judgement and rejection?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Also, please stop quoting the dictionary. Or at least be VERY clear about what the point you're making is.
The first time you quoted from dictionary, you actually supported my position without realizing you did so, since the first definition didn't include the word "faith" at all, thus proving that a definition of "belief" doesn't require the concept of "faith".
And I don't even understand why you posted the definition of "fact" for. So just stop doing that, or at least be clearer about the point you're making.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I believe you are being bossy and unreasonable. Further I believe that I no longer wish to discuss anything with you.
So I will say, good day madam.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
I believe you are wrong about my gender. And other things.
A good day to you too, sir.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Apologies as to the gender confusion.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
I don't mind, I don't consider it an insult to be mistaken for female, I just clarified for accuracy's sake.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I just had to say...
quote:Oh, and you aren't now publically judging and condemning my own belief that we should publically judge and condemn beliefs?
...that this is awesome! Kinda hurts my brain.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Um, okay, but it's not a very complicated concept: If someone publically says "public judgment is wrong", then they've contradicted themselves by making such a public judgment.
Perhaps you meant all public judgment is wrong with the EXCEPTION of publically condemning public judgments? :-)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How about this...
quote:I feel pretty strongly that it isn't anyone's business to judge or scrutinize people's beliefs (unless invited to do so by the belief holder).
...and I took your posting your opinion on a discussion board as an invitation to discuss your belief.
Posted by Anna2112 (Member # 12493) on :
Yay for lesswrong quoting, and trying to explain rational thought!
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Because my marriage is a personal bond between me and my wife.
If this were the case, you should not have married and asked for the state's approval. You should have just loved each other without government acknowledgment (you are quite the libertarian, indeed). Instead, you chose to join a societal institution, perhaps pretending it was meaningless for society--I don't know.
I realize most of the younger generations these days have no sense of marriage as a social institution, so you are not alone. But, if they would just stop and think about it, they might find that marriage has been invented and reinvented in virtually every society throughout all time (and it has been amazingly consistent in its societal functions regarding fertility--particularly encouraging paternal commitment). It is not just tradition, it is a foundation for a stable society. We have clearly seen the negative repercussions of it breaking down over the last 50 years (and we have seen some good elements evolve as well regarding more partnership in marriage, but that is secondary to the fertility elements of it).
It may not be detrimental for marriage to start calling homosexual unions "marriage" and to treat them as if they are exactly the same thing (which they can't be, unless men and women are actually identical, which is only a fantasy of closed-minded feminists); but it might also change marriage fundamentally as it separates marriage from fertility completely and turn marriage into merely an adult expression of love--sending the message that fathers aren't really important for children, so why bother marrying in the first place, or staying around to raise your child (don't get distracted on the two-father scenario--that still sends the message that fathers are arbitrary since you can have one, two, or none). Some hospitals are already using "parent 1" and "parent 2" on birth certificates, instead of mother and father. What message is that sending about the importance of fathers? Just one simple example of a domino effect and unforeseen implications.
Point is, the burden of proof is on those who think marriage should be changed--divorce and single parenthood has done little to show it is no longer needed as it has pretty much always existed (i.e., its heterosexual nature). Also, to argue these changes make no different to your marriage is very short-sighted--this is about generations of folks affected by a fundamental societal institution changing in unprecedented ways--changing the definition of marriage affects everybody, eventually. Nobody knows for sure how, but I think it is fair to be cautious about it.
I totally get the whole let's be fair to everyone, let's not discriminate, just let Martha and Mildred down the street alone. I just think there is much more to the whole marriage debate than the idea that my life won't be affected, to each his own. It is just not that simple (do some research on how welfare policy has changes over the last century to see how the above attitude has played into a system for helping poor married families who have fallen on hard times to incentivizing single-parenthood in some corners of the country--it was absurd to many to think that some day numerous single mothers would be on welfare--that could never happen by changing a policy that wouldn't affect "my" family).
This is a very valid debate with complicated issues--it is just a shame that if someone is hesitant about making wholesale changes to marriage that you are labeled as a close-minded bigot or mindless religious zealot or a simpleton--when in fact, it takes much less thought and courage to simply accept something because it seems to be the nice and accepting thing to do (not saying everyone who believes this is not putting thought behind it--and the same goes for the other perspective; there are multiple reasons for supporting and opposing, which is actually a point I am trying to make).
I'm too tired to proofread--sorry.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:If this were the case, you should not have married and asked for the state's approval. You should have just loved each other without government acknowledgment (you are quite the libertarian, indeed). Instead, you chose to join a societal institution, perhaps pretending it was meaningless for society--I don't know.
Agreed. Marriage is a societal institution, a contract between two people AND society. As I've argued elsewhere in the past, I consider same-sex marriage as part of the "SOLIDARITY" portion of rights, not the "EQUALITY", or the "LIBERTY" portion of rights.
quote:It may not be detrimental for marriage to start calling homosexual unions "marriage" and to treat them as if they are exactly the same thing (which they can't be, unless men and women are actually identical, which is only a fantasy of closed-minded feminists); but it might also change marriage fundamentally as it separates marriage from fertility completely and turn marriage into merely an adult expression of love
Equality before the law is about *treating* people like equals, not about pretending two people are identical (which they can't be, even if they are biological twins.)
quote:but it might also change marriage fundamentally as it separates marriage from fertility completely and turn marriage into merely an adult expression of love
The government already treats non-fertile hetero couples (whether non-fertile by choice, or by necessity) as equal in rights and privileges to fertile couples. The decoupling between marriage and fertility has already occured -- or we wouldn't allow non-fertile couples to marry.
On my part, I would prefer (compared to the current situation) either a complete coupling between fertility and marriage (so that non-fertile couples are no longer allowed to marry) or indeed a complete decoupling of it, so that society does indeed recognize marriage as a societal institution to support pair-bonding instead. Currently marriage IS broken, because it confusedly doesn't know what it's about.
Among the two solutions, I would prefer SSM (ofcourse).
quote:Point is, the burden of proof is on those who think marriage should be changed
That there is probably the true distinguishing line between conservatives and progressives. And it's not a bad line, it doesn't make monsters of people on either side of it.
In short, I disagree with you: if the burden of proof is always on the people who want change, then how are people going to provide such proof in the first place? No change would ever be allowed, if the burden of proof is always on the supporters of change.
At some point, if we recognize some aspect of our civilization as flawed or bad or hurtful to people, then we must use our reasoning skills to figure out what change must be made. Some of society's current problems: (a) homosexuals face discrimination, prosecution, the fear of revealing their orientations or their relationships. (b) homosexual *couples* lack the ability to procure many of the privileges that heterosexual couples can procure for themselves.
Believers in SSM think and reason and argue that by recognizing SSM some of these problems will be lessened. You argue that *another* problem (c) Heterosexual couples breaking up, with bad emotional and financial problems for their children will be worsened.
Problem is *your* argument is really hypothetical and wobbly. I can see quite easily how society endorsing SSM may make homosexuals face less discrimination, experience less fear, have more rights, enjoy life better in a dozen little ways ... those are *concrete* issues. Your argument however about "decoupling fertility from marriage" is really *really* hypothetical and abstract and lacking in substantiation. And even taken (c) by itself (without even considering (a) and (b)) I could counter it with the equally abstract "it will help couple sexual pair-bonding with marriage", and so strengthen the insitution of marriage in another way.
So, in short, your abstract worries are balanced by equally abstract (and no less likely) hopes, and therefore the tie-breakers are the much more concrete and specific problems of (a) and (b), which lead me to support SSM.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Scooter, when I said "my marriage is a personal bond between myself and my wife" it was in direct response to the concept that allowing homosexuals to marry would lessen a preexisting heterosexual marriage.
Which my best friend in the world said, verbatim. I laughed in his face (I should have been more sensitive at the time, although I still find the idea laughable)
Perhaps you could argue that allowing same genders to enter into wedded bliss causes the "social institution" as a whole harm. I would disagree, but when people say it directly harms their marriage, I call the bullcrap card.
Because...marriage is a personal bond between those who are married.
Its like if I bought a limited edition Ford Mustang, sold only in the U.S., and then years after enjoying my perfectly great car, I find out that some of them were sold in Europe. Does this fact change the reality of my car's reliable and enjoyable use over the years?
As to marriage and fertility, I agree (as much as it pains me to admit agreeing with him ever about anything ;P) with Aris. Non-fertile couples marry, and many possibly fertile married couples do not choose to reproduce. Marriage is an institution based on stability, not on the ability to bear offspring.
And just as non-fertile hetero couples may adopt and supply a stable living environment for their wards, so may homosexual couples. Heck, with our genetic manipulation breakthroughs we are not far away (if it is even impossible today) from having same gender partners both contribute genetically into a viable offspring.
quote:...and turn marriage into merely an adult expression of love--sending the message that fathers aren't really important for children, so why bother marrying in the first place, or staying around to raise your child...
I'm getting sick and tired of people worrying about "what message does it send?" Seriously people, we have free will, we can make our own choices!
The argument that allowing gay marriage would send the wrong message that both gender's are not equally needed to raise children is irrelevant. I'm not worried about my children "getting the wrong idea" about anything, because I am raising them, teaching them my morals and instructing them on how to think for themselves!!! (Of course right now I'm just teaching them that I love them and starting them off with some basic English as they are both infants...but hey, I plan on the rest.)
All of this talk about how this change will hurt us or generations of our children to come bla bla bla is just smoke and mirrors for "I don't like this and don't want anyone to be able to do it".
I know change is hard. I know that different is scary. I know that for most of the people who oppose the ideas that I'm pushing for that no words will ever convince them otherwise.
But I want to say this much. 148 years ago it was legal to own another human being. Ninty-one years ago women didn't have the right to vote. Fifty-seven years ago blacks were segregated by law.
We call our country "the land of the free" and yet we have struggled mightily with allowing all our people those freedoms.
I beg of you, those of you that sit on the fence of this issue, those of you who have compassion in your heart, try and put yourself into into the shoes of those who are told they can not marry the person who they love, the person who makes them feel whole and okay and special, all because they are different. That their love is "bad" for society, and we must protect our children from them.
I love liberty more then I love my opinions. I would rather be free then right any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:I totally get the whole let's be fair to everyone, let's not discriminate, just let Martha and Mildred down the street alone.
quote:I know change is hard. I know that different is scary.
Both of you claim to get and know where the other side is coming from, but neither of you have mentioned how such knowledge has modified your position in regards to the issue at hand.
Scooter, what's your solution for the problem of discrimination which you totally "get"? StoneWolf, what's your solution for the problem of change being hard and different being scary?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I can see how it hurts existing traditional marriages. Imagine you believe in gender roles, that those roles are vitally important- mother is nurturer, father is provider. You claim this is best for the children, for society whatever. The strongest place for gender roles comes out in the family. So, now we take 2 men or 2 women and suddenly they are forming a stable unit. One of the men must be doing female stuff and one of the women must be doing male stuff. And it is working! So, now how do I justify the traditional way, esp if one person isn't particularly happy but was willing to do it because it was best? A gay married couple clearly shows that gender roles in today's society do no need to be strictly enforced. It is a massive blow to non-egalitarian relationships.
Which I think is kinda what Scooter is getting at- what place do fathers have now, what place do mothers have. Why would either side stick it out when neither person is "needed"? I think this ignores the fact that lots of marriages have been egalitarian and those marriages tend to be happier. Men and women still want each other, even when we don't need each other. But men might find themselves having to do more laundry under the new rules.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Aris...what I said was...
quote:Change is difficult, painful, uncomfortable and inevitable.
So, what's my solution? Accept the change, or don't. There is no solution to it. Change is hard and different is scary. What ya gunna do?
I once heard a scientist say that sometimes what it took for the "out-there" theories to become accepted science doctrine was...the old scientists had to die. He wasn't calling for people to murder the "old school", just that when they weren't there anymore, the "new order" would be more open and then progress would be made.
You can not stop change. This topic (as well as the decriminalization of drugs) will become more and more acceptable to the general populace of the U.S. until one day, same gender marriage becomes legal.
How quickly or peaceably this happens is up to us.
Of course that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong. Thank you Dennis Miller.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As to gender roles...currently I am on unemployment. My wife works full time. There just isn't a job market for drafters right now, so I can not find a job that makes it worth it to pay a stranger to watch my children every day.
So, I am Mr. Mom. I cook, I clean, I do the dishes, the laundry, I kiss booboos and change dirty diapers and make beds.
What I make on unemployment helps, but my wife is the major bread winner.
So, we defy standard gender roles. And yet, if there is an unexpected sound downstairs at 3am, it's still me with a flashlight and a .357 in hand. I still kill spiders and my voice is the one of discipline. She is still a kind and loving source of affection to our children.
What we bring to our family does not change who we are.
Do I feel less manly doing the dishes and changing diapers? Hell no I don't! Because real men don't worry about appearances and get what is needed done.
Does my wife feel less womanly working full time? She misses the kids, and gets annoyed having to pump breast milk at work, but who wouldn't? She tells me all the time that I do a great job, and that she's thankful that we can both do what is needed to support our family.
Just because we are not fulfilling "traditional" roles does not mean we are not both equally and completely needed.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:So, what's my solution? Accept the change, or don't. There is no solution to it. Change is hard and different is scary. What ya gunna do?
Your question is rhetorical, but I'm gonna answer it.
Here's atleast one thing I'd do: I'd embed an explicit clause in the same-sex marriage law that'd protect clergy and congregations from any form of prosecution if they didn't want to conduct same-sex marriages.
According to a poll (http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=208) such a reassurance alone helps to serve boost acceptance of same-sex marriage by 13% among protestant clergy. Among the portion of the clergy that's largely undecided on gay-rights issues, support is almost doubled (from 26% to 49%).
If people are scared, perhaps a solution would be to attempt to reassure them.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Kill spiders? You really should not, but that's a different subject. Spiders are so cute.
I wouldn't even know the solution. Society has changed. Gender roles have shifted. This is a good thing. Society is evolving and moving forward. I like this. I like that people are questioning everything from spanking to homosexuality. But, there will always be those who will state that if you don't spank children will grow up bad and if you allow gays to marry society will fall apart. How does one show them that the world can change, has changed and HASN'T fallen apart and won't fall apart?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Syn,gender roles have not shifted. They are in the process of doing so. You will also find that young people are a lot more in favor of SSM, just as they have more egalitarian marriages. But you still have people like my mother in law who hated rice and yet cooked it five days a week because her husband liked it and thinks I should sleep on the floor in the nursery (if the baby is in my room, when she cries it wakes my husband and he has work in the morning so I am being very selfish by insisting on staying in my bed).
For people who liked that world, they aren't going to want to give it up, just like I don't want to go back to gender roles 50 years ago (somewhat ironic because my husband works, I stay home, love sewing, and yesterday, I even made jam). If you hold to those gender roles as vitally important, then gay marriage does challenge that. And obviously, any individual could still have that relationship, but if everyone buys into it, it is easier to find a mate who also agrees. Like, without societal reinforcement, how many people would choose to make a meal they hate several times a week?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wouldn't. I hate fried eggs. I won't cook them. I don't want them cooked around me because I hate the smell of fried or scrambled eggs. It mostly seemed like women having to put up with things that they don't like to make the men happy. Which doesn't sound healthy... I think I believe more in folks in a couple working together and doing what they are best at.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I'd embed an explicit clause in the same-sex marriage law that'd protect clergy and congregations from any form of prosecution if they didn't want to conduct same-sex marriages.
Good idea! I'm not much for over-legislating, but if people would be reassured by this measure, then great!
Either way, a law or not, no church or clergy should be compelled in anyway to marry anyone they do not want to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Scooter,
quote:If this were the case, you should not have married and asked for the state's approval. You should have just loved each other without government acknowledgment (you are quite the libertarian, indeed). Instead, you chose to join a societal institution, perhaps pretending it was meaningless for society--I don't know.
Well you don't quite have to go to the state and get approval - and really this is a misleading word, more on that in a moment - but we as a society have made it a heckuva lot easier, culturally, legally, and financially if you do. Why wouldn't someone go to the state and take advantage of the system they're paying into?
More importantly, why shouldn't homosexuals be permitted that same right, the right to marry, cohabit, and have the state recognize as valid the legally consenting adult of their choice? There are no arguments against this question that I've ever heard that don't amount, ultimately, to either 'tradition' or 'religion' (and there's obviously quite a lot of crossover between the two). I certainly understand why those two things are compelling motive for someone to oppose it, I just don't think it's sufficient. I also don't think the 'burden of proof' is on the ones who want to change it-rather I feel the burden is on the ones who want to deny recognition on the basis of traditional or religious upbringing.
As for 'approval', this is misleading. For heterosexuals, 'approval' basically means show up, pay a fee, and sometimes get tested for something I think. That's about it. Our society would get quite unpleasantly angry very quickly should society decide it had the right to 'approve' any further than that, but for some reason that's acceptable in the case of homosexuals. Why? Because that's the way things are? No. I'm afraid that just doesn't seem like a very rational argument to me, Scooter.
quote:I realize most of the younger generations these days have no sense of marriage as a social institution, so you are not alone. But, if they would just stop and think about it, they might find that marriage has been invented and reinvented in virtually every society throughout all time (and it has been amazingly consistent in its societal functions regarding fertility--particularly encouraging paternal commitment). It is not just tradition, it is a foundation for a stable society. We have clearly seen the negative repercussions of it breaking down over the last 50 years (and we have seen some good elements evolve as well regarding more partnership in marriage, but that is secondary to the fertility elements of it).
The important parts of this paragraph are the 'invented and re-invented'. That means we can re-invent it at our leisure. Another important part is your recognition of marriage's so-called breakdown over the past 2-3 generations. I don't take that as a given, but you clearly do, so let me pose a question for you: adultery, bastardy, divorce, premarital sex, so on and so forth, aren't met with the same kind of unified political outrage that homosexual marriage is. These things are clearly, in my mind, much greater threats to the 'institution' of marriage than homosexual marriage, but where is the politically unified umbrage when people go and have sex with someone not their spouse? When they have children out of wedlock? When they decide to abandon their spouses for no reason at all-with or without children?
I look at it like this: if marriage is a house, the house is on fire. Like, five-alarm fire. Gay marriage, if it's really a threat at all, is perhaps a little bit of bad wiring on the third floor somewhere that is sparking and posing a threat. The conflagration is already ongoing, though, so frankly I am very skeptical that with all of this burning going on it's the threat to marriage that's really got some people united against it.
quote:It may not be detrimental for marriage to start calling homosexual unions "marriage" and to treat them as if they are exactly the same thing (which they can't be, unless men and women are actually identical, which is only a fantasy of closed-minded feminists)...
It's interesting that you'd bring this up. I think you'll find that very few people ever say 'men and women are the same' to mean 'exactly identical in all ways'. No, in my experience what they are likely to mean by that remark is 'should be treated the same under the law'. Our Constitution feels the same way. The remark about 'closed-minded feminists'...well, it doesn't sound very good, Scooter. Perhaps if you were a member of a group that was more likely to be underpaid, more likely to be harassed, the victim of a violent crime (every one of those points is a matter of factual record, btw, and actually escalates sharply), and so on and so forth, you might make say that men and women are the same and mean they should be treated equally.
quote:but it might also change marriage fundamentally as it separates marriage from fertility completely and turn marriage into merely an adult expression of love--sending the message that fathers aren't really important for children, so why bother marrying in the first place, or staying around to raise your child (don't get distracted on the two-father scenario--that still sends the message that fathers are arbitrary since you can have one, two, or none). Some hospitals are already using "parent 1" and "parent 2" on birth certificates, instead of mother and father. What message is that sending about the importance of fathers? Just one simple example of a domino effect and unforeseen implications.
This goes back to what I was saying above. That message has already been sent. Society has received it, as a group anyway, loud and clear. It's in our media, it's in our music, it's in our daily lives. That battle has been lost. The war ain't over, perhaps, but if you are actually interested in countering this message, that fathers aren't necessary, it seems to me that the thing to do would be to actually target that problem. Rather than gay people marrying. Institute stiffer penalties for deadbeat dads, raise awareness of domestic violence, better sexual education, just for a few examples.
It's very difficult for someone who doesn't already think that homosexual marriage is somehow a threat to the family to view 'oppose it as a bulwark to good fatherhood and the institution of marriage' to view such claims with anything but skepticism on these and other grounds.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I agree with Card.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't. What a dumb thing to try to criminalize. I swear if churches spent one fourth the energy on things like domestic violence and such it would totally decrease. It's useless to torment gays when there's real threats to the family not even being talked about by these folks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Of course they're being talked about, Synesthesia. Are they being talked about in proportion to the danger/threat they present?
Well, no-but that's not some unique failing of churches, you know. That's humanity all over the place. More afraid of flying and terrorism than domestic violence, even though the latter will provably kill many, many, many more than the former two put together. And our funding reflects this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Card has said a great many things on the subject, stihl. Which do you agree with?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, more attention SHOULD be given to abuse and such I think because it has to stop.
I really do not agree with a single thing OSC has said on this subject. I agree with him about some other things though.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
A quick story of how domestic violence led to homosexuality. (I'll try and make it as quick as I can)
My wife and I had had a fight, I was off taking a walk to let things cool down at the pier (one of the advantages of living at the beach). After gazing off at the endless horizon (nothing puts things into perspective better) I hear a ruckus behind me, and turn to see what's up. There are three young hispanic women and a young hispanic man, arguing, and right in front of my eyes, I see the guy haul off and punch one of the girls in the side of the head! She goes down, and he moves over her about to kick her. I let off my patented, voice of authority "Hey!" and charge in. The guy takes one good look at me and bolts as fast as he can down the pier (I'm 6'2" 275).
The girl gets up, with the help of her friends, and I whip out my cell phone to call the cops. The girls beg me not to, as they have warrants out on them. I am not happy, but I do not call.
It turns out that the girl is 16 years old (as are her two friends) and she is pregnant, and the gentleman who knocked her down with a fist to the skull is the father. He is unhappy with her because she is now in a relationship with a girl, having switched sexualities because she believed "All men hit." Her two friends are together for the same reason.
I tell them it is not true, all men do not hit and that they need to pick better men.
I escort them to the parking lot and guess who is waiting there for us? Little Johny Talks with His Fists (who is 17). He wants a round two with his baby mama, which of course I am having none of. So he he tries to go a round with me instead.
At this point, I have a minor trying to beat me up (not very well, although very enthusiastically) with the only witnesses three girls with warrants who have begged me not to call the cops.
Long story short, while I never allow him to hit me or anyone else, I don't hit him either. The last thing I need is these girls lying to the cops about who started it, with a minor punk kid bleeding on the ground without so much as a mark on me, getting arrested and then having to call up my wife to come get me from jail at 2am right after we were in a big argument.
I let the girls use my cell phone and call a ride, and I stay with them til they leave. The punk stays a good 100 yards off wishing me dead, but so clearly outmatched that he is unwilling to do anything about it. After the girls leave, the cops show, but don't speak to me.
I walk home and kiss my wife's sleeping forehead, and we make up in the morning.
*sigh* These three girls at the age of 16 were so convinced that any man would abuse them that they had given up on the gender all together.
Kinda sad really.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Syn- what specifically do you want to change regarding abuse? Is there a law you want made or repealed? A difference in enforcement? More shelters, education programs, etc?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
16.. Dang.
The reason why I point to the church is they have so much power and influence, but you have some that encourage the sort of attitudes that lead to abuse, like wife only submission. I think churches should have shelters and such and they should educate men NOT to abuse women and to respect them and outside of the church the attitudes have to change and be challenged in and outside of the church. You got to admit things have improved from ages ago. But that story up there illustrates that this sort of thing has to begin at an early age. Large amounts of teenage girls are getting into abusive relationships, and some of the books they read practically encourage this. It's one of those society wide things that need to shift but I can never figure out how to do it.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I don't care and I don't think anyone else should either. What people do together is between them and anyone else involved.
Posted by Fulicasenia (Member # 12553) on :
I don't get why people think we need to criminalize homosexuality. If you are in fact a heterosexual, think about this for a minute: how tempted are you, really, to give up having sex with persons of the opposite gender, so that you can marry someone of your own gender and spend the rest of your life having sex with them? If you really are a heterosexual, the answer is of course approximately zero (Yuck!). Since homosexuals are and always have been and always will be a small minority of the total population, we will always have enough heterosexual marriages to keep things going.
If you want to protect heterosexual marriage, maybe you should be fighting hard to criminalize premarital sex and adultery. But the fact is, our christian, western civilization has had its experiment with criminalizing those things, and in the end we decided to not to-- because heterosexuals love doing those things so much! LOL! That's why we'd much rather put a lot of self-righteous indignation into criminalizing something we have absolutely no temptation to do in the first place: it lets us feel so moral and good, without requiring us to actually improve our behaviour at all!
Orson, dude, I have loved your books so much! Please give up the gay-bashing and start working on improving the moral level of heterosexual sexual behavior. I assume you are straight, and I'm telling you, dude, PLEASE check out your own eyeball first, ok? Or, if you're gay, please come out of the closet and give up the self-hatred. THX!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The fact that there's a beam in my eye does not make the mote in your eye easier to bear.
Posted by ValPal (Member # 12550) on :
I agree with Stone_Wolf_, the issue really is LIBERTY...in this case, the separation of Church and State. If we got the churches out of the marriage business, the entire problem would disappear. Imagine that in order to receive the legal benefits (tax exemptions and the like) now wedded to the state of marriage, you apply for a state license (call it a "Joining License" or something).
Some combination of legal adults can apply (limits would have to be negotiated -- can you hear the insurance companies screaming now?). Think of the headaches this would solve for grandparents raising grandchildren, Charlie Sheen, etc. Your genetic offspring are automatically added at birth, and membership for that "Joining" terminates at legal age and then you get the right to apply for your own license. Some provision would have to be made so that "singles" are not penalized.
You already get a marriage license, so just have the JP offices issue the licenses like the DMV does. Religious blessing would be optional (it is now anyway). However, there is the slight matter of entrenched bureaucracies that might object to a change in the present system.
This is not an original idea, I have read it in various forms in a number of speculative fiction stories and novels that I could not cite anymore. Please disseminate freely, it's an idea whose time has come. It solves a lot of overlapping societal issues that combine to create grave inequalities today.
Personal Note to Mr. Card: I am broken-hearted (but now realize why there are no maiden aunts or flamboyant upstairs neighbors in your fiction -- gay people just don't exist in your universe). I always took you for a progressive with all that hippy peace and love stuff.
Disclosure: I'm a very married, very Catholic, middle-aged, middle-American housewife. Close platonic friendship with one lesbian, who has obviously brainwashed me (dare I LOL?).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am broken-hearted (but now realize why there are no maiden aunts or flamboyant upstairs neighbors in your fiction -- gay people just don't exist in your universe).
Hmm...you've never read Songmaster, or the Homecoming series?
quote:I always took you for a progressive with all that hippy peace and love stuff.
Hippy peace and love stuff? In his fiction?
Um...how do you feel about Steven King?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm sorry ValPal, I'm not really understanding your proposed changes, could you please elaborate?
Posted by ValPal (Member # 12550) on :
Scott_R asked about my reading Songmaster or the Homecoming series, and I must admit neither, so I've got obvious makeup work to do. I read a short story called "A Thousand Deaths" by OSC in the late 70s and became an instant fan. I read all his short fiction, and Ender and Alvin Maker when they hit the shelf. For reasons irrelevant, I stopped reading SF for a decade or so...and I was surprised to see how voluminous the "Card"-iverse had become when I checked back in recently.
As for Steven King, I read _The Stand_ and never went back. [I hear my daughter laughing because I don't allow any "horror" i.e. slasher films in the house.] Card – or at least my impression from Ender, Alvin Maker, and a lot of his short stories – in strict terms is usually talking about how people treat each other in reality and that reality is usually pretty horrifying. But I guess I just look at it perversely, and take away the message that we could do a better (peace, love, and all that hippy sh*t).
Oh, Stone_Wolf_, the devil be in the details! I like the top-down approach, and it goes something like this:
1) We must readdress the nature of how we define a “citizen.” For all you Jane fans, this is old hat. In our Brave New World scenario, is a Siamese or conjoined individual with two heads (i.e. two functioning brains) incorporated with a single body one individual or two? I say two. A Citizen is defined as a self-aware single intelligence (when Hive/Formic minds are discovered/met we will be debating all over again). An “intelligence” gets a Citizen number at emergence/detection or when looking to join the Republic in order to receive legal status or whatever benefit (already happening with SSNs for babies). A citizen of legal age (having raised two children, I think 21 is more realistic than 18) becomes something called a “Householder” for legal purposes. Issues: How to rewrite benefits legislation and contracts, so that our conjoined friend is not allowed two heart transplants if the limit is one, etc.
2) We must get the churches/mosques/etc. out of the marriage business. Currently, it’s a two-step process: marriage license, then ceremony. You can’t get married without the license, so why not make that legal moment of the marriage’s institution when the license is ISSUED? Ceremony/reception optional. Think of the modern serially monogamous couple with 5 marriages between them: it practically happens this way already. Issues: Aforementioned self-interested entrenched bureaucracies. Kinda screws with the honeymoon, but if your particular cultural practice demands it you’re going to wait anyway. Like for handguns, maybe there should be a waiting period.
3) Householders can join households, but only one Citizen can be the new Head of Household (just like the current tax code). Any number of Citizens can join. Issues: Allows for endless flexibility (read FREEDOM) in personal choice of living arrangements, sexual proclivities (but I am NOT talking child abuse – Citizens must be of legal age), etc. which of course leads to…a lot of disagreement like we’ve seen here. Think of it: grandparents raising grandbabies, divorced father with 3 of his ex-wife’s kids because she’s in rehab, just like what’s happening now.
4) Contracts would be available in varying lengths, say 1, 5, and 7 years, plus Permanent, only dissolved by the Citizen’s death (if you fall into this category, you know it <smile>)
5) Citizens can be born to any combination of parents but take the Householder’s name.
6) CHANGE THE NAME. You don’t “get married" you "join Households." Why should it matter, except if you wish to enforce your particular beliefs/preferences (no, Aris, I ain’t goin’ there but I did appreciate what you brought to the discussion) on someone else? Or, as my civics teacher used to say, “my fist stops where my neighbor’s nose begins”?
This is America, baby.
Land of the Free and home of the Brave, Amen!
P.S. Thanks if you got this far in the post. Stone_Wolf_, I hope this does not discourage you from asking me to elaborate in the future, I usually try to be more succinct. - vp
Posted by ValPal (Member # 12550) on :
Oops!
quote:Originally posted by ValPal: 5) Citizens can be born to any combination of parents but take the Householder’s name.
should have read "...take the Head of Householder's name."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ugh. Songmaster. Horrible what happened to that poor character. If I was a gay male character in an OSC book, I'd jump out of the book and run and fight all efforts to be shoved back into the book.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/LJMarinelli This guy was with NOM and now he agrees with gay marriage. It's not as if churches have to be forced to marry gays, you know. Go him!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am broken-hearted (but now realize why there are no maiden aunts or flamboyant upstairs neighbors in your fiction -- gay people just don't exist in your universe).
It occurs to me you might be speaking not only of his fiction, but his real life.
Other articles I've read from him seem to disprove this idea.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
ValPal, if I am understanding correctly, your suggestion sounds a lot like a line marriage from "the Moon is a Harsh Mistress", "Friday" and other Hienlien works.
While I agree that no limit should be put on consenting adults, I seriously doubt that our society would ever accept this much change when it comes to our traditions and laws, no matter how good idea it may be. Even changing from one man and one woman to one person and another person (of the same gender) is causing huge controversy.
How do you propose that such a sweeping change could be brought about?
Posted by ValPal (Member # 12550) on :
Forgive me, I’m a polemicist. I just had to throw in that thing about “any number” of consenting adults to see if anyone was paying attention.
Also, thanks for the Heinlein reference, Stone_Wolf_. I was a voracious reader of his fiction in earlier days so have no doubt his works influenced my views.
How could it happen?
Scenario 1: It’s adopted with the limitation of two people by current proponents of SSM, if they have any sense. IMHO, they’re currently fighting a losing battle with a public opinion incubated in bigotry, supported by the entrenched religious bureaucracies.
Scenario 2: Demosthenes and Locke, if you will, for Ender fans. Skillful manipulation of media in favor of the argument at the grass roots, followed by a charismatic figure that exploits the “knowledge” planted by said skillful manipulation.
Obama might have had the potential (think web financing, Facebook, etc.), but lacked the savvy and skills to exploit it. He had one chance – from the interviews I saw along the way, even a lot of the people that didn’t vote for him were willing to give him a shot. But Obama blew the honeymoon. Unfortunately, his change message faded because he was too interested in being the First Black President as Statesman instead of cutting through the bullsh*t and political correctness, delivering the hard message, and doing the right thing for the country. Right now he mostly reminds me of Carter, just hopelessly out of his depth.
There is currently a frightening vacuum of skillful leadership in the American, nay the world, arena. I’m thinking it’s either a Churchill, or another Hitler coming (for all you Book of Revelation fans). Consider Locke/Peter/the Hegemon as a Bill Gates figure – should said charismatic leader coincidently be a bizillionaire…God save the Republic from Donald Trump!
As for the likelihood of common acceptance and institutionalization of SSM, being from the Deep South, I have to digress. One afternoon in 1982, a friend from school drove me home in his brand new car, a totally cherry red Camaro. Bear in mind that I was a petite white girl and my (totally platonic) friend was a black guy built like a linebacker for the Steelers. The next morning at breakfast my father informed me that my granddaddy (yes, we use that word, really) who lived next door had seen us and that he was going for his shotgun when my pal was driving away. He also informed me that I was never to be seen in the company of said friend again (I was teenager, um, how well do you think I listened?). My teenage daughter has many friends of all persuasions and has dated young gentlemen of several cultural/racial backgrounds…while I in my heart might have some trepidation based on how I was raised, I’m also screaming, “You go, girl!”
[Completely side note: Scott R., at some point you said “I kind of doubt that slave owners felt that their actions were ethical based on the fact that their daddy held slaves, too.” Sorry, but they sure did, and I know whereof I speak. I've heard countless comments in that vein.]
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: While I agree that no limit should be put on consenting adults, I seriously doubt that our society would ever accept this much change when it comes to our traditions and laws, no matter how good idea it may be.
My daughter goes to the same high school I graduated from, where in her circle is an openly gay transvestite young man who wears skirts to school when the dress code specifically requires boys to wear pants or shorts. Keep in mind, at this same school, her current boyfriend was sent home a couple of weeks ago because his hair was touching his collar. Our past determines our future, but only so much.
Stranger things have happened, my friend. May we all live to see the day.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have a question for those who use the argument that marriage is traditionally between one man and one woman.
How does your augment explain the many references in the bible to polygamy, that is, to men having many wives, as well as polygamy being the stated policy of the Mormon belief for sixty years.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Ugh. Songmaster. Horrible what happened to that poor character. If I was a gay male character in an OSC book, I'd jump out of the book and run and fight all efforts to be shoved back into the book.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/LJMarinelli This guy was with NOM and now he agrees with gay marriage. It's not as if churches have to be forced to marry gays, you know. Go him!
The gay character in Homecoming had it pretty rough, too. At best he was an object lesson.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Ugh. Songmaster. Horrible what happened to that poor character. If I was a gay male character in an OSC book, I'd jump out of the book and run and fight all efforts to be shoved back into the book.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/LJMarinelli This guy was with NOM and now he agrees with gay marriage. It's not as if churches have to be forced to marry gays, you know. Go him!
The gay character in Homecoming had it pretty rough, too. At best he was an object lesson.
What do you mean, "rough?" IIRC, the people that would have hurt Zdorab are the characters portrayed least sympathetically. IIRC, Zdorab manages to have children, but remains homosexual. IIRC, he also becomes a part of Nafai's community.
quote:I have a question for those who use the argument that marriage is traditionally between one man and one woman.
How does your augment explain the many references in the bible to polygamy, that is, to men having many wives, as well as polygamy being the stated policy of the Mormon belief for sixty years.
It depends on what you're calling-- and what your audience calls-- "traditional."
Traditional does not mean historic.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Traditional does not mean historic.
Bull pucky! The way this argument was used is that the long standing tradition and history of marriage has been established and the homosexuals are trying to change the definition of the word.
Clearly marriage has more then one definition.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:2) We must get the churches/mosques/etc. out of the marriage business. Currently, it’s a two-step process: marriage license, then ceremony. You can’t get married without the license, so why not make that legal moment of the marriage’s institution when the license is ISSUED? Ceremony/reception optional. Think of the modern serially monogamous couple with 5 marriages between them: it practically happens this way already. Issues: Aforementioned self-interested entrenched bureaucracies. Kinda screws with the honeymoon, but if your particular cultural practice demands it you’re going to wait anyway. Like for handguns, maybe there should be a waiting period.
I come to the same conclusion, from the "opposite" side. I want the government out of the marriage business, and into some sort of "legal household partnership" business. This partnership would be for both hetero- and homosexual couples, with "couple" very loosely defined.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, if you "know" what your opposition is going to answer, why bother asking?
There IS a long standing tradition and history of marriage being exclusively between a man and a woman; it was so strong in the 1800s, that when the Mormons (and others-- for example, the Oneida community in New York) tried expanding the definition, or even doing away with the boundaries, they were persecuted both legally and in the public square.
quote:Clearly marriage has more then one definition.
Until recently, that did not generally include same-gendered partnerships (and traditionally and historically in America, multiple dual-gendered partnerships were not sanctioned either). Homosexuality in history bears very little resemblance to what is being practiced today in America. Historically, in societies where homosexuals have been able to be married with the culture's blessing, one of the partners has taken on a feminine role (for example, the Pacific NW Indians someone pointed out a while back). I can't think of non-modern civilization where homosexual partners were given rights, or had relationships, equivalent to those of dual-gendered couples.
From that standpoint, yes: marriage between man and a woman is a pretty firm historical reality, and a fairly entrenched tradition. At least in Western civilization. I don't know about Eastern ones.
Frankly, you'd do a lot better arguing from the standpoint that homosexual relationships, as they are conceived of currently, deserve equal rights, tradition/history be darned. After all, we don't wait on history or tradition to make our morality.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sorry for my strong reaction, having a bad day and took it out on you.
quote:...we don't wait on history or tradition to make our morality.
Absolutely, I just for one find the argument flawed that "traditionally" there was only one interpretation of the idea of "marriage".
This is not the main reason I think we should allow for same gender marriage.
Freedom is.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Freedom? No. Equality before the law.
To clarify, freedom (to me) implies that the government is keeping you from doing something you'd be able to do otherwise. Legal marriage doesn't exist in the wild, as far as I know.
Not getting the same benefits doesn't mean you aren't free. It means you're not being treated equally.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Until recently, that did not generally include same-gendered partnerships...
This is true, but in my experience when people speak out against equal rights for homosexuals (that is, the right to marry an adult of their choice and have it recognized by the state), one of the most common arguments raised against it is, "Marriage has always been 'one man and one woman'." The argument relies on the supposed immutability of marriage that simply doesn't exist. Opponents don't typically say, "marriage as an exclusive man-woman social contract is pretty firmly entrenched in history," because of course that's a lot less absolute than 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve'.
It should also be noted that the whole Adam and Eve Adam and Steve thing relies on one of the exact same arguments most commonly used by SSM opponents, that marriage has 'always' meant what it means now.
quote:Frankly, you'd do a lot better arguing from the standpoint that homosexual relationships, as they are conceived of currently, deserve equal rights, tradition/history be darned. After all, we don't wait on history or tradition to make our morality.
Well, no, a very strong argument against the opponents of SSM is that the tradition of marriage throughout history and even recent history has been pretty flexible, and certainly much more flexible than people at any given time thought it would be. One man and one woman throughout the past centuries of American and European history, sure-but that's about it. Sanctity (real sanctity in the eyes of society), immutability, gender roles, legal issues, so on and so forth, all of that has been quite flexible over time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:a very strong argument against the opponents of SSM is that the tradition of marriage throughout history and even recent history has been pretty flexible, and certainly much more flexible than people at any given time thought it would be.
While certain things about marriage have changed-- arranged marriages have fallen by the wayside in the US, for example-- the individuals who can participate in it has been fairly static. Even though the ages of celebrants have changed; even though the methods of marriage have changed; even though how they're performed, and how they're finished has changed; even though the rights and roles of participants within the marriage have changed; that particular element (dual-gendered marriage) has not for hundreds of years.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yup, that's right. And if opponents of SSM more often made that case, they would less often appear at best incorrect and at worst homophobic. That's not often what's done though.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Freedom? No. Equality before the law.
To clarify, freedom (to me) implies that the government is keeping you from doing something you'd be able to do otherwise. Legal marriage doesn't exist in the wild, as far as I know.
Not getting the same benefits doesn't mean you aren't free. It means you're not being treated equally.
quote:Political freedom , or political agency, is a central concept in Western history and political thought, and one of the most important (real or ideal) features of democratic societies.[1] It has been described as a relationship free of oppression[2] or coercion;[3] the absence of disabling conditions for a particular group or individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions;[4] or the absence of economic compulsion.[5] Although political freedom is often interpreted negatively as the freedom from unreasonable external constraints on action,[6] it can also refer to the positive exercise of rights, capacities and possibilities for action, and the exercise of social or group rights.[7]
I would agree that equality is at issue here as well, I would not agree that this is not a matter of freedom.
I'm not sure of the measuring stick of "in the wild", I mean, we aren't beasts here, there is always some form of social contract going on.
ETA...Equality is a more specific way of addressing this particular issue (legality of SSM), but the more general term of "freedom" is still accurate, and refers to more then this one aspect which has been discussed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Ugh. Songmaster. Horrible what happened to that poor character. If I was a gay male character in an OSC book, I'd jump out of the book and run and fight all efforts to be shoved back into the book.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/LJMarinelli This guy was with NOM and now he agrees with gay marriage. It's not as if churches have to be forced to marry gays, you know. Go him!
The gay character in Homecoming had it pretty rough, too. At best he was an object lesson.
What do you mean, "rough?" IIRC, the people that would have hurt Zdorab are the characters portrayed least sympathetically. IIRC, Zdorab manages to have children, but remains homosexual. IIRC, he also becomes a part of Nafai's community.
It has been a long time but from what I recall. the price of children and being part of the community being a "partnership" devoid of sexual attraction, joyless, uncomfortable coupling, and denial of a true romantic relationship. I mostly recall feeling profoundly sorry for him.
[ April 20, 2011, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, it was basically a case of 'coulda been (a lot) worse' for Zdorab if I remember things accurately. Not exactly a rousing endorsement, but rather a portrayal of a system in which some people are going to have fundamental aspects of their personalities rejected for their entire lifetimes. It's going to be a source of lifelong distress for them, and they're just going to have to live with it-because it could be worse.
Now, if you'd disputed the 'object lesson' portion of boots's post, I might have agreed with you. I don't remember reading that story and thinking he served as an object lesson-he felt very human to me. But it's difficult for me to put my head in a place where his life wasn't rough.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me, the lesson seemed to be "See, you can just suck it up, stifle your nature and have sex with women for the sake of children and 'the greater good' and you should. Here is an example of a homosexual who 'does the right thing'."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots:
Your interpretation is significantly different from mine; I don't think I took a "lesson" from it. I'll have to read it again.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I'm not going to get into the homosexual debate here, since I've done it far too often on this forum for my own sanity.
I will offer my "coping mechanism" though. I deal with Card's stances on homosexuality the same way I deal with my grandfathers inherent racism - I express my disapproval if the views are expressed in a forum where I cannot ignore them, and I otherwise basically forget about them. I accept them as a product of the social constructs they were raised with, and realize that nothing I do will change them, thus while the idea may be flat wrong, it doesn't necessarily imply a moral deficiency in the person. Thus, instead of letting the issue eat me alive, I just take it as a sign that he is human.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I accept them as a product of the social constructs they were raised with, and realize that nothing I do will change them, thus while the idea may be flat wrong, it doesn't necessarily imply a moral deficiency in the person.
okay, to help me understand the idea. If it's a product of the social constructs they were raised with, there's a way in which the expression of that thing they were raised with isn't moral deficiency? Did this work for, say, slavers?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While your grandfather and Mr. Card are, in all likelihood, not evil men, some of their individual beliefs probably are.
While recognizing that humans are flawed, condemning the beliefs which are "morally deficient" is not the same as condemning the human who holds them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I accept them as a product of the social constructs they were raised with, and realize that nothing I do will change them, thus while the idea may be flat wrong, it doesn't necessarily imply a moral deficiency in the person.
okay, to help me understand the idea. If it's a product of the social constructs they were raised with, there's a way in which the expression of that thing they were raised with isn't moral deficiency? Did this work for, say, slavers?
In fact, it did. There were a lot of good, kind, moral people who owned slaves. Now we know better.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For me, the lesson seemed to be "See, you can just suck it up, stifle your nature and have sex with women for the sake of children and 'the greater good' and you should. Here is an example of a homosexual who 'does the right thing'."
I believe OSC has written at some length of his dislike for fiction that is so...pointed. That is, that is so deliberately preachy. As in intended to teach a lesson to individuals or groups of people. I didn't read the same intent into it that you did.
In fact, in those stories as well as in Songmaster the interpretation I had was, "This is the way it is. Not necessarily the way it has to be, because of God or the way the Universe is structured, but because of society as a whole, and it's terribly tragic-as exemplified by how some people live in this world."
I felt that way because Card's portrayal of Zdorab and of the homosexual in Songmaster - and the man who maimed him out of jealous rage - was, to me, deeply human and not ham-handedly 'God says so'. It felt like he was saying, "People are doing this." (By that I mean causing homosexuals to suffer these repressions and limitations) But...I'm not sure if his opinions have changed, but I really don't feel like he feels that way anymore about homosexuality. Or at least that's not the impression I get anymore from his political writing, or even his fiction anymore-I remember reading some of his work in the Ender's Shadow series for example that seemed to strike a substantially different tone while examining a similar concept.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uh.... Does he notice that he does that? Get really preachy? Especially in EiE. If the have babies and be heterosexual lectures were removed that book would have been a pamphlet.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's interesting that people notice this trend in his later books, but not in his earlier books. I'm not sure it has to do with a change in the author as much as it has to do with OSC's opinions being out of synch with some members of his audience.
Check out the Worthing Saga, sometime. It's one of his earliest work, and it's very "preachy." (It's also excellent writing.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
He did that in some of the earlier Ender books. I was rather annoyed by a particular passage in one.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think so. OSC pretty clearly violated even his own rules in his later works in ways that I don't believe he does in his earlier ones. For example, a good example of this is making Anton gay so he can be OSC's mouth piece on what gay people should do.
I think it's a common pattern with many authors who get much worse as they get older that their earlier work contains "preachiness" that serves the story or characters or at least doesn't overwhelm them but, with their later works, they warp the story and characters to fit their message.
Heinlein and M. Knight Shyamalan come to mind.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I notice what you're talking about, Scott-but I do believe something changed in his writing, not so much in my own opinions, because those haven't changed very much. I think one thing that has changed, though, is how much personality and presence a character has in a given story before he'll start lecturing protagonists about how important it is that they start cranking out babies, for example.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I've always seen a bit of a separation from his beliefs and his writing, as his beliefs do not have to fit into the reality of this world (not a slam, he can believe what should be) where as for his writing to have any impact, it has to be a bit more grounded, even if it is speculative.
And while I admit I am a bit behind in my reading, I don't find his work to be overly preachy.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
To look at some less controversial works, in the women of Genesis series, compare Sarah to the last one (Rachel and Leah). The first told an interesting story about an interesting woman. The last book read like a Sunday School lesson. There were hints of more, but overall, it was too much lesson, too little character.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: To look at some less controversial works, in the women of Genesis series, compare Sarah to the last one (Rachel and Leah). The first told an interesting story about an interesting woman. The last book read like a Sunday School lesson. There were hints of more, but overall, it was too much lesson, too little character.
I didn't see this at all. OSC's characterization of the two women, and Bilhah, was fairly evocative, IMO. I didn't feel sermonized at all, and I thought the different ways that Leah, Rachel and Bilhah approached faith was well-portrayed.
Posted by Rigg is my hero (Member # 12559) on :
i say "who cares" about his religious or political motivations and just read his books because you enjoy them. There really is no sense in developing or creating a politically motivated thread unless you are just searching for a venue to promote your beliefs in the hopes to change others or create a debate.. gladly it has not been an argument.
just read his books for what they are, science fiction, and not some subterfuged based means of trying to implore OSC's readers into an autonomic belief system where the GLBT community needs to be ostracized or eradicated.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:There really is no sense in developing or creating a politically motivated thread unless you are just searching for a venue to promote your beliefs in the hopes to change others or create a debate.
Welcome to the internet.
And to Hatrack.
You're wrong.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If you find no value in discussion, perhaps a discussion board is the wrong place for you.
Welcome to Hatrack.
You're wrong.
Posted by Rigg is my hero (Member # 12559) on :
i find value in discussion, just not when it bears no significance to how OSC writes his books. why do you all even give a sh*t about his personal views? I dont, I just wait in anticipation for his next book.
i get it.. you all want to feel like you are heard in regards to your politically motivated dribble.. but you know.. take it to a political/religious blog.. this forum is to discuss his books, not his personal/religious/political beliefs.
dont contaminate this forum with that rhetoric where it will easily cause alienation.
alas, this is my last post on this topic because this "discussion" will not change anything except for ego's.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks for the lecture on "how this board works" Mr. 3 posts.
You are so wrong in so many ways.
ETA: The biggest one being that this is not the place to discuss OSC's published beliefs and only his novels. This is exactly the place for this discussion. Which I welcome you to join, or not, but please do not judge people who put a lot of thought and passion into discussing ideas which are important to them.
[ May 02, 2011, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rigg is my hero: i get it.. you all want to feel like you are heard in regards to your politically motivated dribble.. but you know.. take it to a political/religious blog.. this forum is to discuss his books, not his personal/religious/political beliefs.
Four posts and you're already a moderator?
Perhaps you should note that the title of this forum is "Discussions about OSC" not "Discussions about OSC's books".
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rigg is my hero: i get it.. you all want to feel like you are heard in regards to your politically motivated dribble..
The word you were reaching for here is actually "drivel".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In fact, it did. There were a lot of good, kind, moral people who owned slaves. Now we know better.
Slavers. In my example I'm using slavers, not slave-owners. The people who outright went out there and nabbed and traded people into slavery.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In fact, it did. There were a lot of good, kind, moral people who owned slaves. Now we know better.
Slavers. In my example I'm using slavers, not slave-owners. The people who outright went out there and nabbed and traded people into slavery.
I think that there were many of even them who thought it was just a business, who worked for other people and didn't have a whole lot of choice so didn't think about it, for whom it was just part of everyday life. Take, for example, the guy who wrote "Amazing Grace". He didn't suddenly become good; he suddenly came to a realization that he had not had before.
Why would they be any more culpable than the people who paid them, anyway?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Any more culpable? The slavers invaded peaceful foreign countries and beat, killed and captured fellow human beings, rounded them up like cattle, chained them around the neck and packed them aboard a ship where they were likely to die of malnutrition and disease, and if they made it across the ocean they were sold into slavery as farm equipment.
Maybe the slave owners were raised to believe that the slaves were subhuman property, but by the time they are in the mix, the enslaved people are already set into their horrible conditions...by the slavers, who took them from their homes.
So I say slavers are worse then slave owners, hands down.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The slavers invaded peaceful foreign countries and beat, killed and captured fellow human beings, rounded them up like cattle, chained them around the neck and packed them aboard a ship where they were likely to die of malnutrition and disease, and if they made it across the ocean they were sold into slavery as farm equipment.
I'm not sure that this is true. My understanding is that at least some of the slave trade thrived on inter-tribal warfare-- one tribe beating another tribe and selling the losers to the white men at the ports.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Wiki agrees with you.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:My understanding is that at least some of the slave trade thrived on inter-tribal warfare-- one tribe beating another tribe and selling the losers to the white men at the ports.
This doesn't actually make a moral difference -- financing a tribe to wage war and enslave another tribe is almost identical in its results, and thus its morality, to waging war and enslaving a tribe yourself.
quote:So I say slavers are worse then slave owners, hands down.
The thing I said above is the same reason your sentence here doesn't make sense. The slave owner finances and motivates the slaver, same way that the slaver finances and motivates the slave-capturer.
The slave-capturer only captures slaves, because he expects to sell them to the slaver, and the slaver only transports slaves because he expects to sell them to a slave-owner.
They're all equally culpable. If anything the blacks engaging in the slave-trade were living in fear that if they didn't capture an enemy tribe, they'd get captured themselves. So in a sense they're more justified, because of fear, than the white man who had no such worries of personal slavery.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sometime - often - good people do bad things. Through fear or ignorance or apathy we do things that rightly horrify people who know better or who live in better circumstances. And, often, good people fail to do good things.
Posted by Bruce T. Harvey (Member # 12564) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I accept them [Card's stances on homosexuality] as a product of the social constructs they were raised with, and realize that nothing I do will change them, thus while the idea may be flat wrong, it doesn't necessarily imply a moral deficiency in the person.
Applause.
Were there an agreed-upon category of partnering called "marriage.civil.gov" or "civil.union" that provided the same 'legal' benefits as 'marriage' does, Mr. Card might not have written that particular article. Or, he might have written about something else that both his religion and his upbringing and continual thought coerce (enable?) him to say.
Since throughout history -- at least the history for which we have these kinds of records -- the approximate percentage of the population that can most likely be classified as "homosexual" has been, to my knowledge, between 3 and 8 percent of the general population ... and if Mr. Card is correct in that true homosexuality is not conducive to keeping the population going from an evolutionary standpoint ... there must be a very common "trigger" for the physical changes that enable this to occur. Or there may be a hidden advantage to some people we're not seeing. I haven't looked at this enough in depth. I'd enjoy seeing his comments about this, as he alluded to in the article.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Bruce, basic genetics. Look up sickle cell and apply the same principles to homosexuality. Also, studies do show that sisters of gay men have increased fecundity. However, having read OSC books, I would expect a higher level of understanding of genetics from anyone who has recently passed bio 101.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You don't get a pass from moral criticism for believing in and practicing something just because your parents taught you it was right. At some point, it's not clear where, it's a subjective issue obviously, you have to start bearing the moral weight for better or worse for it.
You already believe this yourself, DDD-because I very much doubt you would say that someone who practices good things, but was raised that way, cannot be said to be morally virtuous.
One's background is surely only a mitigating factor, and where we disagree is how much of a factor not whether it is or not. If it wasn't, human beliefs would be static-we'd believe what our parents believe, down through the ages. But the fact is, people's beliefs and practices change.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mitigation is not absolution. I believe that good people still bear the moral weight for bad actions while still being capable of being good people. Some people are "ahead of the curve" on some things but can be jerks about others. I would not have wanted to be married to Gandhi, for example.
Being a theist who believes in an afterlife where things are made plain, I believe that we all will face that moral weight for many things that we expect and some that we don't.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not entirely sure there is such a thing as a "good person" or a "bad person".
I think people do good and bad things, and many who often do bad things, will still do good things, and people who often do good things will still do bad.
Morality is very relative to the surrounding circumstance and not set in stone.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
You know, this reminds me of something Mark Twain once said in an essay of his. Every human being is a machine, built to perform a certain task, though they can do multiple tasks if they so choose. He said that each machine (or person) has impurities (such as racism, sexism, etc), which cannot be let go of very easily or by just that one person. He explained, in theory, that a human being who is raised a racist will always be a racist and that he cannot change this himself, however he may change if the outside world sees fit to change him (refining out his impurities), through various mediums like education and rehabilitation. Still, he says, a person may not do this completely on their own, because that person will never see anything wrong with what they are doing unless ultimately told they are wrong by someone else. And even then, it is still unlikely that they will change. In short, people are machines.
It's an interesting essay, and you can find it online, but it is rather lengthy.
Personally, I think there's some truth in that. OSC is a great man/machine who has found his purpose, which is to write, and he does it admirably and I consider him one of my personal literary heroes. However, he is still human, and thus is prone to impurities, just like anyone else. If you really search yourselves, you'll find you're the same way, whether you want to admit it or not. It's just the way humans are (thank you, evolution), and while we may change overtime, those impurities will always be there in some form or another.
Posted by Damon (Member # 12512) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bruce T. Harvey:
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I accept them [Card's stances on homosexuality] as a product of the social constructs they were raised with, and realize that nothing I do will change them, thus while the idea may be flat wrong, it doesn't necessarily imply a moral deficiency in the person.
Applause.
Were there an agreed-upon category of partnering called "marriage.civil.gov" or "civil.union" that provided the same 'legal' benefits as 'marriage' does, Mr. Card might not have written that particular article. Or, he might have written about something else that both his religion and his upbringing and continual thought coerce (enable?) him to say.
Since throughout history -- at least the history for which we have these kinds of records -- the approximate percentage of the population that can most likely be classified as "homosexual" has been, to my knowledge, between 3 and 8 percent of the general population ... and if Mr. Card is correct in that true homosexuality is not conducive to keeping the population going from an evolutionary standpoint ... there must be a very common "trigger" for the physical changes that enable this to occur. Or there may be a hidden advantage to some people we're not seeing. I haven't looked at this enough in depth. I'd enjoy seeing his comments about this, as he alluded to in the article.
This is an interesting point, one I've given some thought. Naturally, homosexuals are disadvantaged in their ability to pass on their genes, and so their siblings most likely have some advantage.
Anecdote begin (this is not scientific data): I come from a family which has produced several homosexual males and several "sociopaths". Whatever stigma is attached to sociopathy, the fact is sociopaths are intelligent, charismatic, and predisposed to promiscuity: in other words, they have a distinct advantage in passing along their genes.
Based on my own experiences, my hypothesis is thus: whatever genes contribute to homosexuality also contribute to sociopathy, either via different genotypes or some environmental factor which differentiates the two. The reproductive advantages of sociopathy is offset by an increased likelyhood of their children being born homosexual, while the disadvantage of homosexuals is offset by their siblings' advantage. In this way, it's similar to Sickle Cell Anemia: it's a genetic disadvantage which survives because a different expression of the same genes provides an advantage.
Quick note: I don't use the word "sociopath" in a negative way, though the word is inherently negative (as it implies a pathology). Some of our greatest leaders have fit the "symptoms" of a sociopath: I believe they play an important role in our species' survival.
This is not strongly related to the topic of legalization of gay marriage, so forgive my minor derailment: it's a topic that interests me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:whatever genes contribute to homosexuality also contribute to sociopathy
I certainly haven't observed any correlation in my own anecdotal experience.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I can't seriously consider such a statement given the lack of evidence.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You would also have to tie it to a distinctly demonstratable reproductive advantage for sociopaths (this hasn't been shown), and overturn understandings of sociopathy by demonstrating conclusively that sociopathy is primarily a genetic trait rather than the result of early developmental environments (this contradicts everything we know about sociopathy).
In addition, it is a myth that sociopaths are highly intelligent. They are statistically no more intelligent than the average person. They also have problems with focus and concentration, and this is very bad for socioeconomic stature and productivity (i.e., holding a job.)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
There has been shown a higher fecundity in the sisters of homosexuals so the idea that the genes are passed on like sickle cell (kinda) is supported. However, I have seen no connection to sociopaths in the research. Furthermore, being exclusively homosexual has not been an option for much of history. There was huge pressure to reproduce. For God and country, close your eyes and think of England, that kinda thing. A lot of homosexuals have managed to breed.
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
In my experience, many homosexual women seem to have had children (the "normal" way of sex with men, not just artificial insemination). Many say that it was before they knew/accepted that they were gay. However, I feel like there are often many differences between gay men and gay women (for one thing, I think more women than men "come to" homosexuality after some type of sexual trauma / abuse / rape).
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
It's been my impression that current thinking on the subject seems to be that male sexual orientation is more innate and thus less of a choice, female sexual orientation is more flexible and thus more of a choice.
However I wonder if a equivalent restatement of the above might just be "there exist many more bisexual women than there exist bisexual men" -- so that this isn't about the sexual flexibility of properly straight or gay people, but just about different numbers of bisexual people choosing to identify as straight or gay.
[ October 07, 2011, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The arousal of a woman is not essential for procreation as it is for a man and for a too large part of history (including now) some segments of the population have not expected women to enjoy sex anyway so her sexual orientation was not even recognized as an issue.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I tend to agree with AK, that is, that women seem more able to adapt to enjoying the same gender then men...or however that works out. I know many women who made out their female friends when drunk or "tried it" once etc, but (and here is where I have no idea if it is true or not, as it seems likely that men wouldn't talk about it if they had) do not know any men like that. With men, from my admittedly limited knowledge, it seems you either are gay, or not and do not "test the waters".
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The arousal of a woman is not essential for procreation...
So there's some hope that there may be a Dobbie Jr. someday after all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I tend to agree with AK, that is, that women seem more able to adapt to enjoying the same gender then men...or however that works out. I know many women who made out their female friends when drunk or "tried it" once etc, but (and here is where I have no idea if it is true or not, as it seems likely that men wouldn't talk about it if they had) do not know any men like that. With men, from my admittedly limited knowledge, it seems you either are gay, or not and do not "test the waters".
I suspect it may be impossible, right now, to determine whether women are as a gender actually more able to adapt to enjoying the same gender as men, rather than our society affords approximately one half of its members less harsh punishments than it does the other.
Put another way, I think the stigma to being a homosexual male is greater throughout most of American society than it is towards being a homosexual female. Until the playing field, so to speak, is more level, I don't see how we can say with any kind of assurance what one gender or another really prefers more or less.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The arousal of a woman is not essential for procreation...
So there's some hope that there may be a Dobbie Jr. someday after all.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Good luck!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
You really should not, but that's a different subject. Spiders are so cute.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If you are in fact a heterosexual, think about this for a minute: how tempted are you, really, to give up having sex with persons of the opposite gender, so that you can marry someone of your own gender and spend the rest of your life having sex with them? If you really are a heterosexual, the answer is of course approximately zero (Yuck!). Since homosexuals are and always have been and always will be a small minority of the total population, we will always have enough heterosexual marriages to keep things going.