This is topic Dog speaks unspeakable things [yet another gay marriage thread] in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=021882

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
You've probably seen some of my frustration breaking against the "offensive line" in the Gay Marriage debate. What I mean is, there is a line that has been drawn by the pro-Gay Marriage camp. If anything you say crosses that line, then your statements are immediately invalidated as being mean-spirited, offensive, or bigoted. For an example of this reaction, read anything said by Lalo on the subject

Now, there are some truly offensive and bigoted things being said, on both sides. That I don't deny, and I want them to stop as much as anyone does.

But what gets to me is the fact that there are certain important issues that cannot be addressed with any rigor or seriousness because of this kneejerk reaction. I'm a moderate, yet I get flamed just as hard for my well-meant questions as a hardcore homophobe does for his condemnations. This process of attacking any question or idea that takes one step away from the pre-approved party line is ultimately harmful to everyone involved in this debate. It drives away potential friends allies in the moderate arc of the political spectrum by telling them they must adopt the extreme Pro position or go to hell, and it also limits our knowledge and understanding of homosexuality by preventing truly open and honest examination of the phenomenon.

So, in this thread, I'd like to bring up a couple of issues that I think are probably across the "offensive line". I'd like to find a way to discuss them without getting into a shouting match over who is or is not a bigot. Hopefully, through this discussion, I or someone else can be further enlightened without a lot of angry posturing.

1. Define normal.

One thing that can get a person into trouble is suggesting that homosexuality is a psychological condition in the same spectrum as anorexia, depression, obsessive compulsion, or attention deficit disorder. The phrase "psychological condition" naturally conjures images from movies like Silence of the Lambs in which people with "psychological conditions" are dangerous madmen.

I prefer to use the term "psychological phenomenon", because it sheds a lot of the negative connotations. I don't intend to pass any judgment on the psychological capacities of homosexuals. I'm not calling them sick, or crazy. I'm simply saying that homosexuality is a phenomenon that involves a human being thinking and feeling in a way that is not common to most other human beings.

When this idea is brought up, I often hear the counterassertion that homosexuality is "within the normal variation of human personalities". In other words, it's "normal", or at least, "common" and "to be expected". That's okay, I take no issue with that point of view. Human thought exists in a vast, multidimensional spectrum, and it really is up to us what we decide to consider "normal". It's an imaginary line drawn between things we wish to accept, and things we don't.

But saying that homosexuality is "normal" does not make it cease to be a psychological phenomenon.

Let's look at myself as an example. Though I have never been officially diagnosed with any clinical ailment, my own observation tells me that I likely suffer from mild forms of depression, OCD, and ADD. I share experiences with many people who have been diagnosed with those conditions, and deal with many of the same limitations, and/or patterns of thought.

Now, is there something "wrong" with me because I have these describable psychological conditions? Does this devalue me as a human being? If another person were to talk about my unusual way of thinking in clinical terms, is that person a bigot? I would say not. I just tend to worry more than reason would dictate. I lose concentration as a defense against unpleasant tasks. I get into nonproductive moods that are difficult to shake. But I'm actually pretty darn normal.

However, recognizing these modes of thought as unusual conditions lets me recognize my own differences in a useful and intelligent way. I can try to explore the sources of my unusual thoughts and feelings. I can constantly search for more productive means of managing my own mind. I'm much more self-knowing because I'm capable of stepping back and seeing that my own thoughts fall into describable, diagnosable patterns.

Is ADD a sin? Is it a failing? Is it a serious disease? No. Does it make me a valueless member of society? Certainly not. All it means is, I have trouble doing some things that other people do easily, but in some other ways, I have greater abilities and capacities. That can be true of many things — I'm also not very good at painting, I'm bad at sports, and I'm unusually good at analyzing video games. ADD is just another difference, another challenge, another element of my life.

But it IS a condition. A psychological phenomenon. And recognizing it as such makes it possible for people with even mild cases (like myself) to more effectively analyze, and improve, our lives.

Should it therefore be offensive to look at homosexuality under a similar lens to the one I use to look at myself? Or is there some special feature of homosexuality that makes it immune to such analysis and scrutiny?

2. A dependent minority.

Homosexuality is not a race, a heritage, or an ethnic group. Though analogies can be drawn between the treatment of homosexuals by those who hate them and the behavior of racists (many of which analogies are totally accurate), there is a difference between a racial minority and the homosexual minority.

One key difference is the fact that the homosexual minority is dependent upon the heterosexual majority to exist. Every homosexual alive today sprang from a heterosexual union. And, if those homosexuals do reproduce themselves, it will, again, be through some form of heterosexual union. A society formed completely from homosexual unions would die off in a generation.

In a small-scale society such as those formed by early man, no one could afford to support farmers who refused to plow, hunters who refused to kill, or sexually-mature humans that did not try to mate. All of our energy had to be applied to feeding and reproducing our population, because food output and infant survival rates were so low, it was the only way to survive.

As technology improved, our situation became increasingly less dire. We could afford for some workers to abandon food production and become scholars, artists, inventors, and administrators. And we could afford to support a growing population of people who, for whatever reason, had no interest in the reproductive process.

The homosexual population is different from other minorities because it is essentially a byproduct of the majority. It isn't a competing population, because in a true long-term competition, it would not stand a chance. And it could never exist on its own, without constantly being fed new members by the majority group.

I view my own career much the same way. I get to work as a video game designer because our society has reached a position where we can support artistic people in the production of expensive, high-tech entertainment. This is a great time for someone like me to be alive, because I get to do something that I truly love to do.

But at no point can I ever lose sight of the fact that I am able to do my job ONLY because the rest of society supports me. If there is ever a large-scale breakdown similar to the Great Depression, I will probably lose my job because it is non-essential to society. As satisfying as it is to ME, personally, it can never be as integral to our continued survival as food production.

It is easy for privileged Americans to forget how much they owe to the infrastructure of their community. Rural farmers and agricultural communities are often looked down upon for doing the very jobs that keep us alive. But look at places in Africa and Asia where food production and distribution has been corrupted and broken down. How many opportunities do artistic people in those places have to pursue their dreams and ideal professions?

Similarly, heterosexual marriages often get treated with contempt, both by cynics and by their own participants, while we idealize the peripheral relationships that depend on them to survive. But this contempt for the foundation of our society can ultimately lead to unhappy consequences for EVERYONE. It is not as though heterosexual society can crumble and collapse into random, unstable mating patterns with no thought for the stability of society and the welfare of future generations, while homosexual society moves forward, strong and happy, successful and independent. What happens to heterosexual society happens to ALL of society, gays and future gays included.

So I think it is fair to recognize the inherent value of the heterosexual relationship, which we depend on for our society to survive and prosper. Recognizing the value of a relationship does not prop up its participants as inherently better people than non-participants. In other words, I am NOT suggesting that straights are superior people to gays. That would be both bigoted and silly. But I do think we need to recognize that the welfare of stable heterosexual relationships within our culture has a unique importance to the welfare of society as a whole.

In other words, I think it is possible for society to recognize unique value in one fundamental relationship, and go out of its way to prop that type of relationship up, without causing offense to those who wish to pursue a different type of relationship ... For the same reason that we are likely to spend much more money to support the food industry, the steel industry, or the plastics industry, than we are to prop up a flagging film, publishing, or game industry. That isn't meant to be an offense to filmmakers, writers, or game developers, though it could conceivably make their lives very difficult when things go badly. As much as it sucks to be me in a case like that, society has its priorities straight.

Is that an argument directly against gay marriage? Certainly not. While the above paragraphs cite some differences between homosexual and heterosexual unions, they cite no harm that could be caused by allowing gays to marry. And arguing against gay marriage, actually, is not the purpose of this thread. As I've repeated before, I'm a moderate on the issue who has not yet picked a favored course of action. My purpose here is to SAY things that I am normally not allowed to say, and see if they can lead in a productive direction. So if you have anything to add, feel free.

Just please, let's not make this a fight over who's a bigot and who's not. I have recognized at the beginning of this post that I KNOW many of these ideas have been labeled as unclean thoughts by those who like to bandy the word "bigot" about. If they are unclean thoughts, then respond to them, explain them away. But if you have name-calling to do, then do it in another thread. Here, it would be off-topic.

I am not doing this to offend, and if, despite my very careful explanations, I have managed to offend someone, I am truly sorry. Please read my body of writings on the subject and try to see my real intent. I would like, ideally, for no one else to be hurt by this argument. But I believe that the best course of action for all parties is open and honest discussion of all the issues and ideas surrounding gay marriage.

I have talked through many of the issues on the pro side with gay marriage proponents, and I feel I have a good handle on what they are. But these two ideas are aspects of the situation which continue to lean on my mind, but which I have never been able to openly describe without getting smacked in the face. So if you are offended by these ideas, don't see me as an enemy. See me as a benevolent moderate who is trying to understand the complete issue before making any final decisions. And let me know what you think.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

quote:

---

In other words, I think it is possible for society to recognize unique value in one fundamental relationship, and go out of its way to prop that type of relationship up, without causing offense to those who wish to pursue a different type of relationship ...

---

I'll go ahead and tackle one of your statements (the one quoted above) to simply say that this opinion is fine in a representative form of government like ours if and only if every member of the society has an equal voice in how the society's resources are allocated. Any inequality in that decision-making power, on whatever basis, tosses the entire thing out the window, IMHO.

Then, it is right to raise the issue of "fairness" because the system of making the decisions has been shown to be unfair on one basis, it may assumed to be unfair on all bases.

So, what we really have to examine is whether our method of doling out things like "conferred advantages" is done in a truly representative fashion.

I suspect it is not. And thus, I think the entire system is flawed.

And given that, I think the best course of action is to dole out no preferences whatsoever.

Sadly, people tend to think that fairness depends on whether they agree with the outcome, not whether they can objectively arrive at the conclusion that was reached.

I can put this more simply, though. If the society is willing to take the contributions of everyone, it also has to ensure that it does right by everyone.

Conferred advantage for the public good only works if everyone in the society is willing to go along with it. Otherwise, you have an unbalanced situation that will ultimately lead to discord.

I see that we have arrived at that position now.

I look back and think maybe the pattern of conferred advantage over the years has been wrong. You like it that way.

What more is there to say but we aren't going to reasolve this?

I don't think there's an objective way to settle on one opinion versus the other.

So, I then try to go to my guiding principles. I choose to take those from the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Others choose the Bible, or their religion, or their gut feelings, or how they were raised.

But, since we're talking about how to govern the US, I think I'm closer to choosing the right source material.

And there we have the reason that I won't budge on this issue. That is: when I look at the guiding principles of America, I see something that says we are all equal in the eyes of the government. And if that's the case, I can't really go around that to say "but we like heterosexual married couples best -- wink, wink."
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
Geoff, you've carefully articulated concerns that dovetail with my own. I am also a moderate on this issue, though I've gone ahead and thrown in with the pro-gay-marriage crowd. However, I have reservations about the basic desire of homosexuals to be viewed by the rest of society as having a sexuality that is equally desirable.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Defining homosexuality as an abnormality is usually the first part of a two-part argument. The second part of the argument is either "let's help cure this abnormality" or "let's wipe out this abnormality." That's where the infringement of rights begin.

But, I can take your statement at face value and believe that you have no intention of making the second part of the argument. In that case, your statement becomes fairly irrelevant in a socio-political discussion of gay rights. So what if they are abnormal? It does not change the fact that they deserve the same basic human rights as everyone else (which I know you believe).
 

---

Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
 
I disagree Bob. The government has an interest in providing extra support to those who provide advantages to it.

The government gives advantages to those who work and pay taxes, that it does not give to those who choose not to work.

The government can also give advantages to those who choose to produce new citizens that it might not offer to those who do not. I myself miss out on many tax benefits conferred upon those who make babies.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
[Moved over to the other thread -- my first accidental cross-post! ]

[ February 28, 2004, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Dog's second post raised an interesting question. He is basically describing a type of "affirmative action" for marriage: While not specifically designed to oppress homosexuals, Dog proposes that we give tangible advantages to heterosexual couples in recognition of society's preference for their union.

AA, on the other hand, while not specifically designed to oppress non-minorities, proposes that we give tangible advantages to minorities in recognition of society's preference for diversity.

I suspect an overlap between AA and gay marriage supporters (and vice versa for the people against AA and gay marriages). I wonder how each group can reconcile this?
 

---

Posted by purpledawn (Member # 6238) on :
 
Slash if what you're saying is true, wouldn't the government be giving special treatment to immigrants because they are increasing the number of citizens, or Asian Americans because they have the highest birthrates?
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Hi, purpledawn. Welcome to Hatrack! Nice questions.

BTW, I think there is a good answer to this question, but I won't detail it unless Slash needs it, and only if he asks for a special favor.

[ February 28, 2004, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
You do make good points, but it's really, really difficult to understand gayness when straightness is considered the template of normality.
Like sort of, how can you NOT like chocolate? Are you crazy? How can you possibly do something like that with a man, how revulting.
Which is only one small problem gay people have faced through the ages.
There's no easy answers, but inorder to welcome society to these people who are different in terms of desire but for the most part WANT to be productive citizens, a lot has to be let go....
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

Is ADD a sin? Is it a failing? Is it a serious disease? No. Does it make me a valueless member of society? Certainly not. All it means is, I have trouble doing some things that other people do easily, but in some other ways, I have greater abilities and capacities. That can be true of many things — I'm also not very good at painting, I'm bad at sports, and I'm unusually good at analyzing video games. ADD is just another difference, another challenge, another element of my life.

---

quote:

---

2. A dependent minority.

Homosexuality is not a race, a heritage, or an ethnic group.

---

quote:

---

The homosexual population is different from other minorities because it is essentially a byproduct of the majority. It isn't a competing population, because in a true long-term competition, it would not stand a chance. And it could never exist on its own, without constantly being fed new members by the majority group.

I view my own career much the same way. I get to work as a video game designer because our society has reached a position where we can support artistic people in the production of expensive, high-tech entertainment. This is a great time for someone like me to be alive, because I get to do something that I truly love to do.

But at no point can I ever lose sight of the fact that I am able to do my job ONLY because the rest of society supports me. If there is ever a large-scale breakdown similar to the Great Depression, I will probably lose my job because it is non-essential to society. As satisfying as it is to ME, personally, it can never be as integral to our continued survival as food production.

---

quote:

---

It is easy for privileged Americans to forget how much they owe to the infrastructure of their community.

---

quote:

---

But look at places in Africa and Asia where food production and distribution has been corrupted and broken down. How many opportunities do artistic people in those places have to pursue their dreams and ideal professions?

---

quote:

---

It is not as though heterosexual society can crumble and collapse into random, unstable mating patterns with no thought for the stability of society and the welfare of future generations, while homosexual society moves forward, strong and happy, successful and independent. What happens to heterosexual society happens to ALL of society, gays and future gays included.

---

quote:

---

So I think it is fair to recognize the inherent value of the heterosexual relationship, which we depend on for our society to survive and prosper. Recognizing the value of a relationship does not prop up its participants as inherently better people than non-participants. In other words, I am NOT suggesting that straights are superior people to gays. That would be both bigoted and silly. But I do think we need to recognize that the welfare of stable heterosexual relationships within our culture has a unique importance to the welfare of society as a whole.

---

quote:

---

In other words, I think it is possible for society to recognize unique value in one fundamental relationship, and go out of its way to prop that type of relationship up, without causing offense to those who wish to pursue a different type of relationship ... For the same reason that we are likely to spend much more money to support the food industry, the steel industry, or the plastics industry, than we are to prop up a flagging film, publishing, or game industry. That isn't meant to be an offense to filmmakers, writers, or game developers, though it could conceivably make their lives very difficult when things go badly. As much as it sucks to be me in a case like that, society has its priorities straight.

---

• Jonathan Goldberg. Sodometries: Renaissance Texts, Modern Sexualities. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1992.
  

  quote:

  ---

  This sixteenth-century illustration reveals the violence of a European encounter with "New World" inhabitants. In 1513, Balboa fed to his dogs forty Panamanian Indians accused of sodomy, a common charge against native peoples.

  ---

  Emphasis mine.
• The Journey of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza De Vaca (1542) Translated by Fanny Bandelier(1905)
  

  quote:

  ---

  During the time I was among them I saw something very repulsive, namely, a man married to another. Such are impotent and womanish beings, who dress like women and perform the office of women, but use the bow and carry big loads. Among these Indians we saw many of them; they are more robust than the other men, taller,and can bear heavy burdens.

  ---

• Will Roscoe. The Zuni Man-Woman. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
  Press, 1991. Look for the words like "berdache" (French word, deroggatory for something like "male whore") and, for a specific account, look for We`wha.
• Also by Will Roscoe. Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America. Palgrave Macmillan; (March 1998)
• A web site that coroberrates the existence of homosexual marriage in many tribes. In case you don't feel like searching through the whole page for the off-hand remark (there's lotsa unrelated stuff):
  

  quote:

  ---

  Question: This one is a little out if left field for some people, but I am also a crossdresser. My grandmother told me that a was a blessed person. What did she mean by this?
  Answer: I can answer this one for you. In many Native cultures, particularly before 'white' influence made homosexuality and/or crossdressing taboo, homosexuals were revered as being very sacred beings. It was believed that homosexuals were born being part of both male and female worlds, and could serve as kind of a liason between the sexes. Called 'berdache', they were often given as wives to a clan's most valued warriors. Your grandmother was right...you are blessed. Pam

  ---

  Yes, the male "wives" also dressed as women.

quote:

---

Because of its special status, homosexuality is often accommodated in ritual situations, such as the priesthood, where the special facility of gender mediation suggests special spiritual powers. Ritual contexts have also provided for the acceptance of homosexuality as a stable category, and for some rare cases of homosexual marriage within traditional African societies.

---

quote:

---

One ancient Egyptian wall relief from Dynasty V south of Saqqara shows the close embrace of two powerful male court officials, Nyankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, both bearing the title of "king's manicurist." Face to face, with noses touching, one holds the other's wrist, while the other, slightly behind, holds the shoulder of the first.
Although their shared tomb depicts their respective wives and children as well, which is common imagery, this precise embrace is a pose reserved in Egyptian art for spouses, or in representing the king being received by a god, and the embrace of two men is never otherwise seen. The two men have been called brothers, or twins, by scholars, but no written evidence from the tomb supports this.

---

quote:

---

Male ritual leaders called mugawe among the Meru of Kenya dress as women routinely and sometimes even marry other men. Coptic monks in the sixth or seventh century, whose work included the painting of sacred manuscripts, apparently were known for their homosexuality, judging by a man's wedding vow on papyrus that promises "never to take another wife, never to fornicate, nor to consort with wandering monks."

---

quote:

---

[H]eterosexual marriages often get treated with contempt, both by cynics and by their own participants. . . .

---

quote:

---

Things like that are why I use that nasty 'B' word with regard to the side that denies equal rights.

---

Of course, the fact that you apply the nasty 'B' word to people who aren't against equal rights does damage your credibility a bit.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
"Separate but equal" is not equal rights.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
How have I suggested separate but equal?
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Are you going to continue to make this some kind of personal problem between you and me?
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Once you separate, you are making things unequal.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
You called me a bigot. You have yet to apologize or provide a reason for doing so that applies to me. Until then, there is a personal problem between us.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
No, it's your personal problem, not mine. Continue to pester me, and I'll just report you to the mods for harassing me.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Interesting way to handle intellectual disputes. Call people names, refuse to explain, and run to mommy.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Dag, just take it outside. We don't need to watch this. These threads are vitriolic enough as it IS.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
You know what mac, I've had to watch enough of your arguments that that's not really fair.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
mack, I love you dearly, but come on!

I think Dagonee is being quite reasonable, and amazingly calm.

[Edit: adverb, not adjective -- oops]

[ February 29, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
It was a suggestion. Do with it what you will, I'm not going to try to defend my own arguments. I just asked what others have asked of me before.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
He IS. They both are. But threads keep going to a back and forth between john and dag. "Apologize." "No." "Apologize." "No." "Apologize." "No."

If they're going to fight, they at LEAST need to be more exciting.

(rivka, turn on AIM.)
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Is there a 'right' to associate with non-biological children?

EDIT: Um, about those non-biological children . . . . What I mean is, do adults have a right to associate with children who are not biologically 'theirs?'

[ February 29, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Not to step in the middle of this, for fear of getting attacked as well, but I didn't see him reference you directly in that post, Dag.

Granted, he did use the label "bigot" in reference to several generalized groups of people.

Which of those groups do you fall in that you feel the word was leveled at you?

(forgive me for not knowing, but I've been avoiding most of these threads)
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*snort* Well, if you were objecting to the boringness of their argument, perhaps you should have requested MORE vitriol . . .

(can't right now; maybe later -- sorry!)
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Um, rivka, I'm curious as to what you think is reasonable about following me from thread to thread and nursing a personal grudge. E-mail me if you like about it.

Same for you, Dag. I'm not going to sit and pull another one of these "bitch wars" with more people on this forum. They are always stupid, petty, and I'm not going to change what I said because you felt insulted by it. Warning: if you turn it into hassling me over e-mail, then I'll block your e-mail and, if necessary, your whole internet address range.

And Scott, isn't it funny how things become "rights" only when people are denied them? Does that make them any less a "right" that is deserved?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
John-- so you contend that it is a natural right that all sane people can have relationships with children who are not biologically theirs, correct?
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
You're being vague about context, Scott.
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
I'm confused by this whole children angle. Where did it come from, and what are you trying to set up? Just make your argument, rather than trying to snare people.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hey, John L, I really appreciate your informative post. It is much more helpful and productive than using the "B" word. I think that the examples that you have listed are good discussion points and certainly are things I didn't know anything about before. If we are ever to come to any sort of resolution about gay marriage, it should involve fully understanding what we are talking about. I am no believer in ignorance.

It is good when we get past the accusations and can discuss rationally what we think and why. Thanks again, and I hope our discussion can follow more along those lines.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
If you thought I was being vague in the context of the question, Leto, why in your first response did you choose to replyas if you knew my point before I made it?

:shrug:

I don't believe that people have a natural right to children who are wards of the state. This is borne out by the fact that adoptive-parents-to-be are screened by state agencies for the capacity to be good parents.

The government, thus, already discriminates as far as its powers allow it against parents. In other words, foster/adoptive parents are NOT given the benefit of the doubt when they seek to get a child. And if there is doubt whether or not the couple, or person, is unfit, more testing is done.

Correct, John?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
FlyingCow,

In this thread John said, "And gee, you don't think that applies to you, or any of the other bigots?" in direct response to one of my posts.

This is not group-oriented name-calling, this was personally aimed at me. None of the justifications he has stated for calling me that name have been applicable to me. And he has specifially stated he won't apologize to me until Geoff apologizes for something he said, on a subject I've never commented on.

My reason for bringing it up in this thread is because he once brought up his reasons for calling people bigots.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Same for you, Dag. I'm not going to sit and pull another one of these "bitch wars" with more people on this forum. They are always stupid, petty, and I'm not going to change what I said because you felt insulted by it.

---

quote:

---

Warning: if you turn it into hassling me over e-mail, then I'll block your e-mail and, if necessary, your whole internet address range.

---

quote:

---

If you thought I was being vague in the context of the question, Leto, why in your first response did you choose to replyas if you knew my point before I made it?

---

quote:

---

I don't believe that people have a natural right to children who are wards of the state. This is borne out by the fact that adoptive-parents-to-be are screened by state agencies for the capacity to be good parents.

The government, thus, already discriminates as far as its powers allow it against parents. In other words, foster/adoptive parents are NOT given the benefit of the doubt when they seek to get a child. And if there is doubt whether or not the couple, or person, is unfit, more testing is done.

Correct, John?

---

quote:

---

Are you saying people should be tested before they get married in order to see if they're fit to do so? Or maybe just homosexuals?

---

quote:

---

I don't believe that people have a natural right to children who are wards of the state.

---

The reason I'm going bit by bit here is so that there is a perfectly clear understanding of my point of view, John. This discussion tends to polarize adn confuse folks. I have no desire to wind up on the bad side of the person I handed musical rights to one of my pieces of Frivel and Schleck.

There is a precedent for discrimination when it comes to rights to children. Are we agreed?
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Hm. Well, I looked. Thanks for the linkage, Dag.

I don't think he meant to call you a bigot, per se, but lumped you in with those attacking him. (as he seems to have stated above). From your other posts, it seems that you two are more in line with your opinions than many others on this board seem to be - at least on a secular level.

As far as it goes, John, that post was awesome (one of the few times I've really agreed with you near 100%... I know, it shocked me too ).

Dag, your last long response to Lalo on the Good...OSC thread was good, too, btw. (though I don't necessarily agree with your idea of "sinful", but that's neither here nor there).
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
I'm not jumping at anything, Scott. You're not giving context, you're trying to lead the conversation to your conclusion without presenting all the context at once.

quote:

---

The reason I'm going bit by bit here is so that there is a perfectly clear understanding of my point of view, John. This discussion tends to polarize adn confuse folks. I have no desire to wind up on the bad side of the person I handed musical rights to one of my pieces of Frivel and Schleck.

There is a precedent for discrimination when it comes to rights to children. Are we agreed?

---

quote:

---

. . .being biologically related does not make someone better suited to parent a child

---

quote:

---

I don't believe that people have a natural right to children who are wards of the state.

---

quote:

---

The government, thus, already discriminates as far as its powers allow it against parents. In other words, foster/adoptive parents are NOT given the benefit of the doubt when they seek to get a child. And if there is doubt whether or not the couple, or person, is unfit, more testing is done.

---

quote:

---

Do you agree that the government has the right to discriminate when it comes to bestowing adoptive/foster rights on adults?

---

quote:

---

Dag, your last long response to Lalo on the Good...OSC thread was good, too, btw. (though I don't necessarily agree with your idea of "sinful", but that's neither here nor there).

---

quote:

---

Are they more of a risk than a mediocre and disregarding heterosexual couple?

---

quote:

---

I'm also perfectly fine with witholding adoptive custody rights from single folks, and folks who work too much, and folks who don't have the monetary resources to take care of a child.

---

quote:

---

As we've discussed here, many of the studies done on the subject have been of small focus groups of children, with heavy interests on the part of the researchers conducting the studies.

---

quote:

---

Homosexuality has been around for a lot longer than the longitudinal studies that have been taking place

---

Not in American society, and certainly not as a cultural phenomena. While you can point to Sparta, Greece, and the Pacific Northwest for examples of societies that in some special cases allowed or encouraged homosexual relations, you'll find very little evidence of homosexual parenting.

You cannot appeal to history for this particular discussion-- there's simply no precedent. Unless you count Zeus and Ganymede, which you don't want to do.

quote:

---

there is no evidence to show that homosexuality adversely affects child rearing.

---

quote:

---

Considering many "traditional" gender roles are the result of sexist traditions, would it be right to continue to promote them?

---

As opposed to promoting MODERN, sexist gender roles?

No, not if those roles are harmful to the society.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I note there are a lot of subjective terms in there, John--traditional, right, sexist. How do you propose to come to an agreement on what those terms mean?

Especially the term, 'right.' That's a biggie.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

There are around 80,000 children every year who need to be adopted but aren't. Is it doing more harm to slightly relax adoption standards or continue to deprive the children of permanent families?

---

quote:

---

While you can point to Sparta, Greece, and the Pacific Northwest for examples of societies that in some special cases allowed or encouraged homosexual relations, you'll find very little evidence of homosexual parenting.

---

quote:

---

You cannot appeal to history for this particular discussion-- there's simply no precedent.

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there is no evidence to show that homosexuality adversely affects child rearing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not in any of the studies you've read, apparently, or in the ones you choose to trust.

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering many "traditional" gender roles are the result of sexist traditions, would it be right to continue to promote them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As opposed to promoting MODERN, sexist gender roles?

---

quote:

---

No, not if those roles are harmful to the society.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

---

quote:

---

I note there are a lot of subjective terms in there, John--traditional, right, sexist. How do you propose to come to an agreement on what those terms mean?

---

quote:

---

Especially the term, 'right.' That's a biggie.

---

quote:

---

I feel it is perfectly reasonable to discriminate against homosexuals or any other group regarding adoption if it can be proven that such a group, in general, is less capable of raising children than nonmembers.

However, it has yet to be proven (and my gut feeling is that it will not be proven) that homosexuals are, in fact, less capable.

---

quote:

---

Since parenting styles were radically different in all of those listed, you'd have a hard time comparing most practices today with then.

---

quote:

---

That's the reason why I say religion has no right bringing up thousands-years-old laws that have no direct bearing on the modern world.

---

quote:

---

Because any that have been done over longer periods have show no adverse effects. Care to educate me otherwise?

---

quote:

---

As opposed to promoting MODERN, sexist gender roles?
__________________________________________

Ask your wife next time she goes to vote.

---

Lawdy, a woman voting! How you DO carry on!



Do you honestly want to defend the position that modern sexist gender roles do no harm?

quote:

---

And don't hold the baby under the bathwater just because it's not what you want it to be.

---

quote:

---

Right: a just or legal claim.

---

quote:

---

would it be right to continue to promote them?

---

quote:

---

homosexual unions should be considered equal, seeing as how they are supposed to be treated equally.

---

quote:

---

Since the practice of homosexuality was radically different in all of those I listed, and in every other time period the world has known, as compared to ours, appealing to history to influence this debate IS rather futile, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because any that have been done over longer periods have show no adverse effects. Care to educate me otherwise?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No-- I've explained the problems I've had with all the studies I've seen. See my posts previous to this one.

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As opposed to promoting MODERN, sexist gender roles?
__________________________________________

Ask your wife next time she goes to vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawdy, a woman voting! How you DO carry on!

---

quote:

---

Do you honestly want to defend the position that modern sexist gender roles do no harm?

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And don't hold the baby under the bathwater just because it's not what you want it to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You'd prefer I toss it on the grill?

Mmm. I love me some good barbecued baby.

John, I'm sorry, I can't seriously address you when you confuse analogies like this. What baby am I holding under the water? Can you explain yourself?

---

quote:

---

Actually, the 'right' that I was speaking of was in the context of the quote I took off you-- as follows:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
would it be right to continue to promote them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, as you used it, and as I quoted you, meaning, 'correct.' Or 'just.'

It's subjective, and Webster's don't get the final word this time.

---

quote:

---

The government has established precedent that no one gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to adoption, Danzig. In my understanding, anyway.

---

And as I said, do you think they should also do this with marriage? Because whether for or against, the government is going to be making such a decision.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
John-- as long as you reference recent data collected by the institute, you should be fine.

But don't reference Alfred Kinsey's studies, or any studies that reference those.

Try to ignore the rhetoric on the pop ups on either side of the article:

Alfred Kinsey

Alfred Kinsey and his contemporary researchers were no less than monsters.

"Surely pedophiles don't carry around notebooks and stopwatches."

"They do when we tell them to."
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Ami, that's really a silly freaking question. The point of the reference to the Kinsey Institute is that they determine the different levels of sexual preference, and that they have many solid theories on the different combinations of preference.

Are you saying that all homosexuals should bite some bullet and marry someone they can find at least nominally acceptable, rather than be able to live their life comfortably? When did we fall back into the Middle Ages?
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 


Nice "objective" article there, Scott. Guess you couldn't just reference the actual site (mirrored at the Indiana University).

You know what, dude? Since you're really not willing to actually discuss it, and instead are going to say that no factual studies that have been done are worthwhile and rolling your eyes at me when I remain calm, consider me out of the conversation.

Nice to see that I was wrong in thinking that taking the calm approach would accomplish anything.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Leto,

This is my point: since there are varying degrees of homosexuality, (and I was aware of that) there is choice involved. Just like a person can manage ADD up to a point, a person can manage homosexuality up to a point.

Would my hypothetical person be more or less happy if they had been seduced into the homosexual lifestyle?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
John-- do you have evidence against the assertions in the article I linked?

Did you miss the part where I said that you would probably be fine using recent studies issued by the Institute?

EDIT:

quote:

---

rolling your eyes at me when I remain calm, consider me out of the conversation.

---

quote:

---

Leto,

This is my point: since there are varying degrees of homosexuality, (and I was aware of that) there is choice involved. Just like a person can manage ADD up to a point, a person can manage homosexuality up to a point.

Would my hypothetical person be more or less happy if they had been seduced into the homosexual lifestyle?

---

quote:

---

Or do you have more rude dismissals?

---

quote:

---

I've addressed your posts, but you've addressed exactly jack and squat of my first one in this thread.

---

quote:

---

The conversation's moved ON, brother. I didn't even READ your initial post.

---

quote:

---

[1] If it is a right, could someone list the pertinent part of the Bill of Rights?

---

quote:

---

Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' (see above FindLaw link)

---

quote:

---

[2] If it is a priviledge, how is it bestowed on individuals? Age is obviously a requirement, citizenship as well (it takes a lot of work to be able to marry someone who is not a US citizen legally), anything else? [emphasis added]

---

quote:

---

Validity of Marriages Abroad

In general, marriages which are legally performed and valid abroad are also legally valid in the United States.
American Citizen Services

---

So, for example, when I married my Canadian husband in Canada, all I had to do was present my birth certificate and driver's license (verifying my identity), an official copy of my divorce decree (verifying that I was, indeed, no longer married to my previous husband), and we invited over a justice of the peace. I made a lovely crudite platter, served alongside carved roast beef on yeasty fresh dinner rolls.

*** The process would have been exactly the same in the US -- we checked. However, he wouldn't have been able to stay in the US without applying for a visa. Still, the US government would have acknowledged our marriage as valid.

Mind you, obtaining a visa based on marriage to a US citizen is quite complicated, but it is much less so than most other ways of obtaining a visa. That, however, is a function of the difficulty of obtaining a visa in general -- the marriage itself is still recognized by the US government, regardless of US visa status. It's an immigration question that is separate from the marriage question.

[ March 01, 2004, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Nice information, CT but doesn't answer the question. Just because the constitution allows for there to be other rights besides those listed in the Bill of Rights doesn't answer whether or not marriage should be considered one of those rights.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
That is the pertinant part of the constitution. That is, it is explicitly acknowledged that there are rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, there was explicit concern that the Bill of Rights not be used as an exclusionary tool.

So, marriage is not listed in the Bill of Rights as a right. Doesn't mean it is a right, but doesn't mean it isn't. The US constitution doesn't settle the matter, but the fact that it isn't explicitly covered is irrelevant.

(What is unclear about how I phrase this? Honest question.)

[Sopwith stated: "If it is a right, could someone list the pertinent part of the Bill of Rights?" That is a conditional clause which rests on an inaccurate assumption, namely, that if something qualifies as a legal right, it will necessarily be enumerated in the Bill of Rights. So, I answered Sopwith's question by pointing him to the portion of the Constitution which contradicts this inaccurate assumption. (Am I making sense to anyone? ]

[ March 01, 2004, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I got you. I thought you were automatically asserting that it IS a right. What you're saying is that the constitution doesn't say one way or the other, but just because it's not there doesn't mean it's precluded from being a right.

Makes sense.

To me, a right, is something that the government is prohibited from taking away from you. Like my right to free speech. Driving doesn't qualify - you can lose that privilege based on poor behavior. Voting doesn't qualify, you can lose that privilege as well. Marriage doesn't qualify, not everyone can get married, as you yourself pointed out. Had you not produced your divorce decree, proving you were no longer married to anyone else, you would not have been able to obtain a valid marriage license.

I think the word "right" is used too freely. We apply it to things that aren't really rights, but rather privileges instead.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I think the founders believed that the rights were present before enumeration, and that they did not so much create rights as recognize rights which already were held (implicitly) by the people.

This is why Madison stated before Congress his concern about the Bill of Rights that "it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out ... were consequently insecure." So, in the original dialogue, the rights were acknowledged as existent before the enumeration, rather than being established by that listing in the constitution.

Mind you, I'm no worshipper of the founding fathers, and I think a living constitution is more valuable than gravestone-polishing. It is odd, though, how varied the use of the terms has become.

[ March 01, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
And that is what I was getting at.

As a privilege, we need to look at whether we need to add to the conditions under which that particular privilege is granted.

Since states determine many of the deciding factors under which a marriage is considered valid (i.e age limits, the requirements of a blood test, etc), doesn't this fall outside the realm of the federal government? Shouldn't this be left up to the individual states?
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
So, Sopwith, you interpret the US constitution under your own definition of "rights," rather than that which was intended? Why then should society as a whole be constrained by your personal definition? (an honest question, not a dig. I'm really curious about how we interpret texts.)

[ March 01, 2004, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Sopwith, I absolutely agree. It should be. The problem is, if California decides to legalize gay marriage, and Alabama outlaws it (by passing an amendment saying marriage is defined as between a man and a woman only, which is what Alabama's state legislature is currently pursuing) then does a gay couple married in California, still enjoy the same privileges under Alabama law that they do under California law? Can they still file state taxes as a married couple? Does the same property rules apply to them as they do a married man and woman? (my name is on the property deed, though my name is not on the mortgage loan, because of Alabama law, for ex.)

That's where it gets more difficult.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Sopwith isn't interpreting the constitution, CT, he's saying the states should be allowed to set their own parameters under which a marriage license is granted.

Do I have that right Sopwith?
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

And given that, I think the best course of action is to dole out no preferences whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

And yet you may marry. Homosexuals may not.

---

quote:

---

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

U.S. Supreme Court
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

---

quote:

---

To me, a right, is something that the government is prohibited from taking away from you. Like my right to free speech. Driving doesn't qualify - you can lose that privilege based on poor behavior. Voting doesn't qualify, you can lose that privilege as well. Marriage doesn't qualify, not everyone can get married, as you yourself pointed out. Had you not produced your divorce decree, proving you were no longer married to anyone else, you would not have been able to obtain a valid marriage license.

---

quote:

---

Let's be clear here. Nobody is being denied the right to marry. People are simply being denied the right to marry members of their own sex. I think that even the most conservative on this issue agree that homosexuals can marry a member of the opposite sex if they want to.

---

What a weak argument. So, a homosexual can have those rights as long as they engage in heterosexual behavior? Gee, too bad it wasn't that easy for those damn blacks to just act more white a hundred years ago. Once again, how the hell is that equality, tres?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I can almost guarantee that this SCOTUS would find that "the right to marry" in those cases refers specifically to "the right to marry someone of the opposite sex." It would probably be a significant majority as well, although there'd probably by 10 different opinions between the nine justices.

I'm surprised no one's gone for it yet. Has any state supreme court denied a suit requesting homosexual marriage or civil union yet? That would be the necessary prerequisite before SCOTUS gets their hands on it.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
I'm just relieved that you guys stopped drowning and grilling babies.

By the by, A Rat Named Dog, I liked your post for being sincere and thoughtful. Thank you.

I should just back away from this thread; a recent thread about abortion as a political litmus test made me remember the issues that matter more to me, and I've been trying to avoid getting excited over the gay marraige issue. But I'm a curious sucker for punishment.

I'm not convinced by the arguement that "homosexuals have been around forever", or "these cultures accepted homosexuality".

I don't dispute that. But according to LDS doctrine, there have always been followers of Christ in every human age, and some cultures were made up of nothing but Christians. (E.g., the City of Enoch).

Does that match or trump the history of homosexuality? No, I think niether group of statements is centrally relevant to the issue.

And arguing that homosexuals (and bisexuals) are psychologically different doesn't seem to work, either. Even if we agree on a baseline "normal", aberrations from "normal" will be, dependent on your ethics, be treated with disgust or concern. That is, abnormal sexuality would be considered ok by the same people who would, I'm guessing, consider the abnormality of being a KKK member abominable. Besides which, if homosexuals were thoroughly studied and found to be psychologically abnormal, many people would attribute that victemization by an uncaring society.

Are there any arguments that don't boil down to "I believe it's (right/wrong) because (of my religious beliefs/my non-religious ethical beliefs)?

Seems to me that it will have to play out by quantity of belief. If a majority don't want gay marraige, or do, then that's will happen.

Please point out where I'm wrong or ignorant. (Do I really have to ask you twice? )
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 

quote:

---

I can almost guarantee that this SCOTUS would find that "the right to marry" in those cases refers specifically to "the right to marry someone of the opposite sex."

---

quote:

---

I'm not convinced by the arguement that "homosexuals have been around forever", or "these cultures accepted homosexuality".

I don't dispute that. But according to LDS doctrine, there have always been followers of Christ in every human age, and some cultures were made up of nothing but Christians. (E.g., the City of Enoch).

---

quote:

---

Please point out where I'm wrong or ignorant.

---

Because you didn't read my posts. My point is that trying to bring religious history in as some kind of relevance is stupid and ridiculous, because there is plenty of cultures that are not of the same values as current Western Christianity-based culture. And no offense, I don't care what LDS faith believes, unless it is proven and accepted by the historical community, it's a matter of faith, not fact.

And I am not of your faith, but I want to get married. Should I be denied marriage because I'm not Christian? If so, can you defend that argument clearly (if you think you can, I challenge you to start a thread arguing it)? If not, why are you trying to impose a religious value on secular law?

Your ignorance lies in that you refuse to recognize the validity of marriage outside of your faith.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
If it was a strawman, it wasn't constructed to be so, my apologies.

For one, I do believe that homosexuals should be given the right to "marry" or obtain a legal civil union. There are rights that they are being denied, especially in the areas of next of kin, taxation, inheritance and even the protections given under divorce laws.

What I have a problem with, however, is that I believe this is being fought for in the wrong arena. If change is to happen it must be done at the state level, wherein the laws of marriage already apply. However, those making the news and those reporting it, have decided that in making this a national issue they can bring it to a head quicker. And in such, they've actually muddied the waters.

For change to actually take place, situations as they are in San Francisco will actually have to happen. It will force an issue before the California judiciary and the legislature. That is where this needs to be decided, because the state level is where the rights and responsibilities of marriage are dictated. Property rights, divorce law, spousal benefits are all dictated by the states; on the Federal level, marriage is only a factor in taxation for the most part.

There shouldn't be a Constitutional Ammendment for marriage rights or protections, simply because it is outside of the established realms of the federal government. Let each state hash it out to reflect their own requirements.

As to crossing state lines and whether something retains its legality, there are already long-established rules for that. A quickie divorce in Nevada is valid in the other 49 states, and the marriage of a pair of 16 year olds in South Carolina (not 100% sure still the legal marrying age there) is still legal if they cross the state line.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Mind you, the reasoning of the SCOTUS can be challenged, and even the US Constitution can be amended. There are are provisions made for this.

But in order to amend on the basis of rights, one must acknowledge a status of rights separate from law. That is, you cannot critique the legal staus quo without appealling to something outside the legal status quo (such as the status of those marked as slaves being critiqued on grounds of reasons not constrained by law).

So the framers of the US Constitution specifically stated that the Bill of Rights was an acknowledgement of certain rights already existing, rather than a creation of those rights. And legal tradition henceforth (from the SCOTUS on down) rests on this interpretation of legal "rights."

You can use a different interpretation of the term if you choose, but then -- like Humpty Dumpty says -- you really ought to pay it extra.

(Sopwith, I understand. We should pursue this more later. I think there is argument to be made from multiple perspectives coherently, but it needs to be muddled through carefully.)

[ March 01, 2004, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

A quickie divorce in Nevada is valid in the other 49 states...

---

quote:

---

a diverse society

---

quote:

---

Are there any arguments that don't boil down to "I believe it's (right/wrong) because (of my religious beliefs/my non-religious ethical beliefs)?

---

There aren't. Therefore, we should not legislate against it.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Again, a reason why I admire Icarus so much.

Even the non-religious arguments against homosexual marriage can be traced back to a premise that homosexuality is inherently wrong / immoral / un-natural according to a certain religious code.

And as long as we don't have a government that legislates on religious grounds (as opposed to ethical grounds) then these arguments are not sustainable in terms of prohibiting other people from enjoying those rights / benefits.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

And as long as we don't have a government that legislates on religious grounds (as opposed to ethical grounds) then these arguments are not sustainable in terms of prohibiting other people from enjoying those rights / benefits.

---

quote:

---

Ethics is a code of conduct that a group (let's say lawyers) all agrees to abide by

---

Hmm, is that targeted?



I think you are right, to an extent. Morals are inherently based on individual belief. So what is immoral for someone (e.g pre-marital sex) may not be immoral for someone else.

Ethics, on the other hand, is stepping back and reflecting on morality. Being ethical is not just believing, but looking how that belief impacts on those around you. It necessitates a fundamental belief of equality of life and rights.

So what is unethical (ie murder) is unethical for everyone. Those who do not view it as such are considered pyschopaths by society: and the reason behind this label is that to disbelieve in such a fundamental ethical idea means rejection of humanity and basic human relations.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
When I brought up what the LDS faith believes about Christianity existing at every point in human history, my point was that assertions like that mean nothing in this argument. I don't expect the presence of Christians in history to persuade anyone to believe Christian doctrine; why is the presence of homosexuals throughout history considered a valid argument for the normalcy of homosexuality?

I agree with the above. It does just boil down to what each person believes. America is a pluralistic society, and a democratic republic. American society consists of many different cultures and beliefs that all have (or at least should have) a hand in making or amending laws.

Tha problem I have with gay marraige is its political progression outside the scope of anyone's influence. If some many people support it, fine. Let them vote! If a majority doesn't support it, fine. Let them vote!

Storm Saxon, by your argument that "people will come up with the optimal solution over time", wouldn't that mean, historically speaking, heterosexual marraige between one husband and one wife is clearly better? That's the standard that has prevailed, is it not? Does anyone dispute that the vast majority of marraiges in human history have been heterosexual unions? (Notice I'm saying "by your argument". This is not necc. how I feel.)

Especially in Judeo-Christian culture, which, however much it may be sneered at and disagreed with by some, is the major basis for American culture.

I find the marraige practices of African and Native American cultures interesting on an academic level. However, you can't remove cultural practices from their greater cultural context. Those tribes who practiced homosexual marriage, which some may agree with, may have had other practices that those same people would not agree with, i.e. shamanism, female circumcision, cannibalism. Hey, those are cultural practices, too.

Moral relativism aside, is there really any way to solve the issue other than agreeing that both sides fundamentally disagree, and putting the issue to a vote?

[ March 01, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Wow, a lot can happen when you're away for a couple of days

I just have one point for the moment. John and Tom, both of you have warned people in this thread, repeatedly that they are "getting DANGEROUSLY close to INSULTING homosexuals!"

I'm sorry, but you must have missed the purpose of this thread. This is a thread where I have deliberately brought up some points that I know are largely considered to be "insulting to homosexuals" because I see much of the offense taken by the pro-gay-marriage camp as a passive-aggressive tactic that prevents their opponents from even addressing their own concerns within the public discourse without getting labeled as cruel or bigoted.

When someone is bothered by an idea about homosexuality, whether it's right or not, prohibiting them from saying it because it's "insulting" doesn't actually make their concern go away. You don't have to listen to it, sure, but it sticks around, and it makes that person feel like they cannot be heard or understood. Eventually, they will come to resent you and your entire movement, because they were never given a fairly-heard voice.

That doesn't help anybody. So this thread exists as a place where moderates like myself who want to question the assumptions made by either side in this argument can do so, without being called names for it. Since, on this board, most of the name-calling flows from the pro-gay-marriage camp into the traditional-marriage camp, it's weighted more on that side.

So anyway, your oh-so-ominous warnings carry no weight here. It's all right if people say things that can be construed to insult homosexuals. Let them say it, have it heard, explore the idea, etc. They have to do it sometime. Would you rather have them do it here, with you? Or should they go and talk it over with their homophobic friends?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Firstly, the LDS church believing christians existed and there being abundant evidence for homosexuals existing throughout history are very different. One is backed by evidence.

Second, were there evidence for christians existing throughout history, it would most certainly be evidence that being Christian was a fairly normal thing, just as it is evidence that homosexuality being a normal thing that it has existing throughout history.

Of course it wouldn't be evidence for Christianity being "right" over other religions, just as it isn't evidence for homosexuality being "right" over other sexualities.

[ March 01, 2004, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Oh, one quick response. Can't do much more right now, this is a lot to digest This quote is from John, two pages back.

quote:

---

Are left-handed people an ethnic group, heritage, or even religion? NO. Are people with Tourettes? NO. Are people who like polka? NO. Using the excuse that homosexuality is not an ethnic minority in the effort to minimize its status of being a minority who is being prejudged and denied rights is really weak. There are far less homosexuals than there are heterosexuals, and that is all the criteria needed to make it a minority.

---

quote:

---

Firstly, the LDS church believing christians existed and there being abudant evidence for homosexuals existing throughout history are very different. One is backed by evidence.

---

That doesn't matter. It seems like you are being argumentative for its own sake. The point is that ubiquitousness does not confer acceptability. Murdur, rape, war, and oppression have been with humanity from the beginning, but that doesn't make it a acceptable.

And before anybody flames me, no, I am not saying that gays are murderers nor rapists any more than I am saying that Christians are.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
No, but it does confirm that murder and rape are normal occurences. That they are normal occurences which negatively impact society does not make them less normal.

The purpose of the "homosexuality and homosexual relationships are normal throughout history" argument is not to offer conclusive reasoning for the acceptance of homosexuality (though it is supportive), but to disprove the argument of people like OSC who ignore those facts and assert that homosexual relationships like marriage have never existed historically.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
You are picking at a nit. So OSC may have been wrong when he said that there has never been gay marriage before. But it has been *extremely* rare -- so much "almost never" that an engineer would call it "never" and not blink.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
No, that's picking a nit. 'I didn't really mean never, never, I just meant mostly never'. He makes several extreme claims about the nature of law (the Mass. court declared a law unconstitutional; he said no Constitution in the US allows courts to do things like the Mass. court did; several state Constitutions make judicial review of laws explicit), the nature of marriage in the longest lived societies (he says they all had only monogamous, one on one marriages; many of the longest lived societies had polygamous marriage), and the possible benefits of homosexual marriages to society (he says there would not be a single one; I find it rather hard to believe that so many of the arguments for marriage, such as that it increases stability of relationships at least a litte, do not apply at all to homosexuals), such that I rather think he is not using the word as an engineer would, but as an absolute just as he used so many absolutes in the rest of his essay.

Furthermore, there were far more societies who had both what we've chosen to call marriage in a heterosexual fashion (despite the often extensive dissimilarities with our current system of marriage) AND relationships between homosexual couples that had many characteristics we think of as marital today -- certain parts of Greece, for instance.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
And as a side note, I do not find that assertion about engineers particularly convincing. There have only been a few tens of thousands of societies as we commonly think of them at most in the history of the world, and the practice of homosexual marriage was pointed to in at least a dozen or so by Leto. If we call it ten, then that means the rate would be on the order of one hundredth of a percent -- hardly large, but certainly noticeable in many applications, and in fact large in certain applications (computer RAM, for instance).
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
My point about nit picking is that whether it is "never" or "almost never", it doesn't really change the validity/invalidity of his argument.

As an engineer, I can tell you that in the vast majority of engineering problems I have seen, one tenth of one percent *is* unnoticable, your valid example of RAM notwithstanding.

But that doesn't really matter, since Hary Seldon hasn't created his psychohistory yet, which means that there is no social engineering that is worth of the word engineering. (heck, what I do for a living doesn't either)

You mentioned the homosexual relationships they had in Greece. What are these "many characteristics we think of as marital today " that those relationships had?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Specifically, rights as regards decisions made in the name of the couple, and of the other "spouse" such as in the case of incapacitation.

Yes, there are may cases where such a percentage wouldn't matter -- but there are many cases that are otherwise. Merely the presence of such a percentage does not mean that it may be dismissed, but only if the percentage is considered in context. OSC made no treatment of the context allowing him to dismiss it (which would be necessary as it is certainly not commonly accepted that percentages on that scale may be neglected in sociological contexts), but just dismissed it (if he bothered to look up the existence of societies where homosexual marriage existed at all, which I doubt given the use of several other "facts" as described above).
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I don't feel like participating in any discussion where I will be called "damn arrogant" and a hypocrite.

If John cannot be civil and his incivility is allowed to continue unabated, then I won't be back to any of these threads.

I'm politely requesting an edit on your posts with specific name-calling, John.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 

quote:

---

Geoff, my point is not that "Oh, no, this is insulting!" Rather, it's that the argument that gays can ALREADY marry, provided they marry someone they have no interest in marrying, is so disingenuous as to be insulting to the intelligence of the people to whom it's presented. It's semantic play, but it's not a legitimate point.

---

I personally avoid using that argument, because you're right, it seems to dodge what a gay marriage advocate is actually asking for, and can sound very belittling towards their true desires.

The purpose of that argument, though, isn't to say "things are just fine because homosexuals are allowed to marry people they have no interest in marrying".

The purpose is to say, "homosexuals are asking, not for equal rights, but for legal recognition that their unique practices are equivalent to common practices, when that may not be the case." And then the conversation is supposed to go on into establishing whether or not homosexual unions are or should be equivalent to heterosexual unions in the eyes of the law.

It's not the best way to make the argument because it turns people off and gives the sense that the arguer has little understanding or compassion for the opposing viewpoint, in much the same way that some gay marriage advocates belittle and deliberately misunderstand THEIR opposition. I think both sides' strategies can be harmful to open discussion.

BUT the argument itself, once you get past the connotations and look at the real intentions of the speaker, has merit, at least as far as it raises an important question.

[ March 01, 2004, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Nicely thought through, Geoff. Well-done.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The question becomes, then, whether modern society assumes that the right to marry is PRIMARILY about joining a man and a woman, or PRIMARILY about joining people in love.

The "gays can already marry" argument, of course, makes the implicit assumption that it is the former which is more important. In my opinion, this undermines any argument that might be made for the sanctity of marriage as a social institution.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Those are good points, Geoff... I do appreciate you trying to find a middle ground in this..
Which is pretty much what I want...
Social change makes me think of caterpillars... and how much has to be gain and lost to change...
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
And also to Tom. Well-stated.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Okay. To remind folks of what I've said, which I assume has been pretty well accepted since no one has argued against it: I proposed that since there are degrees of homosexuality there can be a large amount of choice in sexual identity.

Jumping off of this point, what will happen after marriage between two people of the same gender is endorsed by the government? After it has been recognized as having the same status as marriage between a man and a woman? It will be taught as such in schools, directly contradicting my religious beliefs. The schools will not be able to remain neutral on this subject. A teacher will only be able to say nothing, or support gay marriage. And what do I do with my children?

Simply this: tell them they cannot trust everything they learn in school. This is, of course, wise anyway. But now we have a more pressing problem. That adults will be teaching them things, in the name of the government, that go against our teachings and what I believe to be common sense social values: the fact that an intact, loving family with heterosexual parents is the ideal. The government, rather than remaining neutral while providing for legal needs of such unions, will now have to enforce the teaching of something that is not even scientifically valid.

This will lead to exactly what Card talked about. The generation of children that we raise will not support our government. The government will cease to become for the people, because it excludes a very large group of people, perhaps even a majority of people, in favor of a small minority of people who have a psychological phenomenom.

[ March 01, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
And also to Claudia. Well-stated approvals of our statements Er, I mean, thank you.

Tom, I think that people in the traditional marriage camp would say that marriage is primarily about joining men and women in love, not one small facet of that or the other. Hateful, abusive marriages are much more dangerous than homosexual marriages ever could be, but judging the potential for lasting love and well-treatment within a relationship is much harder to do than determining the relative sex of the participants. Hard to legislate, you know?

But I think it's an inappropriate assumption to say the traditional marriage advocates think gender is more important than love, or that they are trying to deny the love that homosexuals feel for one another. "You're trying to deny our love!" actually sounds like a pretty juvenile argument when I hear it. Like something out of a teen angst drama. "But mom, Bobby and I LOVE each other!" "Does that mean you need to have sex when you're thirteen? Nooo." "But we LOOOOOVE each other!" "Oh, you're right, that DOES make everything just fine. I'm sorry. Have all the sex you want. Let me know when the baby's born."

The traditional marriage camp isn't trying to deny the power of love. They're trying to say there should be reasonable structure and limits placed on the sexual expression of love. Specifically what limits are reasonable is the subject of this debate, naturally ... but setting up this dichotomy where the gay marriage camp wants LOVE, while the traditional marriage camp wants SOMETHING ELSE is misleading.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
*becomes a Geoffhead



(still disagrees, but likes the way he's dealt with all this)

[ March 01, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Amka, thanks for bringing this back around to OSC's essay and how he makes some important points, despite the deep hurt that people have felt at the words of it.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Geoff, you rock.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Amka, I would point out that, for all that a significant portion of our country does not believe in evolution -- 35%, I believe it was -- our faith in government has presumably not ALREADY collapsed, despite the fact that schools tend to teach evolutionary theory.

----

Geoff, the problem is that, for all it sounds juvenile to you, the anti-gay camp IS, specifically, trying to deny and discourage homosexual love. That's been the core of the argument from day one: that encouraging the expression of this kind of relationship is damaging to society.

So while I understand the impulse to write off such complaints as immature, the fact is that these complaints are direct consequences of the fact that the single worst thing ABOUT the whole issue, to most homosexuals, is that their love is being denied.

In fact, the whole point of civil unions -- giving homosexuals legal benefits without expecting society to grant them the social acceptance of marriage -- is to continue to deny that love, which makes it pretty obvious to me that accepting that love is one of the biggest sticking points of the whole argument.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Icarus,
Prejudice is against my religion, which is why I would be saddened if gay marriage is adopted. I don't think we should accept people saying they can never love a member of the opposite sex. While it would be bad for the "soul" of the person who decides it, I also think women in particular are more vulnerable than men to being discriminated against as a sex.

Gay marriage is for male and female homosexuals, but I think there are more gay men than lesbians. If two men (who are still higher paid than equivalent women) marry it will also result in more concentration of wealth and socioeconomic stratification. Which some folks seem to think is an imminent threat to the social order.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I don't think we should accept people saying they can never love a member of the opposite sex."

But isn't banning gay marriage like saying that people can never love a member of the SAME sex enough to marry them?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Interesting thought, pooka, I had never thought of it that way.

Tom, this is a very complex issue. Either way it is decided, someone's toes are being stepped on. I just get upset when someone on either extreme doesn't realize that. The world is full of complex issues. That is why I hesitate so often on my stance on world/political issues. I have to be very careful, and usually there is no solution where everyone is happy and you have to find the lesser of two painful choices. Is not that what OSC often addresses in his fiction? "The terrible choice?"
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Which is exactly why it's important to permit gay marriage, which is the less damaging of the two choices. With gay marriage permitted, those who do NOT wish to engage in gay marriage can continue to engage in heterosexual marriages, while those who wish to engage in gay marriages can newly do so.

No one's existing relationships or future relationships are damaged, invalidated, or harmed.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
You are free to have that opinion.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
pooka, according to this site, the split is even. (The stats are from the 2000 Census). Your fear looks to be unfounded.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Tom,

This is, in a lot of ways, more serious than evolution. This is about actions and behavior rather than philosophy. Most parents can reasonably say that "Well, this is what a lot of people think happened, but we don't and here is our logic." Not only that, those who refuse to acknowledge any scientific validity of evolution typically don't bother much with science anyway. It has no real impact on their behavior.

Opposed to evolution is the teaching of a concept which has no scientific validity and is about behavior that directly contradicts what we teach our children about how they should behave and how they should react to their bodies' impulses.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Wow, Bok, color me surprised. I would not have expected that.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
First I would like to congradulate everyone on Hatrack for not making the disgusting Dobbie with a link to a dog actually doing something unspeakable.

Second, Amkah, your biggest worry is that a teacher is going to say, "See Johnny and Charlie are married, just like your mommy and daddy."

You disagree.

Fine, but what would you rather have them say, "Johnny and Charlie are living a sinful and disgusting life that is unnatural."

That goes against my beliefs. I believe more damage will occur to the child who may be gay if we pound them with the idea that their feelings are wrong and evil, than if we show children that love, not sex, makes a marriage.

Your same exact argument was used with interracial marriages, and inter-faith marriages. THese went against the beliefs of many people, and the world or marriage, has not ended.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Yeah, from the way the media and general hearsay portrays it, I actually expected lesbians to be much more common. After all, aren't 50% of college girls self-proclaimed lesbians? I hear this claim tossed about every once in a while.

---
For clarity, the percentages are 50% male gays relationships, 49% female gay relationships. The stats aren't completely clear on the total individuals for each gay sub-type... So maybe all lesbians are in relationships, and very few gay men are, but I have never seen or heard any evidence for that.

Also, note that these relationships are a TINY fraction of all relationships. You could increase it by an _order of maginitude_, and it would still only be about 3.3% of all relationships in this country (that self-report, at least).

I think a woman's position (at least on this count) is safe.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Here's another totally nonproductive argument:

"Homosexual unions are not the same as heterosexual unions because homosexual sex is not relevant to reproduction."

"So you're saying that infertile couples shouldn't get married!"

How many times have we all heard this precise dicsussion? Ten times in each thread, perhaps? More often? Who's sick of it? I know I am.

We can all learn a lesson from this exchange. Come up with an annoying trump card response to a given argument, and sooner or later, your opponent will quit using it.

But I'd like to examine the validity of the pro-gay-marriage response here. Is a gay couple really just another infertile couple? If you make a rule about one, should it apply to the other? Or is there some key difference that could warrant different treatment for the two?

One could say, for instance, that the human species has one, single means of reproduction, and that is heterosexual intercourse. When a particular couple has a physical condition that prevents this act from functioning for them as it should, that does not mean that the act itself is an invalid means of reproduction. It just doesn't work all the time for everyone.

You can say that about anything in life. Elevators don't always succeed at functioning properly, either, but it is still totally justifiable to expect a given elevator to get you to the right floor on a given day. As a general rule, you can say, "When you stand in an elevator and push the right button, it will take you to the floor you want." That doesn't always happen precisely the way I described it, and sometimes nothing happens at all. Sometimes, elevator cables snap and people fall to their deaths. But despite all those random failures of the system, the rule is still correct. Elevators do work the way I described, and it is reasonable to expect them to work, and to base building plans and pedestrian traffic patterns on that assumption.

Homosexual intercourse, on the other hand, is not a means of reproduction at all. It was never meant to be, and it cannot be made to function that way, even if anyone wanted to. It is a different process altogether, completely irrelevant to reproduction.

So perhaps a homosexual couple should not be equated to an infertile heterosexual couple for the same reason that a broom closet cannot be equated to a nonfunctioning elevator. Sure, they are both small rooms that don't go up and down. But the former was never meant to go up and down, while the latter only fails in certain cases, due to outside forces.

Does this distinction lead directly to the conclusion that homosexual marriage should or should not be recognized by law? Nope. But it is a valid point, and this repeated diversion from the initial point straight into the trump-card response fails to address the real concerns of the traditional marriage camp.

Here is the concern. Homosexual mating and heterosexual mating are two different things. One is the only means of human reproduction (though it does not always function the same way in every relationship). The other is irrelevant to reproduction altogether. Should relationships that are built around each of these acts be considered identical to one another, despite their very basic functional differences?

... digression ...

Some people seem to get agitated when you equate sex with reproduction. Doing so conjures up images of women as baby-factories, or of marriages where the couple NEVER has sex, except to have children. When you say that "sex is for reproduction", it makes you sound like a big, pleasureless, ignorant prude. Sex is fun, sex is an expression of love, you stupid jerk, yadda yadda.

But particularly in a secular society such as ours, we do have to look at the scientific background of sex. Why is sex fun? Why is sex tied into our deepest emotions and longings?

Because in order to replicate themselves, our genes must encourage us to reproduce. When we have sex, most of us aren't thinking about making babies. We're thinking of feeling and giving pleasure, or expressing devotion to one another. But why are those feelings are so important to us? Why do we have them at all? Because our genes need to make it into the next generation, and tying sex to pleasure and strong emotion is a great way to get us into bed.

It's a cynical way to look at life, I know. And it's certainly the furthest thing from my mind when I'm getting frisky.

But pretending that the deeper genetic motivations behind sex don't exist is also intellectually dishonest. Divorcing sex from reproduction altogether, and treating it as a human invention, created entirely for excitement and the expression of love, means that we are only looking at part of the picture. We're basing our sexual mores on a fiction, rather than on the harsh realities of science.

I think it is necessary to take a middle road, recognizing simultaneously both the genetic and social meanings of sex, and crafting a society that addresses both, instead of dismissing one in favor of the other.

[ March 01, 2004, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
And now back to your regularly scheduled Debate With Tom:

quote:

---

Geoff, the problem is that, for all it sounds juvenile to you, the anti-gay camp IS, specifically, trying to deny and discourage homosexual love. That's been the core of the argument from day one: that encouraging the expression of this kind of relationship is damaging to society.

---

quote:

---

Jumping off of this point, what will happen after marriage between two people of the same gender is endorsed by the government? After it has been recognized as having the same status as marriage between a man and a woman? It will be taught as such in schools, directly contradicting my religious beliefs. The schools will not be able to remain neutral on this subject.

---

quote:

---

A teacher will only be able to say nothing, or support gay marriage. And what do I do with my children?

---

Assuming that the situation you describe comes about,though--teach them that part of the price of living in a heterogenous society and being part of a democracy means your culture not getting its way all the time in matters of state, and that since teachers are often public servants, they're going to say things which reflect the public consensus, but that has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong to Mormons? Teach your children that this is good preperation for living in society at large when they encounter people who believe differently than they do.

What do families do whom believe certain things about the role of men and women; the status of the Jews during WW II; the fact of God; the belief in intelligent design; the sanctity of certain holy writings; the belief that a government should be run according to principles laid out in the Tibetan Book of the Dead or the Koran or the Bible? How can a school designed to be for everyone not at some point contradict what a certan culture believes? Seems inevitable to me.

If it's impossible to tolerate someone teaching your child something that you don't endorse, then by all means, go to a private school. If you as a parent believe public schools are not to your liking, as many of us do for various reasons, then leave. Join the club. Obvious answer. I don't say this to be mean. If I had a child, I probably wouldn't send her to a public school if I had beliefs that were important to me that the child believe. The public sphere has become a vast wasteland ruled over by the greatest common denominator.
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 
**plugs ears**

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

WOW, it worked!

[ March 01, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Dog, it also seems convenient that this middle road you've laid out serendipitously agrees with your pre-desired outcome. I note this because you are largely abstracting the argument in such a way that you can create nifty (and not necessarily wrong) theories. Much like string theory in physics, the only difference between your theories and others, is that the ones you make up are, in a way, more aesthetically pleasing to you.

Both sides, I think we would all admit, could create these nifty philosophies that would fit the scenarios in such a way as to be agreeable to that side.

---
Specifically now :

I would say that genetically, homosexual sex is much more equivalent to heterosexual sex than perhaps the social macro-scale expression of it. I think they both spring from that same genetic desire to reproduce, and all the nifty biological systems that have been built up to encourage it. I am of the opinion (and just the opinion), that in gay folks (yikes, I'm trying to speak for a group of folks I don't belong with!) this desire, urge, biological imperative, this _whatever_ has been changed in a way that redirects the desire to a person with whom natural conception is impossible. However, this reproduction urge is still there in homosexuals, and like all forms of life, they find other ways to succeed. Much like those little creatures that have no business being sulfer-based, some 3-5-10 (how far down are they?) [EDIT: miles] below the surface of the earth.

Life is tenacious. I mean, check out the Inuit!

All this also breaks down if you see sexuality as more of a sliding scale, that some people can have proclivities for both sexes, in similar, or even vastly differing amounts. I think this adds a larger wrinkle to your ideas, and perhaps casts the "the types of sex are different things" argument in a much less favorable light. Rather than the behvior being a base attribute, it could instead be a variation later down the sexuality pipline from the base desire; I think this is more likely, considering the complexity of the mechanism for sexuality, at least biologically speaking.

-Bok

[ March 01, 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
By the way, I'm wondering if we can agree on some purely-positive names for the sides in this argument? Something along the lines of Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life? I'm just getting a little peeved at having my points referred to as "anti-gay" when my goal is to find an intellectually honest and fair compromise between the camps, and not to just oppose gays because they're gay.

If this were a board where the overwhelming skew was rabid anti-gay sentiments, I would be arguing for compromise in the other direction, presenting pro-gay-marriage arguments from a somewhat-removed perspective. But instead, we've got Lalo and John. So I'm arguing pro-traditional-marriage stuff. Doesn't make me anti-gay.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 

quote:

---

However, this reproduction urge is still there in homosexuals, and like all forms of life, they find other ways to succeed.

---

An interesting point. Makes me think of weird things ... For instance, by establishing gay marriage as equivalent to traditional marriage, homosexual culture can create a favorable environment where people on the fence will be more likely to adopt the gay lifestyle. So despite the inability of homosexual sex to pass on genes, homosexual culture can still replicate itself through memes

In any case, you're right that homosexuals often do find ways to reproduce, or to serve similar ends, either by raising children not genetically their own, or by using heterosexual means that do not involve the act of sex (such as artificial insemination). Hm. [keeps pondering]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Bok, what do you consider to be my "pre-desired outcome"?
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
SS, you are going to have to go further with me: If the government should make marriage between two people of the same gender of the same status as heterosexual marriage, then the government will have to present those homosexual relationships equally in government sponsored institutions such as schools.

Imagine going to your daughter's 5th grade maturation program, to have these people say "sometimes girls feel attracted to girls. Don't be afraid to experiment, and find out which gender you are more comfortable with." Now we see several pictures of pretty girl couples, 3/4 of them with children.

I am, by no means suggesting they say "sometimes...and it is disgusting and sinful".

In fact, I would prefer that it not be mentioned at all.

But pro-gay activists are already pushing for homosexual normalization in school sex ed, and you can be sure that government sanction of marriage will guarantee this occurance.

Oh, I will school them at home. That was my point. My children will trust the government to uphold their rights as a religious group even less than I do. And that was the point of OSCard: the people who believe in keeping oaths, self-sacrifice and such are very typically the same people who are pro-traditional-marriage (there you go, Geoff). And those will be the people teaching their children that the government is suspect. That the government makes laws through the judicial system, rather than by representation of the people. The government will slowly, and surely become an enemy to all but the elite minority.

If my argument is colored by the decay of society in general, reflected by the failure of government, I'm sorry. This issue is just another symptom of the over all problem. Our society is throwing most of the ideals that made this country, the USA, exist in exchange for self entitlement and security.

[ March 01, 2004, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Everyone has the urge to reproduce: to have someone very much like them come into existance because they willed it. It is not only a genetic urge, but also memetic.

Think of this: how do you feel when you have converted someone to your POV?

How do you feel when you are a minority and you meet someone like you? What if they don't realize they are just like you, and simply need to be made aware of the possibilities?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Rather, they are saying that sexual love between members of the same gender need not be expressed through the legal act of marriage, in particular."

I feel you're being a little coy, here, Geoff. Specifically, this is because the "insert positive name for anti-gay-marriage people here" crowd does not believe that homosexual love is as good, as deserving, or as useful to society as heterosexual love.

So you're not only denying their love as expressed through marriage explicitly, but denying the merit of their love implicitly.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Geoff, you may just be playing devil's advocate, or just trying to bridge the gap between the two camps, but the common thread of all your arguments is to marginalize, even if only a little, gay marriage or gay love.

That's your right, personally, but I still don't how that translates to legislative action. Why does the state need to prop up (especially when you more or less admit it does so awkwardly) your religious sense of marriage?

I do think pooka and Jenny Gardener and Belle have some intriguing concrete issues about raising awareness, or in some cases, resisting awareness (I don't like to use "educate" here, since that implies some sort of truth in it), out of a fear for impressionable minors. I don't know how to answer them, as I only see greater awareness as a "good" problem, but they obviously don't feel that way.

Hmmm, I don't think I'm making much sense... Am I?

-Bok
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Geoff, those warnings weren't to you specifically, they were toward the direction those points could have been taken. In fact, you went ahead and did it anyway:

quote:

---

That's true. That is, in part, due to the fact that those psychological conditions have absolutely nothing to do with sex or mating (except insofar as everything in a human mind is somehow interconnected).

---

quote:

---

No one, at least on this board, is going nearly this far to try and "correct" the behavior of homosexuals.

---

quote:

---

The only thing at issue here is whether or not homosexual relationships, which are demonstrably different from heterosexual relationships, should be codified by law the way heterosexual marriages are. It's a good question, worth more respect than you give the people that ask it.

---

quote:

---

You say again and again that "separate but equal can never be equal".

That is true of the situation for which it was coined. Blacks were being given different educational opportunities than whites, and those opportunities, as a product of their separation, were inherently unequal.

---

quote:

---

Homosexuals present a different situation because they not only possess a psychological difference, they are DEFINED by it. That doesn't mean that we will inevitably conclude that different treatment for the mating practices of heterosexuals and homosexuals is warranted. But it DOES mean that we should not automatically apply the same exact set of rules and values that we apply in cases of racial discrimination. Homosexuality, as a difference, presents a unique set of questions. We need to examine and answer THOSE questions, rather than blindly applying the template from a previous problem. That kind of behavior isn't tolerance or acceptance. It's laziness.

---

quote:

---

This will lead to exactly what Card talked about. The generation of children that we raise will not support our government. The government will cease to become for the people, because it excludes a very large group of people, perhaps even a majority of people, in favor of a small minority of people who have a psychological phenomenom.

---

quote:

---

Prejudice is against my religion, which is why I would be saddened if gay marriage is adopted.

---

quote:

---

Everyone has the urge to reproduce: to have someone very much like them come into existance because they willed it. It is not only a genetic urge, but also memetic.

---

And unproven. Are you seriously going to sit here and tell the members of Hatrack who are not going to have children that they are lying to themselves?
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
I don't have time for a long response right now, but ... it sure must be nice to adopt such a self-righteous position that you don't have to listen to anybody

[ March 01, 2004, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Okay, I do have time for SOMEthing.

quote:

---

Bull. You assume way too much. First, you assume that homosexuality is a psychological condition, when there is no conclusive proof. Conclusive, Geoff.

---

quote:

---

Okay, patronization aside, we're looking at a phenomenon that is rooted entirely in someone's emotions, perceptions, and desires. And we're assuming too much if we say it's psychological? What is it, then? Muscular? Tracheal? What unique feature does it have that separates it from other psychological phenomena with suspected, but unproven, genetic components?

---

I didn't make a claim either way, Geoff. You did. So, the burden of proof is not on me, it's firmly on your shoulders. Don't put off a claim you made for me to prove or disprove. You're the one who stated it, I'm sure you have a lot of evidence other than "I feel this way about it" to back up your allegation.

[ March 01, 2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Amka,

thank you for your reply. I'm going to let this one drop. For several reasons, I find it frustrating to address your idea. Please believe it's not for lack of something to say that I don't write more.

Hopefully, this will all work out such that we can all, somehow, be happy.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Amen, Storm.

For what it is worth, I understand what the other side is wanting/needing too.

All it really breaks down to is this: what one group needs is in conflict with what another group needs. No matter what gets decided, someone will be marginalized.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
John, my only point there was that, darn it, this language has got to be useful for something. If I can't use the word "psychological" to describe something that takes place in the human mind, because my assertion is "unproved", then what's the point of speaking at all? What is it, exactly, that I need to prove? That the word "psychological" means what I think it means? That homosexuals don't think with their scapulas or the soles of their feet? What?

Yes, I'm trying to address the concerns of the pro-traditional-marriage camp. It's the camp I started in, and will remain in throughout my personal life because of my religious beliefs. In my public life, I feel free to be more moderate about the issue, realizing that America may well be absolutely committed to transforming itself into a foreign culture with very little resemblance to my own. What I want is (1) the freedom to practice my own religion, which I believe I have, and (2) a nation free from hateful culture wars and bitterness.

You seem very committed to the idea that the way to end this "culture war" is for your side to grind mine under their heels. I don't believe that to be the best way for either side. I realize that this issue affects a certain segment of our population (including some good friends like KarlEd) in a personal way that I do not experience, and so I've stepped outside my own culture to try and understand theirs, to see if I can find a common ground and resolve a few of my concerns.

I created this thread as a place where I could explain some of my thoughts about homosexuality that have become taboo in this debate, but which must be discussed if people with my concerns are to have any satisfaction whatsoever from the result of this conflict. And despite the fact that this is a thread specifically designed to include offensive content, I believe that I have been remarkably non-offensive and open-minded.

But despite all of this, you condemn me, and treat me with a patronizing tone that I have never earned from you. You exaggerate my statements and claims to find offense in them, going so far to proclaim yourself the "Enemy of Religion" in my eyes, something I never would have said. You are so hell-bent on making an enemy of me that it's starting to work.

So I'm bowing out of this debate. I think I've said my bit already, had any effect I'm likely to have. You can go on acting this way, though I suspect you'll lose far more support than you'll gain because of it. Forty years from now, we can talk about who might or might not have been right.

Meanwhile, I hope I'm stepping back in time NOT to cause a permanent rift between us. I've really liked and respected you in the past, and I don't think this one bad experience should make that disappear. So can we call a truce?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"You seem very committed to the idea that the way to end this 'culture war' is for your side to grind mine under their heels."

The problem, Geoff, is that I don't see how watching two men get married is going to grind YOU under its heel. Besides pooka, no one here has claimed that this phenomenon will have any adverse effect on his or her marriage at ALL.

Do you believe that your marriage will be more likely to fail if you became legally able to marry another man?
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 

quote:

---

Homosexuals present a different situation because they not only possess a psychological difference, they are DEFINED by it.

---

quote:

---

We're looking at a phenomenon that is rooted entirely in someone's emotions, perceptions, and desires. And we're assuming too much if we say it's psychological?

---

quote:

---

Yes, I'm trying to address the concerns of the pro-traditional-marriage camp. It's the camp I started in, and will remain in throughout my personal life because of my religious beliefs.

---

That is precisely the problem with pretending to be a 'moderate' on this issue. You literally have no other proven justification to avoid homosexual marriage other than your feelings about homosexual sex itself, and your perceptions of what would happen to our culture if it were not held at arm's-length from our mainstream institutions--perceptions that again are based on nothing more than a system of values in which no American citizen is obligated to participate, much less codify.

Like your father, you attempt to make a reasonable case to be wary of a future where human sexuality is acceptably available in non-traditional frameworks. You started off this thread arguing that "society has it's priorities straight"--oh, the irony--by trying to show that it is sensible for our community to provide special treatment toward institutions that are vital to the survival of the community, or "have a unique importance to the welfare of society as a whole". What you don't expound on is the underlying suggestion that homosexual relationships do not have a unique importance to the welfare of society as a whole, for that is the only conclusion you can take from your argument that leads to differentiating between heterosexual rights and homosexual rights.

I would argue that a video game programmer does indeed have a unique importance to the welfare of society as a whole. I would argue that it is easy for "privileged" Americans to forget how much they owe to living in a society that does not overbalance it's resources toward the "infrastructure" of their community. It provides for the evolution of new technologies and the betterment of the human condition. You seem to argue that food and baby production automatically trump all other interests in the human experience (and thereby make the suggestion that any deviation from that structure poses a threat to its viability), where even a cursory glance at the evolution of the human condition easily leads to the conclusion that that is not necessarily the case. They are vital elements but they are not all that defining of who we are as people or what kind of world we want our children to grow up in--else the majority of us would be working in closely-related fields. And even if your concerns about this possible devaluing were viable in a survival priority context, none from your camp have been--or will be--able to demonstrably show that homosexual equality would have any effect whatsoever on these supposedly underappreciated elements of our "infrastructure".

Your father makes a more plausible fiction of how homosexual equality could undermine the system to its detriment: that people like yourself will have to put more effort into resisting the cultural education of your children, and the resulting mistrust will cause all sorts of problems with Christians being able to believe and/or participate in state institutions. While I do not deny that many would take this route, I do not accept that our society would be significantly damaged by it. The vast majority of Christian parents would continue to send their kids to school because they lack the ability to educate them on their own time, and where differences of opinion are necessary to illustrate, those parents will illustrate them just fine. Just like with with present day sex-ed, condom distribution and abortion rights. And the kids would grow up in a world where it was possible to come to your own conclusions, which I submit would be a plus for the homosexual community and the traditional Christian community as well.

The truth is that there can be no middle ground here. Either you prefer to let people form their own values or you prefer that the state side with one particular set of values. Not suprisingly, the ones that you hold dear.

For those of us who are homosexual, or those of us who have taken the time to get to know homosexuals without reserving judgment on them, it is categorically obvious that homosexual expression does not happen as an act of rebellion against any deity or morality, much less as an affront to the sanctity of heterosexual unions, which are after all the source from which all homosexuals spring.

For myself, I DO recognize that humans are spiritual beings and that many of our behaviours are inextricably linked to our spiritselves, including sexuality. The reason you end up offending people even when you're trying to be politically correct about your point of view is that no matter what kind of wrapping you use, you are subjogating individual sovereignty and willingly forgetting the 'sanctity' of our Freedom of Religion, which at present allows you to hold these views, express them, and marry other people who agree with them, while I may not.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Yes, I will agree. But the women who deny that use it to ridicule women who choose to stay at home to take care of their families. We now feel like a minority. Not only that, we are classed overall as less educated and without a backbone.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
[sigh] Great timing, JohnKeats. You present an argument against me right after I bow out of the debate?
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Amka, don't even get me started on this issue.

I despise feminists who challenge a woman's right to stay at home. One latent form of sexism that has not been challenged enough is that the world still defines success from a male's perspective: i.e. your career.

But what "career" is more important than raising your kids? I think any woman or man who stays at home to raise children is more valuable to our society than any doctor, lawyer, or author.

The correct feminist viewpoint is not to force women out of the home, but rather to elevate the position of a homemaker as not only a valid career choice, but a celebrated one for men and women.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
I would raise a contention that a reasonably sized extended family trumps the nuclear family every time, as far as the ideal... The nuclear family construct was a result of the great mobility in this society in the early- to mid-last century. Perhaps this mobility increased the acceptance of the idea that one can truly and with little effect divorce one's self from current relationships?

Many cultures, particularly amongst the poorer elements have centered child rearing around the parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and so on.

I was raised in a decently sized extended family of the above, plus a loving small church family.

I think I turned out infinitely better as a result.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Welcome back, Keats.


 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Thanks for pointing that out, Bok. I was just trying to find a term for 'heterosexual two parent family'. The extended family is so important, and I owe a great deal of my experience to aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc. But again, these are merely extensions of the basic unit. The parents of my parents, the siblings of my parents... at one time they were living together as a family and our family is the natural outgrowth of the union, in two individuals, of two basic family units.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

Not only that, we are classed overall as less educated and without a backbone.

---

quote:

---

• The Gay Report, published by homosexual researchers Jay and Youn in 1979, revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger.
• Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third of child molesters. ...
• A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.
• Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., conducted a content study of the personal ads in the Advocate, the "national gay and lesbian newsmagazine," and discovered that "chickens," a common term for underage boys sought for sex, were widely solicited. Many of the advertisements in the magazine solicited boys and teens from within a larger pool of prostitution ads, which constituted 63 percent of all personal ads...

---

quote:

---

In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) quietly revised its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM-IV) by redefining long-standing definitions of what constitute "paraphilias" or sexual perversions - including pedophilia. The APA added a new requirement for someone to be diagnosed as having a paraphilia: The person's behavior must now "cause clinically significant distress or impairment of social, occupational or other important areas of functioning." The change is significant, says Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth:
In other words, a man who routinely and compulsively has sex with children, and does so without the pangs of conscience and without impairing his functioning otherwise is not necessarily a pedophile and in need of treatment. Only the man who suffers because of his impulses is a pedophile requiring treatment.

---

quote:

---

In 1998, a study published by the American Psychological Association claimed that sex between adults and children is not only less harmful than believed but might even by positive for "willing" children...

The APA article proposes ceasing to use terms such as child abuse, molestation, and victims and instead deploying nonjudgemental terms such as adult-child sex.

---

quote:

---

Kinsey concluded that children were sexual viable from birth and that molestation was harmless unless parents exhibited "hysteria" over the incidents.

---

quote:

---

Richard A. Gardner, a clinical professor of child psychology...who is often cited in cases in which fathers charged with abuse are seeking custody, wrote, "Sexual encounters between and adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. ..." As for the abusing father, he "has to be helped to appreciate that, even today, [pedophilia] is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people" and that "he [the father] has a certain amount of bad luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia"

---

quote:

---

In 1997, two lesbian activists produced a 78-minute video, It's Elementary, which uses actual footage of five schools to show teachers how to introduce the topic of homosexuality to children. The fmil was slanted for airing on San Francisco's PBS affiliate and has been offered to PBS stations around the nation. It has also been endorsed by the NEA and the American School Counselor Association.... This video is designed to teach children that "gay is OK" and elicits the sympathy of children by portraying critics of homosexuality as "gay bashers."

---

quote:

---

Jaki Williams, a Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network activist at the Packer Collegiate School in New York, said that kindergarteners are "developing their superego" and "that's when the saturation process needs to begin."

---

Now who is trying to shove their morality down our throats? Or maybe not our throats, since we are a 'lost cause', but they intend to indoctrinate our children without our consent.

And here is different article that is a little bit of proof about our concerns that legalization of homosexual unions will damage the basic unit of society.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

These are my real concerns. Some of these concerns I have personal experience with. Please address them without calling me narrowminded, bigoted, ignorant, hysterical, or trying to shove my subjective morality on society.

[ March 04, 2004, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
O.K. Let's say that we know in general that there is a 50% chance greater chance in the general homosexual population of mental illness, pedophilia, etc. In the straight population, this chance is, say, 5%.

Now, let's say that I have a straight couple that wants to adopt and a gay couple that wants to adopt the same child. Should I screen each couple based on what I can see about them and discover about their history, and give the gay couple a chance, or should I automatically disqualify the gay couple based on the probability of mental illness for gay people in general?

Another point is that there are certain segments of the population that generally test higher for rates of mental illness. If we are able to disqualify gay people for candidates for adoption based on statistical evidence, then what about these other segments of the population? What about genetic screening?
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
This also begs the question of whether a history of mental illness should be used as criteria for adoption or parenting....
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
In theory, we should individually appraise every case of parents who want to adopt.

But let me put this out for consideration. I think we can reasonably say that there are a number of homosexuals who got that way because they were molested. But no heterosexual got that way because they were molested.

I think we can reasonably say that there are a number of molested people who go on to become perpetrators.

I think we can reasonably say that there is a higher chance with the homosexual union that one or more of the partners is a pedophile. I am by no means saying that this reflects the majority of homosexual couples who desire children. But I suspect it would statistically double or triple the risk of sexual abuse of the child. This number may sound outrageous, but what I'm suggesting that if child sexual abuse occurs in 1 out of 1000 of the heterosexual population, it will occur in 2 or 3 of the homosexual population.

Risk. Should we be willing to take it? Do you think the homosexual couple seeking to adopt will be honest about their family history?

Sorrow and pain: how this must hurt those homosexuals who have no such problem and only want to provide safe and loving environments to children.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
You're just restating my point (edit: that is actually just restating your point but asking the tough follow up question that your point creates). I would love your opinion to my questions. (I'm not being snarky when I say this. I'm genuinely curious about your opinion.)

[ March 04, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
People naturally have children. To mess with that too much goes down a slippery slope where one must conform to PC standards before big brother gives you the right to not have an abortion should you get pregnant.

But adoption is another story. Here we have an infant, already born, who needs a family. We can't, in good conscience, simply randomly toss it out to whoever wants it. And a LOT of people want it. So we have the advantage of being able to be very, very picky. And we should be. Only parents who post the lowest risk of harm and the highest chance of success for the child should be chosen.

What about older children? Typically, those children who are born of parents that have definately had their parental rights terminated because they proved to be harmful need caring families. There is not a lot of high demand for them, because they need more than most people can give and the state can be pretty disruptive too. In this case, the prospective parents sometimes need to go through even more background check and go through training, but it is at this point where I see the usefulness of caring, mentally stable homosexual parents coming into play. The need then outweighs the risk.

[ March 04, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Amka, I applaud you bringing up the hard statistics, knowing that it's going to seem offensive to a lot of people. I have read that exact pdf document you link to, and didn't bring it up here or post excerpts from it because, frankly, I didn't want to go through the attacks I would receive and the even more claims that I'm a bigot and a "gay basher"

If we all agree here that the schools have no place teaching religion (and I think we do) then I think we should also conclude that schools should not be teaching anything that attempts to undermine the religious instruction a child receives at home, particularly when we're discussing kindergarteners!

Older children that are capable of higher reasoning and able to understand that there are two sides to every debate, could be introduced to the concept, so long as no side was belittled. But I'm raising my five year old in my faith, which is my constitutional right to do. And in my religion, homosexual acts are sinful. In my religion, homosexual unions are not to be considered as equivalent to the sacrament of marriage established by God. If a school teaches my child something opposite to the teaching I give her, that school is now undermining my religious instruction.

Personally, I have a big problem with the idea of teaching kids that people who oppose homosexual unions are "gay bashers" You're putting my child in a situation where she thinks "Aren't these people talking about my Mom?"

Let's not even go into the fact that human sexuality isn't a subject that should be covered in kindergarten at all!
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Amka, thanks for your reply.

Your most recent posts are one of the things that I was having difficulty addressing in your post a couple days a go. The referendum seems to not necessarily be about being gay, but about being 'mentally ill', about averages. As someone who, um, is a survivor of abuse, one of those populations that has a higher risk of carbuncles, fleas, tics, and mental illness, I have to say that playing the numbers game makes me nervous. I'm not saying I don't understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, though. I'm just nervous that as much as good thinking people like yourself might want to keep the issue solely about adoption, I'm afraid that it may balloon out....

The obvious answer, to me, seems to just not play that game at all and look for good people and not worry about whether they're gay or straight or black (another population at risk for certain behaviors...) or whatever.

[ March 04, 2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Unfortunately I can't read that document at work, it is blocked by our server. The numbers did seem to be from a difference set of findings than the ones thrown out there by the Family Research Council that is heavily influenced by Dobson.

Dobson started out just fine 20 years ago but most of the actual scientific stuff that I have seen in the past ten years involves a lot of junk science as well, which annoys me greatly.

The Canadian statistics in particular are very interesting.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I was just reading Amka's stats, and I decided that pedophile men like sex and/or heavy petting.

Straight pedophile men take advantage of little girls, and gay pedophile men take advantage little boys. I bet you if you took a survey of girls who were abused, hetrosexual men could be painted with a horrible brush. Animals.

As to having sex with 16-19 year-olds. I've had sex with 16-19 year-olds. There was a time in my life when I was spending an inordinate amount of time trying to persuade 16-19 year-olds to have sex with me. The fact that when I was 16-19, I spent my energy and resolve trying to sleep with women as opposed to other men makes my pursuits a little less perverse and a little more healthy. In my defense, when I was 16-19, I was chasing 35 and 40 year-old women with the same alacrity. If I were chasing men, maybe I would have "caught" a few more.

In other words, Belle and Amka, look a little bit closer at your "hard statistics." It's not that the statistics are offensive, it's just that interpretations of statistics like those can run the gamut between ambiguous to ludicrous.

Now if it becomes the case that we start debating the merits of marriage between a seventeen year old and a forty year old, regardless of any party's gender, I may have something to say. But when we deny the love and commitment of two 30 year-old women, I think that's just silly.

[ March 04, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Irami and Banna,

I'm not saying that I agree that the stats she put out are correct. The problem is that you can't say with complete certainty that they are incorrect, either. So, for the sake of discussion, I am treating her stats as correct.
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I'm saying that they are correct. I have complete faith that they are correct. But girls are attacked, by an overwhelming percentage, by heterosexual men. So much so that the idea of sanctioning heterosexual marriage could be construed as a little chancy at the least, and at the most, downright disrespectful to all of the female rape victims who have suffered the passions and excesses of this heterosexual majority. Straight men rape little girls, and I don't know if the state should be in the business of saying that the love that straight men have for women is okay.

[ March 04, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I'm not, for a simple reason.

Many, if not most, child molesters are not attracted to adult males or adult females at all. They're attracted to children. That's what makes them pedophiles. Their sexual attraction is not based on gender, but on age.

I'd also like to know how the sampling of homosexuals was chosen for the underage percentage, and whether a comparable sampling of heterosexuals was asked the same question as a control.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Storm, I was trying to say exactly that. These statistics don't appear to be as bogus as ones I've seen in the past. I'm trying to take them more seriously as a result, despite the ownership of the website where they were posted and the religous affilliations of the organization.

The Canadian statistics in particular, do say that 30% of pedophiles admit to adult gay contact, but that leaves 70% that aren't. I suspect the Canadian statistics are less biased since this isn't nearly as much of a hotbed issue in Canada. I would have liked to look up the Canadian study to see if it was online but I don't think I have enough info to do so without acessing the article, which I can't from work due to the subject matter.

AJ
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I think we can reasonably say that there are a number of homosexuals who got that way because they were molested. But no heterosexual got that way because they were molested."

Out of interest, why can we reasonably assume either of these two statements?
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Irami, you erroneously submit that since heterosexual people can be sexually violent and abusive this is indicative of the heterosexuality. This ignores the fact that sexual abusers are statistally more likely to be homosexual.

A study on the sexuality of rapists might be interesting.

You have not addressed the facts, you have simply said they prove nothing about the nature of homosexuality. I say that you are wrong. The facts indicate something, and that something is not pleasant.

Now, I have high cholesterol due to genetic factors. I can control it with diet, right now. But statistically, I am more likely to die of a heart attack and stroke than the normal person. This, despite the fact that these genetic factors were apparent in my grandmother who showed no signs of heart disease despite repeated tests (she died of parkinsons) and a mother who also shows no signs of heart disease. When I am about forty and this 'problem' requires drugs to keep under control, I will need to tie my tubes so that I cannot get pregnant at all and will face a risk to my liver. This, because of statistics.

There is the occasional child who dies as a result of a reaction to a vaccination. This is tragic and I grieve with the parent, but I still say that every child should be immunized. This is because far more children would die of the diseases they are being immunized against than are damaged by the vaccines.

We all know that statistics cannot describe individuals. And it is true many individuals might suffer because they do not conform to those statistics.

But they do describe societies. We must protect our societies to protect the individuals within it. It is a cyclical relationship. When we enact policies that give benifits to minorities despite statistics that say it will damage more people than it helps, then we've damaged society. This is not to say that the individuals within those societies are less deserving of benefits.

It is the hardest, most terrible thing when we must apply rules that will make life more difficult for some in order to protect others. But we do have to make those choices. And we better have a lot more than emotional ranting and raving before we come to a consensus.

Tom:

People are heterosexual by default. Even studies that showed some genetic tendancy only show a disposition towards homosexuality, not an absolute fate. Therefore, we know there is a lot in the environment that affects the person being homosexual or not. That environment may very well have included molestation. There are homosexuals who gained an attraction to the same gender due to sexual molestation they experienced as a child or teenager. These people, had they not been molested, would have been more likely to grow up heterosexual.

[ March 04, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Amka, the one stat that says 1/3 of molesters are homosexual, I wonder what defines homosexual in this case? Many children are molested by people that otherwise identify with heterosexuality. Did they just assume that if the molestor and the victim were the same gender, the molester was homosexual?

I'm not saying your stats are wrong, but what you have quoted allows for some ambiguity.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Every human being is female by default (Though in the case of XY chromosome people, they would be barren). Saying something is default isn't the most useful statement in the world.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

They are attracted to children.

---

quote:

---

This ignores the fact that sexual abusers are statistally more likely to be homosexual.

---

I don't know if this is true. I mean, I'm under the impression that more women are sexually abused than men are. I'm also under the impression that most women who are sexually abused are abused by men. Maybe it's because an overwhelming percentage date-rapes, roofies, "no" means "no," stories I hear are about men accosting women.
________________________________________________

Even if homosexuals comprise a 30 percent of the sexual predators, more than double are heterosexual, and I'm a little suspicious of the absence of bisexuality in that survey. As Bok mentioned above, how do they define homosexuality and heterosexuality if they don't include bisexuality?

[ March 04, 2004, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Read the statistic, Irami:

quote:

---

A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.

---

quote:

---

A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.

---

quote:

---

2. That there is an agenda on the part of the homosexual community to teach young children that their lifestyle is normal and that no harm can come of it, against the wishes of these childrens' parents. I want to ask you folks honestly: how many of you are secretly thinking that is a good thing? If you can't shove your morality down my throat, then you'll just indocrinate my children instead.

---

quote:

---

3. That legalizing gay marriage will further degrade the value society has for the traditional family, and this general vibe projected in media and at educational institutions will lead to fewer intact families. This will be harmful for the society.

---

quote:

---

Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step--the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures--or higher tax rates--than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It's easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.

The taxes necessary to support the welfare state have had an enormous impact on the family. With taxes so high, women must work. This reduces the time available for child rearing, thus encouraging the expansion of a day-care system that takes a large part in raising nearly all Swedish children over age one. Here is at least a partial realization of Simone de Beauvoir's dream of an enforced androgyny that pushes women from the home by turning children over to the state.

---

quote:

---

That study found that regardless of income or social status, parental breakup had negative effects on children's mental health. Boys living with single, separated, or divorced mothers had particularly high rates of impairment in adolescence. An important 2003 study by Gunilla Ringbäck Weitoft, et al. found that children of single parents in Sweden have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households. This held true after controlling for a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances.

---

quote:

---

Despite the reluctance of Scandinavian social scientists to study the consequences of family dissolution for children, we do have an excellent study that followed the life experiences of all children born in Stockholm in 1953. (Not coincidentally, the research was conducted by a British scholar, Duncan W.G. Timms.) That study found that regardless of income or social status, parental breakup had negative effects on children's mental health. Boys living with single, separated, or divorced mothers had particularly high rates of impairment in adolescence. An important 2003 study by Gunilla Ringbäck Weitoft, et al. found that children of single parents in Sweden have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households. This held true after controlling for a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances.

---

quote:

---

This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.

---

quote:

---

AMERICANS take it for granted that, despite its recent troubles, marriage will always exist. This is a mistake. Marriage is disappearing in Scandinavia, and the forces undermining it there are active throughout the West. Perhaps the most disturbing sign for the future is the collapse of the Scandinavian tendency to marry after the second child. At the start of the nineties, 60 percent of unmarried Norwegian parents who lived together had only one child. By 2001, 56 percent of unmarried, cohabiting parents in Norway had two or more children. This suggests that someday, Scandinavian parents might simply stop getting married altogether, no matter how many children they have.

---

quote:

---

Kiernan maintains that as societies progressively detach marriage from parenthood, stage reversal is impossible. That makes sense. The association between marriage and parenthood is partly a mystique. Disenchanted mystiques cannot be restored on demand.

---