I submit that this is actually the crux of the disagreement between pro gay marriage people and many pro, ahem, family people. Many of the arguments that pro family people offer up come down to the belief that society can NOT be diverse beyond very, in my opinion, peripheral disparities. Their argument seems to be that a change in one group corrupts the conscience and behavior of everyone, somehow.
Conversely, pro gay marriage people such as myself believe that it is absolutely possible to have a diverse society with many different standards. In fact, it is very desirable. While there will be some bleed between the standards, people are quite capable of choosing the best solution for themselves. There is no need for the government in marriage at all as people are capable of coming up with the optimal solution over time.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that ethics has no direct connection to morality. Ethics is a code of conduct that a group (let's say lawyers) all agrees to abide by. Hopefully the ethics start out being based on morality, but it is not wrong to say "It ethical do to A, but I feel it would be immoral."
So ethics are just a bunch of rules that some group made up, just like our laws are. Appealing to ethics has the same weight as appealing to law.
But then we get down to the problem. Moral questions are based on our own sense of morality, which it seems to me always comes down to plain old beleif. Some people beleive that homosexuality is not a good thing, and society should not encourage it, including changing the definition of marriage to include it. Other people beive that there is nothing wrong with it, and that they should be treated as full equals in society, including having legal protections for their unions.
This sure seems simpler than a lot of the arguments going around, but that's how I see it. Am I missing something?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Interesting examples you chose. You go on to list a wide variety of minority groups (particularly, people with psychological conditions that I cited in my original post) and say "Yes, but THEY can get married! So can THEY! And THEM, too!"
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).
However, despite the fact that they face an unreasonable level of difficulty, people with ADD are still required to do homework.
Despite the fact that they are convinced their life is hopeless and pointless, people who suffer from depression are still expected to find a way not to be a drain on society. They are also prevented, whenever possible, from killing themselves, despite the fact that many of them wish to do so. Who are we to countermand their desires?
People with severe Tourette's Syndrome have compulsive mannerisms that can be obnoxious in polite company. Society does not change its standards of decency to accomodate them. Rather, we tolerate the infringements when we can, while attempting to control the compulsive behavior with medication, or by limiting contact with strangers who might not understand and be offended.
No one, at least on this board, is going nearly this far to try and "correct" the behavior of homosexuals. No one has said that homosexuals should be forced to participate in heterosexual sex or marriage. No one has tried to make them change the way they think or conform to a non-homosexual life. 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.
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.
But it is also demonstrably true that members of the human species, regardless of the subtle differences of race, are pretty much the same. There is no race that is "smarter" than another, or that thinks in such a unique way that it cannot benefit from the education offered to other races. And so there is no reason, aside from outright bigotry, to offer different educations to different races.
However, we DO have special schools for the deaf, whose unique language-development pattern makes it very difficult for many of them to function as well as hearing kids in a normal school. Deaf kids are not "smarter" or "dumber" or in any way less worthy of an education than hearing kids. But they very often require a different means of acquiring an education. And so that means is provided.
Similarly, children with special needs, including differences in behavioral patterns as mild as ADD, are often sent to special environment to learn. This isn't meant to imply bigotry or hurtfulness (though some can take it that way). It only implies that people are different and thrive under different circumstances.
I point out that homosexuals are not a race or an ethnic group, not for any of the reasons you imagine, but because the rules that we have learned to follow in the treatment of different races and ethnic groups are based on the demonstrable fact that there IS NO APPRECIABLE PSYCHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE between members of different races or ethnic groups. So there is no reason to assign different means of education, political involvement, marriage, etc, to different races.
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?"
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
You're overstating your opponents here. No one at Hatrack is saying that homosexual love should not be expressed. Nor are they trying to discourage people of the same gender from loving each other. 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. This is a very specific argument about the formal structure of society, not about the validity of love.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Why not? Lots of people on this forum believe that the state should have nothing to do with marriage. I, myself, don't recall ever hearing anything about marriage in elementary, middle school, or high school. Or, if it has to go over it, why can't a school teach that some people believe that marriage is only between men and women, while others believe it can be between any sex, but that neither belief is wrong?
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(heck, what I do for a living doesn't either)![[Cool]](cool.gif)
