posted
Or we could do a car analogy. Why does anyone need two SUVs?
Whether something is oxygen or carbon monoxide is actually fairly important in a practical setting. is there such thing as diatomic carbon? (I'm pretty sure not, but I'm not a chemist)
posted
I can't help thinking there's not as many differences between men and women. They seem to be about a few hormones away from each other. Even in terms of anatomy they are simular...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, Syn, except that bit of anatomy that defines whether one is a man or woman?
And that bit of anatomy really does affect your experiences in this world. Being a woman means dealing with breasts and periods and internal sexual organs. Yeast infections, pregnancy, and hormonal cycles.
Being a man is different, and the world looks different through male eyes.
Now, I think what we are arguing is this: Does marriage = a male/female pairbond, or can male/male or female/female pairbond also be called marriage?
At least, some people are arguing this. Others are arguing about moral/legal/social issues.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, making divorce harder is a drop in the bucket. I want people to see marriage as a wall people just do not break unless there is abuse or infidelity involved. It's not even a legal thing, it's a social perception thing. I want people to be embarrassed to the core that they are seeking a divorce, unless (again) there is abuse or infidelity involved. I want the perceived pain of divorce to be greater than the pain of working things out. And I want the pain and embarrassment of getting pregnant out of wedlock to be greater than the pain of waiting to have sex until married. Does this mean I want people to be in pain? No, of course not...it means I want people, who are going to be in pain anyway, be in pain for the right things -- the pain of self-sacrifice, the pain of delayed gratification, rather than pain for the wrong things, like a divorce, which no matter how amicable, is still intensely painful.
quote:The underlying assumptions that I find offensive are that, 1.) it's OK to deny my relationship legal status because there is the possibility that this social change might not be entirely to your liking. 2.) Two men (or two women) couldn't provide a loving home that could produce well adjusted children.
Actually, I don't make those assumptions. I don't think it's okay to deny your relationship legal status. You have a relationship where one should be able to make legal decisions for the other. I'm fine with that. Don't call it marriage. And it's not about what I like or don't like. It's about how it will affect future generation's perception of marriage. Will my children and grandchildren be more likely to see marriage as a crucial, utterly important foundation from which stability and security can be assumed, or will they see it as an anachronism associated more with romance than covenential commitment? I don't know what gay marriage will do to that perception, and neither does anyone else. There's not enough data to tell us, and I think it's foolhardy to sacrifice the future happiness of millions for today's happiness of a few hundred thousand. Pay me now, or pay me later, I'd prefer to know the extent of the cost before I buy.
It's not that I don't think that homosexuals can be as good at parenting at heterosexuals. Just like single parents, I think they work at a distinct disadvantage, in that they cannot model what a mother is if they are a father, and they cannot model what a father is if they are a mother. They can do their best, and hope and pray that is enough. Also, they cannot model a male-female marriage relationship, which could, I guess, make it difficult for their heterosexual children. Also, not enough data to know for sure, except anecdotally, which has obvious problems.
quote:The part I find wrong headed is that you seem to assume that because so many straight people can't successfully maintain a marriage and care for kids, well, gays would end up doing it even worse.
I don't assume this either. I assume that changing the definition of marriage (and it IS a change, which you don't seem to want to acknowledge -- this was never done before 15 years ago) will have *some* effect, but because no one knows what it is, no one CAN know what it is yet, I'm not willing to sign on for what *could* be bad for marriage relationships in the future. Not today's couples -- couples 20 years from now.
Personal question, Karl, which I have wondered, and I hope it's not offensive. I don't mean it to be...it's just curiousity. Would marriage have made a difference for you and Douglas?
I'm willing to agree to disagree, again, if that's what it comes to. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Pooka the most common forms of elemental carbon (just carbon and nothing else) are 1) graphite which is made up of sheets of honeyecomb like layers. They are strongly bonded to thieir indivdual honeycomb layer but not strongly bonded with the honeycomb layers above and below them, which is why they flake off and make good pencil lead.
Or 2) diamond where the entire piece could actually be viewed as a single macro-molecule due to the tetrahedral uniform structure.
There are a couple of oddball variants of macro molecules of carbon like buckminsterfullerene which has the structure of a soccer ball and nanotube structures but they are much more exotic.
AJ
(So I guess the long way to the short answer is that diatomic carbon is generally unstable due to electron bond energies, though they may have manufactured it in labs. Diatomic Oxygen however is relatively stable and common. Diatomic Hydrogen in any but minute naturally occuring concentrations is pretty darn flammable... think Hindenburg.)
posted
I've noticed that many of the arguments against gay marriage tend to point out why such a union wouldn't be as good for the gay people, their children (if any), and society, as straight marriage.
Even if I granted that (which I'm not), it's not the only direction to look. I think gay marriage or its civil equivalent would be better for gays, their children (if any) and society than the current system where a class of legally-adult people are denied a chance to legally bond with each other, where foster children are denied an entire class of potential parents, where society forces a class of people to meet in secret and lie to their friends, family and employers.
It seems so self-evident to so many people that gays shouldn't marry. It seems so self-evident to me that allowing it could strengthen marriage and build a stronger society. It's more likely that both opinions are wrong, and allowing it will cause social situations the likes of which I can't imagine. But for now I see good people hurting for no reason I can understand, and that's where my head is at.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets say there was legislation to equalize women's pay in the workforce by auditing companies in certain ways. How do we define if it's "right" for a male-dominant Church to oppose it? They have a legal right to make their opinion known. But in a way, they're opposing the legal right to equality. They have a moral right under their Church to insist that society would suffer as women don't have the mental capacity to use money effectively. But they are morally wrong to many by insisting that women are lesser than men. So are they allowed to expend money to pursue the arrest of this legislation? I guess so. But when do the courts get to decide whose view is correct or the best for society? What neutral entity decides?
And what power should a subset community have on the larger community?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenny, it's a change to the LEGAL definition of marriage only. Many sympathetic to your argument don't seem to want to acknowledge that either.
You can still teach your children your definition, as exemplified through your church/religion, while saying that since the government only deals with earthly protections, it takes a limited scope for it's definition.
The government is restricted from saying gays cannot participate in the benefits and responsibilities of CIVIL marriage, but our god does, and sees holy matrimony, religious marriage, as something more restrictive.
I don't see why this would be hard to explain to a child, by comparison to other issues like human suffering, or the birds and the bees.
posted
I think I very much agree with dkw's point though and will attempt to restate it to see if she thinks I actually am saying the same thing she is.
To some people all humans are made up of the same essential "stuff" and that the essences of the human experience are the same regardless of whether one is male or female. In other words that the biological similarities of our chromosomes are more important than the differences.
The other view is that the male and female human experiences are diametrically different and that they have completely different human experiences as a result of the difference in the X or Y chromosomes. To them there isn't a general heading of life experience "becoming a parent" but the more specific "becoming a mother" (since she is the one that actually has the child) or "becoming a father"(which does exclude the childbearing experience).
posted
Banna, nope. It's just been a long time since I've had chemistry, and those were the first molecules I thought of that had one each of two different elements and two of the same element.
Feel free to change the analogy to different atoms at your convenience.
Edit: that "nope" was directed at your earlier post.
posted
This may not be following in topic of current discourse, but:
quote: 2. Surgeons invented methods for altering one's gender, allowing men to compete in the women's arena and vice versa.
My son (you know, the one studying genetics) and I were discussing this type of thing last night -- I think because here on this board there were posts about people who have sex-change operations, or those born with both sex organs, etc.
I asked him if via DNA only you can tell if someone is male or female. He says yes, absolutely.
So even if someone had a sex change to appear physically to be female, but their DNA is still male, which are they? And those born with both sex organs -- doesn't their DNA show that they are truly one or the other?
posted
I think I'm going to just leave marriage out of my child-rearing terminology. I'll just use the term pair bonding instead. I am not opposed to gay marriage! It's just that I'm realizing that this issue really does make my world different, and that after our society settles down from this discussion, history will have been made.
Makes explaining things to kids really tricky. Had the same problem when 911 occurred.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To your more recent post, Banna, yes that is (I think) what I’m saying. Another way of getting at something similar (though slightly different) is to ask “do souls have gender?” The yes/no/"there’s no such thing as a soul" answers to that one might not line up exactly with anti/pro same sex marriage, but I’m sure that there would be some correlation.
And LJ said no, and then changed her mind. So I think the answer is now yes. But I don’t know the details.
posted
To add to Suneun's post, there are also XY's who have Angrogeny Insenstivity (or something like that) and therefore are biologically women, but are barren.
There is actualyl an okay artical in time this week on hermaphrodites and other such gender conditions.
quote:hmmm.. and on my web search, I'm showing that hermaphrodites can show up as having both male and female DNA simultaneously... this is interesting...
Interesting, indeed. Perhaps the world as it's been discovered to be does not easily fall into line with the pronouncements of a 2,000-year-old book.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeniwren, I wondered when that question would come. I've thought a lot about it and I think the most truthful answer is that if I had come out today rather than 10 years ago, I probably wouldn't have gotten as involved with Douglas as I did. I was immature and naive when we got together and I spent the next 10 years making the best of a less than ideal relationship.
We'll probably never agree on this because I think some of the fears expressed on this board and in OSC's article will come to pass. I just think they're afraid of the wrong things. I believe that gay marriage will have the effect of easing some of the stigma of being homosexual. I believe there will be more visible homosexuals. Not because I believe that otherwise straight people will become gay but because I believe more scared, closeted, self-hating gay men will be able to live openly and lead well adjusted lives. I don't see this as a bad thing. I recognize that some people do. I think these people are afraid unnecessarily. They believe that social acceptance of homosexuals will rob them of their grandchildren. What they don't realize is that if they do have closeted gay children, they are more likely to condemn them to lonely troubled lives through their intolerance. I think that if I had had the support of family or friends when I came out, I might have been better prepared for a serious relationship and had a much better idea of what was truly important for two people to form a lasting committed bond. (Though to a certain degree, I think I've always know this. I just didn't know how to recognize this in other people.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
FG does it show what percentage Hermorphaditism shows up in our population?
I just want to know what percentage of people we will be disqualifying from marriage if we state Marriage is the union of one man and one woman only.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The larger community must look at the concerns of the subset community, but is required to take a step back and look at the problem with perspective. For the analogy with women's pay in consideration, the question might become: If Women's pay were equalized, would it hurt men more than it benefits women? Is it important to the community to make sure women are being paid equally for the equivalent work?
I believe that gays would benefit far more by legalized federal unions than straights would be hurt. Also, it is important to the national community to maintain that their equality matters to us.
(Which leads us back into the question on how much pain straight couples receive by the existence of gay unions and whether or not this is a question of equality. But I still find the question of subset community interaction with the larger community to be useful and interesting.)
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm just saying. If Eve came from Adam's rib and all, where did these transgendered people come from? If God intended marriage to be a union between man and woman, what was his plan for these people?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love C.S. Lewis' book Perelandra. I don't know if I agree with the theory and yet I like the idea.
One of the theories he gives is that "masculine" and "feminine" are much greater concepts than male and female gender especially in the divine realm. And that actual gender becomes both more meaningful and yet irrelevant in the face of the greater ideas.
This really both encompasses and yet sidesteps the gay marriage issue. I don't know where I'm going with it, yet it seems relevant.
posted
Des, the Bible doesn't even pretend to be a science book, and no one in this thread has claimed that it is. You're taking pot shots. Don't.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, I grew up in a fundamentalist community where the Bible while not being regarded as being a science book is viewed as being 100% accurate on all statments percieved to be scientific. Yes these were 7-day literal creationists. That, Destinieer is arguing to an argument that hasn't been posted on this thread, I quite agree. However it is a very common argument in fundamentalist conservative Christian circles as well.
quote:In the US: Intersex conditions vary in frequency. CAH is the most common cause of ambiguous genitalia in the newborn. Mixed gonadal dysgenesis (MGD) is the second most common cause of intersex conditions. Hypospadias occurs at a rate of 1 case per 300 live male births; in fewer than 1% of patients, hypospadias occurs in combination with undescended testes. A large series at Children's Hospital Boston found intersex conditions in 50% of children with hypospadias and unilateral or bilateral cryptorchidism in which the gonads were impalpable. Clinicians should suspect the possibility of an intersex condition if hypospadias and cryptorchidism occur in the same patient. Internationally: Analysis of worldwide infant screening of 6.5 million newborns found the incidence of CAH to be 1 case per 15,000 live births. Frequency was highest in neonates of European Jewish, Hispanic, Slavic, or Italian descent.
the above from emedicine. ---
quote:Genetic sex, or the organization of the "sex chromosomes," is commonly thought to be isomorphic to some idea of "true sex." However, something like 1/500 of the population have a karyotype other than XX or XY.
posted
But not in this thread. In the interests of a coherent discussion, it's better to not attack the phantoms simply to inflame.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Farmgirl: I asked him if via DNA only you can tell if someone is male or female. He says yes, absolutely.
So even if someone had a sex change to appear physically to be female, but their DNA is still male, which are they?
It's nobody's business what they are. Unless you commit a crime, nobody has the right to examine your DNA, examine your internal organs, or monitor your hormonal cycles.
If we all just kept our clothes on, nobody could prevent us from marrying whomever we want.
Not only can we argue the meaning of the word MARRIAGE, we can argue the meaning of MALE and FEMALE.
Why doesn't one of the boys in the couple just change his legal status to FEMALE? Or one of the girls could declare herself MALE. Nobody has a right to check to verify otherwise.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm not going to post a link to the first site I found with hermaphrodites information, becuase it was a very anti-Mormon site (because Mormon's believe gender is eternal). But it linked me to a better site, which is basically a book that studies this phenom. I will try to find it again.
posted
I think in some cases (though this is what I'm hazily remembering from a couple of Discovery channel specials) that people who have undergone sex change operations, have either had to do it outside the US, or have had to go to a different country to change their gender on their legal paperwork before coming back to our country.
quote:One of the theories he gives is that "masculine" and "feminine" are much greater concepts than male and female gender especially in the divine realm. And that actual gender becomes both more meaningful and yet irrelevant in the face of the greater ideas.
Tolkien talks about this in the Silmarillion as well. He compares the bodies the Valar assume to clothing and says that just clothing can reflect gender in people but does not make gender, the bodies reflect the inherent gender, which is attached at a soul level.
I absolutely believe gender goes beyond physical sexual characteristics and any other physical characteristics that might exist.
posted
That is an interesting question. How does the LDS faith deal with hermaphroditic children at birth? I dont remember that being asked on the hermaphrodite thread we had last year.
quote:How does the LDS faith deal with hermaphroditic children at birth?
I'm sure LDS parents, like parents of other faiths, would engage in prayerful consideration before typecasting the gender of the child.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:would it be *wrong* to leave the child's gender ambiguous?
Look how messed up that Pee Wee Herman guy(?) was.
Better to decide on the gender of the child and make it stick. The kid can always re-decide just before getting married.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen programs in which they talked about babies being born with ambiguous genitals. They would operate to change them, but it would cause problems later in life.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Kat, I'm not trying to inflame things, except insofar as I'm honestly trying to get people to question what they think. These considerations about biology are exactly the sort of scientific discoveries that I think weigh against the possible truth of the Christian religion.
I agree that the Bible doesn't claim to be a work of science (which didn't really exist where/when it was written), but it does claim to be true. And if you're saying that it's OK to disbelieve Genesis (not sure if you're actually saying this, but BannaOJ seems to take that as your point), why couldn't it also be OK to give up belief in some of the strange Old Testament moral rules that don't square so well with what we know about biology?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
skillery: ah, but along with the gender distinction often comes surgery to provide the appropriate genitals. This usually means a lot of intersexuals become girls (as the Time article quotes surgeons, "It's easier to dig a hole than build a pole.").
As Syn says, this can cause emotional issues in the person, even if they have never been told, but not always.
posted
Kat, parents are always trying to instill in their children that they are special and unique and important in order to improve their self esteem. Also so that they don't go along in "herd" mentality on dumb ideas. So if someone is truly born unique, and it isn't hampering their basic body functions, why not leave it that way. (So if it did cause difficulty in urination etc there might be reasons for operating, but if the plumbing was functional then you might as well leave it.)
If someone told me that they had been born with ambiguous genetilia, my response would be "wow, that's cool!" It makes them very unique in a sometimes bland world. More to the point, if I had been born with ambiguous genetalia and found out that my parents changed me to appear more female (which sometimes I have theorized about due to many masculine characteristics I have), I would be upset. I would have preferred to stay exactly the way I was born, thank you very much. Having an extremely large clitoris, even if a bit odd looking would be seen by many straight women as an asset not a deficiency anyway.
quote:why couldn't it also be OK to give up belief in some of the strange Old Testament moral rules that don't square so well with what we know about biology?
Only if by contrast, you would be willing to admit that current science, especially that at the cellular level, makes you give up some of Darwin's theory of evolution (level of complexity) from his Origin of the Species. Because Darwin based his ideas on the fact that he felt cells themselves were basically "unformed lumps" that grew into complex organisms, and now that we have micro-biology we realize what a complex structure a cell truly is.
(and I know this is going to totally de-rail this thread into a different area it doesn't need to go, but I posted it anyway).
posted
Good science and good religion does not and will never conflict. The Christian religion is not a monolith, and no one in this thread, or, I think, even on this board has the belief that the Bible is the ultimate science text. No one's thinking what you think they're thinking.
Religion is not as...simplistic a system as your reservations imply. If that's your understanding, then I can understand your dismissal of it. You're mistaken about that, though. There really is more to it.
Banna: I honestly can't tell if you really believe there is no advantage to having a specific gender over an unspecific one, but I suspect you don't. Tell me, can you think of any reasons it might be more conducive to a human being's happiness to be a definite gender over being an indefinite one?
posted
FG, there are arguments against the "levels of complexity" critique, and most supporters of evolution don't believe in a strict Darwinian form anymore (and haven't in quite some time).
posted
but sometimes it does conflict.. Sometimes you have to let go of a scientific notion to explain, say, a miracle, or a perfectly strange personal occurance that can't be explaind with the Ocam's razor like statement, it must be a neurological problem. Same with strange discoveries that can't be explained by relgion. Everything has to have room to expand... Two contradictory ideas are often true at the same time.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This usually means a lot of intersexuals become girls
Yeah. There was that story of a lady downhill skier who started feeling sexual attraction toward her roommates. Upon examination, the doctor discovered a non-descending apparatus hidden inside her abdominal cavity.
Wouldn't he have been disappointed if he would never have been able to legally marry a woman because of a mistake made by his parents?
We've got to let people decide what they want to be when they're legally old enough to make that decision.
What if neither of the boys wants to pose legally as a woman for the rest of his life? Suppose they both want to use the men's locker room at the spa? Then let him determine what gender he wants to be from one moment to the next, to suit the legal requirements of the situation. People of mixed-ethnicity do it all the time.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
dkw. I can't help it.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
