posted
Karl: I'm the first to admit that there absolutely is more than a little ambiguity to my writing (just as there is in pretty much everyone's on this subject), I've apologized for that very inclarity and the offense it provoked, I've tried to express my frustration with myself that I'm not explicating my position lucidly enough for an outside party with different starting premises to receive it clearly, all of which has barely even been acknowledged by anyone. I don't understand how you're receiving what I felt to be necessary attempts at further clarification on these points to be "extremely defensive"; I think you're reading tones into my posts that are simply not there. Again, though, I'm sorry if that was in fact the impression I gave, but I'm definitely not heated or trying to lash out at anyone. I understand that my uber-long posts might easily be construed as, like, passionate gushes of zealousness, but the length is due far more to me trying to explain every little detail and bend over backwards every way I know how to avoid offense and keep the conversation civil. I tried for a little levity here and there to make that clearer, but that didn't seem to have any noticeable effect either. I'm honestly not sure what else to say, or how to say it better. I'm sorry if this is unsatisfactory for you or people with your view, but neither do I think your position is satisfactory for people with my view; neither of us has a monopoly on that understanding. I was not trying to "claim the benefit of the doubt" for myself as if there were a limited quantity that might run out, I was trying to propose that both sides give it freely to the other.
Please note, also, that I was talking to Tom when I asserted that he was asking leading questions, which I still believe to be true. I believe I've given him as much benefit of the doubt as is warranted in this case, and in fact I've heard from people who believe he warrants far less than I give him. I tend to agree with him on a decent number of religious issues, as I've told him over email; I very much disagree with much that he has to say on other subjects, but I think he's generally trying to be a good guy; on the other hand, he doesn't seem to share any particularly similar view of me. Your posts (and indeed much of Tom's) have indeed been, for the most part, pretty calm and rational, and I'm glad Hatrack has well-spoken proponents of your "side" of this very complex issue.
Tom: if you honestly can't see any other alternatives between "Othering" someone and recognizing their differences (I suspect that perhaps we're each using "Other" in slightly qualitatively different ways), I'm once again at a loss to explain that such alternatives do exist if my previous posts haven't. Seems like half my posts here have said that, which is really pretty much a cop-out, but I don't think it's any less true for the repetition.
Dagonee: Your second-to-last post gave me a lot to chew on, and I think I'm tentatively moving towards your view of the situation. It was easily the most comprehensible and concrete post I've seen in favor of civil unions for someone like me who doesn't share all the same starting premises. I'm still very uneasy with it, for reasons I've obviously explained inadequately and I'll definitely be thinking about it more, but at least it feels like we might really be able to work towards a rational compromise between y'all and people with even more traditional views than mine, which is, I think, the goal.
That's all I got, guys, I'm sorry I don't have time to reply to the ginormous pile of stuff I should be replying to; I'm mostly trying to make sure that people know I appreciate the points of view and will think on them. I'm heading out bright and early tomorrow for a little vacation with the folks and grandparents, and I won't have internet access for awhile. Regardless of whether I'm here or not, though, I think there's much value in more people like Twinky jumping in and adding their bit to the potluck; heck, maybe things'll go even smoother towards a compromise without my overlong posts to muck things up. *grin*
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto!, normally I don't dissect other people's posts to the degree that is about to follow, but I'm going to attempt it in this case because there's something implicit in your posting style that seems to undermine your explicit intent. Take this for whatever it's worth:
quote:Karl: I'm the first to admit that there absolutely is more than a little ambiguity to my writing (just as there is in pretty much everyone's on this subject),
Whether or not you intend to be saying "Yeah, I'm unclear, but then again so are all of you", that is what those quoted words mean at face value. If you really are interested in rational debate as a step to understanding, you need to lose the attitude that ambiguity is inherent in the subject matter and simply try harder to eliminate it. Further, if you do believe something I've said is unclear, please point out the unclear parts. I'm usually pretty good at making myself understood.
quote:I don't understand how you're receiving what I felt to be necessary attempts at further clarification on these points to be "extremely defensive";
My comment about "extremely defensive" was strictly in reference to your post which immediately preceeded it. In that post, you seem to me to be defending yourself against some massive offense Tom and I (at least) are perceived by you to have taken to your post. I don't think I have shown any undue offense. I don't see where Tom has, either. Both of us have asked questions which point out that your choice of words in previous posts could be interpreted to mean things potentially offensive. Those questions (at least in my case) have been intended as requests for clarity rather than expressions of offense.
quote: I think you're reading tones into my posts that are simply not there. Again, though, I'm sorry if that was in fact the impression I gave, but I'm definitely not heated or trying to lash out at anyone.
Except for the "extremely defensive" comment in my last post to you before this one, I haven't addressed tone at all but have responded pretty much exclusively to the implications of the words you have written. However, rather than listen to the questions or counter examples and clarify your point, you have mostly gotten defensive, blaming the reader for not understanding your admittedly ambiguous writing, appealing to the supposed inherent ambiguity of the subject matter (which I think you drastically overstate), and basically telling us to trust that your words don't imply what they seem to imply without actually providing any clarification.
One case in point: you seem to repeatedly be asserting that gay relationships don't have the same value to society as straight ones. You state this as a reason marriage benefits should not be given to gay couples. When asked which differences make them less worthy of equal protection under law, you explain at length that we're the ones over-estimating the "differences" you're talking about and that really you're only talking about differences in the sense that all people are different from all other people. Of course, by downplaying these differences in an apparent attempt to clarify that you don't mean offense, you are also undermining your own arguement. If indeed these differences are trivial, then why single out homosexual relationships for exclusion? You respond that we need to just trust that somewhere in the long preceding posts you've already explained that and so we're just trying to paint you into a corner and imply things you didn't intend. That's a cop out. You are in fact ignoring questions meant to help us understand your point, which is still unclear.
What are the differences between gay and straight marriage-like relationships that merit the different treatment of them? As far as I can tell, you're talking about differences in procreation, with maybe a nod to different abilities to perpetuate existing gender roles by example. Again if this is not your point, now would be a good time to say so otherwise I'm wasting my time counter-arguing a non-issue. If there are other important differences (note the "important") what are they? (Note also that, yes, I acknowledge everyone has a different idea of what is "important", but I'm asking you, so by implication I'm asking you to express your view of what's important.) If there are other important differences besides the two above, let's talk about them. You'll have to explicity state them, however, because I haven't a clue as to what they might be from your previous posts.
On the other hand, if there aren't any other important differences, and it's just those two that you are arguing, why do you think those are important enough to warrant exclusions for homosexuals? Note the "why", which is essential to "debate". So far you've just reiterated your position that the differences you see simply are adequate as a premise.*
If the differences are simply in the areas of reproduction and role modeling, I offer as counter arguement the following: Regarding reproduction, it's not so much the actual biological act of reproduction that is at issue, I believe, since clearly you don't extend the same exclusions to straight-but-infertile couples or straight couples who choose to remain childless. I offer as counter example the fact that families comprised of gay parents with children do exist already. Do you believe that the benefits of marriage should only be available to families formed through natural biological functions and not to those formed through adoption or artificial insemination or the use of surrogates? (I'm guessing the answer is "no" but you could surprise me. ) Assuming you don't believe this, then "reproduction" as a "difference" doesn't seem to be an adequate reason for exluding homosexuals from "marriage", though you're free to explain to me why my reasoning here is faulty, if you think it is.
This leaves only "role modeling" as a difference on the table for discussion as potentially being sufficiently important to warrant barring homosexuals from "marriage". Presumably you believe that the roles children can learn from straight parents are different from those they can learn from gay parents and that this difference is sufficient to bar homosexuals from marriage. I think it's debateable whether it's really critical in any way to actually provide both male and female "gender roles" to children**, but let's say that I accept for the sake of arguement that there is value in male/female parent partners that makes them superior to same-sex parents. It does not follow, therefore, that same-sex parenthood should be discouraged by withholding marriage from gay couples. First, we don't legally require two parents from straight people. We don't take children from widowers because they don't have female role models in the home. We don't force widows or single moms to "get a man". In fact, one of the benefits of marriage is to ensure that the surviving spouse is recognized as a parent in case of death of their partner. Why should one man be assured this survivorship benefit over another man simply because his dead spouse was female?
The second reason allegedly less-than-ideal gender role modeling is insufficient reason to withhold marriage benefits is that, as was stated in the arguement about reproduction issues above, same-sex parent partnerships already exist. If it's really about raising children, then how is it remotely not hypocritical to withhold the benefits of marriage from homosexual couples, yet not also bar them from forming families through other means. This seems only born of mean-spirited bigotry, and is particularly pernicious because the real victims are the children. You're in essence arguing that since we need to encourage people to form families that provide two-gender role modeling, we need to withhold the security provided by marriage from gay couples, any children they might have be damned.
Now, it's entirely possible you don't realize this is the implication of what you are arguing. It's also possible, but I believe much less likely, that there is some underlying logic I'm missing which simultaneously allows you to make this arguement but avoid these implications. If you believe the latter is the case, it is your duty to try to explain this underlying logic, not just state that it is there and I'm simply unable to see it because we all get lost in our own incompatible premises and etc. etc. That only serves to abandon discussion, not to further it.
Finally, since disclaimers seem to actually be necessary at this point, I'm not remotely upset. I'm not angry, or offended or anything of the sort, and no such emotions should be read into this post. I am mildly frustrated at the mis-communication, but in the spirit of trying to overcome that mis-communication, I'm writing this "ginormous" post in an effort to be excruciatingly clear. If I have mis-stated your arguement to this point, please don't simply say so and point me back to your previous posts. If there's clarification there, I don't see it. Please do me at least the courtesy of explaining where I am misunderstanding you and at least attempt to be better understood. I thank you in advance. I also recognize you might not see this for days. I'm willing to wait and look forward to your response.
__________________
* You seem to have said a couple of times that this is just the nature of the "debate" and that I can't see what you've taken for granted, just as you can't see what I've taken for granted. (Again, if that's not what you mean, now would be a good time to clarify.) I reject this response because: First, that's not a premise, it's a conclusion, which in debate needs to be actually supported. Second, I can and do explain my reasoning and see no reason why I have to just accept on faith that you do have reasons which must forever remain inexplicable to me due to some supposed blinding pre-conceptions on my part.
** Personally, I think gender role modeling is only critical for its own perpetuation. So much of traditional gender-based role typing has been denounced in current US society that it has become nearly impossible to list even a single characteristic exclusive to one gender or the other. I believe it is perfectly possible for a man to raise a healthy daughter without a mother or for a mother to raise a healthy son without a father. It seems logical therefore that redundancy in parental gender is better than single parenthood, all other things being equal, or at the very least is no worse than single parenthood. While some might believe that the ideal is having two parents of different gender, it's demonstrably true that having two parents of different gender does not ensure anything even remotely close to ideal parenting in practice. Since we don't legislate the "ideal" among straight couples, but only legislate bare minimum compentency in providing safety, security, education, and welfare, it is unfair to demand more than that from gay couples.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a good ginormous read, KarlEd. I find it very clear and unambiguous, for whatever that opinion is worth.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As did I. Interesting read, and very well laid out, Karl. I'm looking forward to reading Zotto!'s response as well.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think he's generally trying to be a good guy; on the other hand, he doesn't seem to share any particularly similar view of me.
*laugh* Zotto, I think you're always trying to be a "good guy." If I think anything negative of you at all, it's that I believe you're easily frustrated by people who don't automatically accept your assertions simply because they have good intentions behind them.
quote: Tom: if you honestly can't see any other alternatives between "Othering" someone and recognizing their differences....
It's not a matter of just recognizing their differences, Zotto; it's a matter of your saying their differences are substantial enough to disqualify their relationships from official recognition. Their differences, in other words, are ones which you believe make their relationships less essential to society and definitionally inferior.
You have so far not identified what these differences are. You have said they are not exclusively related to procreation, and have said that they're not particularly major differences. You have, however, said that they're important enough differences to justify legal discrimination against homosexual relationships.
I'm honestly at a loss as to what these differences might be if they're neither procreative nor simple "Otherness." Can you give me an example?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading this entire thread, I've seen the topic of the cause of same-sex attraction touched upon a few times. It is becoming rarer and rarer to see or hear the claim that one's sexual orientation is a choice, although it still happens. What I want to know is what difference does it make whether or not sexual orientation is an option? Why should it be illegal for two men or two women to make love or marry each other even if they could be perfectly capable and even happy in heterosexual relationships?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I want to know is what difference does it make whether or not sexual orientation is an option?
It makes the "persecution" argument harder, and parallels to racism impossible, if people somehow "choose" to be gay. At that point, the ethical question at hand then devolves to "is being gay inherently bad, and therefore choosing to be gay inherently immoral," which is a point on which compromise is impossible due to religious arguments. The logical and legal arguments don't change at all, but many people see this as an emotional issue -- and whether or not homosexuality is a voluntary thing impacts that sentiment.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Professor Charles Roselli is being disingenuous. Livestock are not monogamous: their natural polygyny guarantees a VAST overage of males in comparison to the breeding requirements of the females.
I wouldn't've minded if he'd said, "We're scientists. Curiosity is our business." I mean look at the idjits who built H-bombs. But his dissembling too much resembles lying. Which is the exact opposite of what a scientist is s'poseta be doing when talking about his work.
posted
I do feel the critics are rather jumping the gun, here. Surely it's worthwhile finding out what causes both homosexuality and heterosexuality, just on the principle that it's good to know what makes humans tick? Also, we've had the knowledge for some time of how to do a eugenics program that makes the Nazi one look like, well, ignorant messing about with phenotypes; yet I don't see any outcry over general bio research. Finally, consider that if you can turn homosexuality off, presumably you can likewise turn it on. Why is everyone assuming that the switch will only be used one way?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, a scientist's business is assuaging his own curiosity (and getting others to pay for it). What I abhor is trying to justify that curiosity with the nonsense of
quote:Approximately one ram in 10 prefers to mount other rams rather than mate with ewes, reducing its value to a farmer.
when ~78% of rams are castrated to increase their value to the farmer. Otherwise castration wouldn't occur. So claiming
quote:Initially, the publicly funded project aimed to improve the productivity of herds.
is just being deliberately STUPID when only 22% of born-rams are even left capable of mating, and an even smaller percentage are purposefully used as studs.
posted
Ah, but no. You can't tell beforehand which rams are going to come out homosexual. So, out of those 22%, about one in ten should have been castrated instead. If you could tell which ones, or repair them, why that would increase the value of the ones you don't castrate.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The birth sex ratio of sheep ~50males to ~50 females. Take a flock of 100 ewes and 100 born-rams. Of those 100 born-rams, 78 are castrated / turned into wethers. So ya have 100 ewes, 78 wethers, and 22 rams; of which 2 rams are not useful as studs. (Though if their qualities are high enough, their genes can be passed on through artificial insemination until a champion stud is produced.) The rams are separated from the rest of the flock at 3months. When estrus arrives, the ewes are taken to the mating shed where the typical mating ratio is 8to15 ewes per ram, depending on breed (and the attitude of the rancher): ie 7to13 rams per 100 ewes. So ya still have 9to15 too many rams. And only 2 of the 22 rams are non-studs.
The hypothetical prenatal treatment makes no financial sense when one considers the cost to run amniocentisis on 100to200* pregnant ewes, to find the 100* ram embryos suitable for further hormone-level testing, to find the 2 ram embryos "needing" that hypothetical "cure". A ridiculously expensive "cure" when lamb sells for US$64 to US$120* per head.
If there were a hormone test for thoses 100 rams after they are born and a "cure", the testing would still be absurdly expensive compared to extra cost of raising 2 rams as opposed to raising two wethers.
So let's toss out the hormone testing for 98 rams. Imagine a "cure" which can be used after the 2 rams begin getting frisky with other rams, and the proper dosage levels are known without further hormone testing. Sheep reach puberty at between 6to12months depending on breed and growing environment. Sheep can be sold as lamb up to the point when their two permanent incisors have grown in, which is 12to18months depending on breed and growing environment. So those 2 rams can be sold as lamb after they have reached puberty. Hence no monetary loss there.
Finally, let's suppose that there is a financial gain to be had by "curing" those 2 rams. Since hormone manufacture and expression are controlled by genes, all one would be doing by breeding those 2 rams would be increasing the percentage of rams and ewes carrying their genes: ie increasing the "problem". When ranchers often outbreed their livestock with champions to increase the probability that their own rams will have similarly desirable siring qualities, any champion breeder who uses such a "cure" on their rams to create studs-for-fee or to sell insemination kits from those "cured" rams would be engaging in fraud.
So there is no benefit to sheep ranchers, and no benefit to consumers. The only possible benefit would be to agribusinesses*** such as Monsanto who would be selling the pharmaceuticals used for testing and "curing".
* Sheep often have twins and less often, triplets; ie some birthings of mixed sex. For various reasons such as sheepskin thickness, docility, etc, one wouldn't want to create masculinized ewes. So less than 50% of all pregnancies would be possible candidates for treatment due to the fraternal twin/triplet sisters of those ram embryos.
** Using prices in Australia, where the drought has brought about deep culling of flocks; leaving far fewer lamb to be sold, and thereby causing a near doubling of prices.
*** Agribusinesses have already begun gene-tampering with fruits and grains to produce variants that produce sterile non-germinating seeds when farm-grown so that they can have a monopoly on seed stock.
posted
Just bumping for Zotto! mostly, but I'll say that I think fears about genetic culling of homosexuals (at least among humans) are premature. I do support further research into human sexuality, but mostly because I think the research will bear out that gay/straight is a false dichotomy, and that there are more factors than a single gene (or even set of genes) that determine a predisposition toward homosexual preference.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Present gay marriages would be grandfathered in, but no more after that.
In other news, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs changed his position on gays in the military and thinks it's time for integration.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not exactly a reversal. It's a referendum put before the people of the state on the issue. Eventually, things like that are going to have to happen. I don't know the citizenry of MA that well, so I can't say how they are going to vote, but, if they vote to uphold gay marriage, this could actually be a step towards not just cementing it in MA but also breaking down barriers in other places.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. If the referendum fails (which I hope it does), that will effectively finish the question in Massachussetts, but I don't think it'll make a bit of difference to people elsewhere.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't know. If the referendum fails (which I hope it does), that will effectively finish the question in Massachussetts
Unless, of course, a federal amendment is passed. The state law could then be ruled (federally) unconstitutional.
I think it's moderately likely that the referendum will fail, even if it makes it to a vote (it still require another vote by the legislature in 2007). The only poll data I could find was a Zogby poll from more than two years old, and it indicated a majority of MA citizens supported gay marriage then (50% vs. 44%). I imagine the numbers have shifted more in favor since.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it's the first step to a referendum. It needs to be voted for by 30-40% (I forget how many, but it isn't a majority) in two consecutive constitutional conventions, and then it goes to a vote for the people.
It's a bit disheartening, but was pretty much assumed, once the Senate president got enough heat for adjourning the constitutional conventions of the last couple years without putting it (and anything after it on the agenda) to a vote.
What's frustrating is the outside organizations that set up shop here, well funded by out-of-staters, and who keep this a politically live issue in the state. I just hope it either becomes moot, or the citizens vote for decency. Currently I think it'd be very close, not sure which way it'd tip.
quote:In its [unanimous] ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court -- the same court that ruled in 2003 that the Massachusetts Constitution gives same-sex couples the right to marry -- said it cannot force a vote. It said that the legislature's obligation to vote was "beyond serious debate" but that the most the court could do was remind lawmakers of that duty.
"There is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the legislature's indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties," the court said.
In my mind, this is close to a perfect separation of powers decision. I do NOT want courts to be able to force legislative bodies to vote. At the same time, I think there is a constitutional duty to vote in certain circumstances, and I'm glad someone with absolute credibility on this issue said so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder, though, why the people screaming about judicial interference aren't bothered by the court dictating to the legislature in this case.
It didn't dictate, though. It chided and said, "We don't have the power to dictate in this case."
quote:Dag, someday I'd like to read your critique of Goodrich... Although I know your familiarity with MA state law is not large.
There were two major decisions. The first required the legislature to act. The second was a response to a request for guidance from the legislature asking if civil unions would satisfy the first decision.
I've only read the second, and it was a long time ago now. IIRC, the case acknowledged that true equality of legal effect could be achieved by properly constructed civil unions, but that the social stigma would render it unconstitutional. (This is tremendously oversimplified, of course.) It was that reading that solidified my current opinion that the government should be out of the social approval/stigma business and therefore simply forego the use of the word "marriage" entirely - for everyone.
I distinctly remember the reading of the opinion being the trigger, but I've done so much of my own thinking about it that I can't be sure that I'm not projecting my own opinion backwards on my recollection of the case at this point.
Since the case was only a starting point for thought, not a precedent I tried to learn for legal application, I'm perfectly comfortable with the confusion at this point.
If I ever get around to reviewing it, I'll post my thoughts here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the reason some people who don't want judicial activism *did* want the court to rule the legislature had to obey this law, is that it's the law. People who oppose judicial activism (including me) don't object when the court rules *according* to the law; we object when it rules *without regard to* the law. This is entirely consistent.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the court's last ruling, becaus I don't know Massachusetts law; just that there is a difference between the court saying "you must obey the law" and "you must obey our wishes."
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I just hope it either becomes moot, or the citizens vote for decency.
I was wondering if you could clarify this statement a bit more for me? I don't wanna read into your post something that wasn't there, since I'm not sure what you exactly meant.
posted
I wrote most of a long post for this thread about a week ago, but lost it. I just haven't had the will to write it again after investing all of that effort the first time around. I think this debate has worn me out.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bumping for Zotto!. This is the last time, I promise. I'm really interested in his response to my reply above, if he has one.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Seperation of church and state was formed to protect the CHURCH from the STATE. Not the other way around
2) Whether you agree with Scott's opinion or not, the fact is that the country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
3) If you allow homosexual marriage, you also have to allow: poligamy, bestiality, under age sex, prostitution, and other forms of frowned upon types of relationships.
If a man wants to have multiple wives, should he be allowed to have them? If he cant support them anymore, should they all be entitled to the welfare program?
Who are we to tell people that having sex with their dog is wrong? If they get a disease from doing their dog, tax payers should have to pay for that right?
If a 40 year old man wants to have sex with an 8 year old girl, he should be allowed to right? I mean, he cant help it, he likes younger girls, and who are we to tell him that it is wrong of him to want that? He shouldnt be sent to jail for that because he must have been born that way or chose that as his lifestyle.
Society has always revolved around rules, no matter how much you like or dislike them. Just because someone thinks they should be able to do something doesnt make it right.
That being said, I know a lot of homosexual men and women, and I enjoy their company. They are good people and are good friends. However, not ONE of them has told me they agree with gay marriage. In fact, all of them have expressed to me that they feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that they are fine with that. Only a very small amount of homosexual men and women are fighting for this, and not the homosexual community at large. My friends are disgusted at the members of this fringe group.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I probably shouldn't do this, but would you please explain this:
quote:If you allow homosexual marriage, you also have to allow: poligamy, bestiality, under age sex, prostitution, and other forms of frowned upon types of relationships.
You state it as if it's true, but there's no analysis here at all. And, please, deal with each one seperately.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO Saying that I choose to have sex with a fellow consenting adult is the same as raping a little girl is a little ridiculos im sorry, and the seperation of church and state is just that the state can do what they want as far as licensing and the church can ban from their little buildings whoever they want. As for beastiality ... I dont know how to respond to that as I am not sure if the animal is consenting... if they enjoy it
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sort of read Geraine's post as a left-wing satire of the conservative position. I mean, I thought s/he was deliberately parodying SSM opponents by posting ridiculous straw-man arguments as fact.
Then I saw that you guys were taking it seriously... I have a history of missing the obvious, I admit, but trying to read those points as if they came from a legitimate POV made my nose bleed.
posted
You should swing by Ornery. We see this kind of stuff all the time, usually from people who have no idea that what they're saying isn't being received as mind-shattering new information that completely transforms our opinions on the issue. They always sound so disappointed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, that propoganda has to be believed by some less than discerning people, otherwise it would not be so popular.
Notice the little aid's comment--the disease from doggie love--that he implies should not be cured if the patient can't afford it. After all, its the patients fault he caught the disease.
This so easily translates to Aids is a disease of sin, and all money going to research it, cure it, or pay for the health of its victims should be stopped. Death and suffering is deserved.
Got to love that true Christian spirit.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I sort of read Geraine's post as a left-wing satire of the conservative position. I mean, I thought s/he was deliberately parodying SSM opponents by posting ridiculous straw-man arguments as fact.
Then I saw that you guys were taking it seriously... I have a history of missing the obvious, I admit, but trying to read those points as if they came from a legitimate POV made my nose bleed.
O_O
Much as I hate to say it, there are actually real people like that out there.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do I feel so freakin' tired all of a sudden?
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: 1) Seperation of church and state was formed to protect the CHURCH from the STATE. Not the other way around
2) Whether you agree with Scott's opinion or not, the fact is that the country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
3) If you allow homosexual marriage, you also have to allow: poligamy, bestiality, under age sex, prostitution, and other forms of frowned upon types of relationships.
If a man wants to have multiple wives, should he be allowed to have them? If he cant support them anymore, should they all be entitled to the welfare program?
Who are we to tell people that having sex with their dog is wrong? If they get a disease from doing their dog, tax payers should have to pay for that right?
If a 40 year old man wants to have sex with an 8 year old girl, he should be allowed to right? I mean, he cant help it, he likes younger girls, and who are we to tell him that it is wrong of him to want that? He shouldnt be sent to jail for that because he must have been born that way or chose that as his lifestyle.
Society has always revolved around rules, no matter how much you like or dislike them. Just because someone thinks they should be able to do something doesnt make it right.
That being said, I know a lot of homosexual men and women, and I enjoy their company. They are good people and are good friends. However, not ONE of them has told me they agree with gay marriage. In fact, all of them have expressed to me that they feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that they are fine with that. Only a very small amount of homosexual men and women are fighting for this, and not the homosexual community at large. My friends are disgusted at the members of this fringe group.
1) What makes you think that?
2) It does have its roots in a culture which was predominatly Christian. However, you will notice that lots of Christian cultures did not spawn democracy. It took the Enlightenment and its stepping back from Christianity to achieve that.
3) Again, why? Surely you can understand the difference between consensual sex and rape? What diseases should the tax payers pay for? Heart disease? Is this contingent upon whether the patient ate french fries? Pre-natal care? Cancer? What about lung cancer?
Again. What is it about the term "consent" that seems to elude you?
And society's "rules" should not necessarily be determined on what you happen to like, either. Just because you think something is wrong doesn't make it so.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It took the Enlightenment and its stepping back from Christianity to achieve that.
I think that you may not have the causation entirely right here. Who is to say that Christianity did not engender the Enlightenment in a way that other religions did not? Even if the Enlightenment itself was not an explicitly Christian movement, there is no reason to believe that Christianity was irrelevant to it.
Not to argue on Geraine's side or anything. I think he/she is a great example of why this is an obnoxious argument that rarely goes anywhere good.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy, How much do you know about the Enlightenment? I wrote a little post about it here in case you are interested.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may have a point Puppy, but the enlightenment was a step away from conservative fundamentalist old testatment fire and brimstone Christianity. Claiming people like Jefferson, Madison, even Franklin were good Christians of the mondern Evangelical sense is far from correct.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that Christianity was irrelevant, but I think its relationship to Enlightenment philosophy is a lot harder to claim. Looking at it historically, it is easier to claim the the Enlightenment was a pendulum swing reaction to Christianity (or at least the power structures and struggles of Christianity) and an outgrowth of the Age of Reason rather than an "explicity Christian movement".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) Seperation of church and state was formed to protect the CHURCH from the STATE. Not the other way around
A common myth. It's supposed to protect both directions. Instead, it's being used to help the government bludgeon the church. Government is supposed to have no say what-so-ever in faith and vice versa.
quote: 2) Whether you agree with Scott's opinion or not, the fact is that the country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
It's also based on "Give me liberty or give me death." Since we can't agree on what God wants, (or even that he exists) let's maximize freedom for people who are harming no one and just want to be treated like anyone else.
quote: 3) If you allow homosexual marriage, you also have to allow: poligamy, bestiality, under age sex, prostitution, and other forms of frowned upon types of relationships.
Absurd. Let's take these one at a time.
Polygamy - The state's job of settling desputes in the area of divorce becomes expotentially more complicated as you add more people to it. How do you divide a house 4 ways? Who gets custody of the kids? Do they spend 1 week with dad, one week with mom, one week with other mom and one week with other dad? Letting two same sex people get married does not significantly affect the complexity of sorting out property.
Beastiality - Animals do not have the cognitive function to consent to marriage.
Underage Sex - Ditto. We have the age of consent for that reason.
Prostitution - How is getting married like selling your body for sex? Although I've heard a number of bitter men make this analogy toward heterosexual marriage. Maybe we should ban straight marriage? (Or maybe we can just toss this argument out the window since it would invalidate my own, heterosexual, marriage.)
Other forms of frowned upon relationships - Can you come up with one that's not so easily dashed?
quote: If a man wants to have multiple wives, should he be allowed to have them? If he cant support them anymore, should they all be entitled to the welfare program?
Mmmm.. how about no one being entitled to welfare and getting the government out of our lives? And what are you arguing against? gay marriage or polygamy? Your own example draws a line between the two. Unless you're talking about gay polygamy. But that's another fight.
quote: Who are we to tell people that having sex with their dog is wrong? If they get a disease from doing their dog, tax payers should have to pay for that right?
How about the tax payers don't pay for anyone's diseases and people take care of that themselves?
But what does boinking one's dog have to do gay marriage again?
quote: If a 40 year old man wants to have sex with an 8 year old girl, he should be allowed to right? I mean, he cant help it, he likes younger girls, and who are we to tell him that it is wrong of him to want that? He shouldnt be sent to jail for that because he must have been born that way or chose that as his lifestyle.
If it only affected him, he could knock himself out. But it doesn't it affects an 8 year old girl who has no clue what's going on. Unlike an adult, concentual relationship.
quote: Society has always revolved around rules, no matter how much you like or dislike them. Just because someone thinks they should be able to do something doesnt make it right.
And when we realize that a rule is stupid, we change it. I can vote now. I'm not some man's property. I'm not an outcast for being part native american. Black people can use the same restroom and water fountain as white people and even ride in the front of the bus. My marriage to my Jewish husband is legal.
quote: That being said, I know a lot of homosexual men and women, and I enjoy their company. They are good people and are good friends. However, not ONE of them has told me they agree with gay marriage. In fact, all of them have expressed to me that they feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that they are fine with that. Only a very small amount of homosexual men and women are fighting for this, and not the homosexual community at large. My friends are disgusted at the members of this fringe group.
Anecdotal. Those of us fighting for equality are not "fringe". There are some gay people, especially in red states who say they aren't for it either out of sour grapes, or in hopes of fitting in. Maybe a few really don't care.
posted
There's an interesting case to be made that the Enlightenment came about in large part because the organized Christian religions were so bad, providing an impetus to challenge the underlying philosophies and epistemologies that the Churches were pushing. It's genesis was marked by a clear strong anti-clerical sentiment and very few of its prominent figures had better than an indifferent attitude towards the Christianity of the day.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, the only two people who've replied to the substance of Geraine's post have responded with "rape" to his list of other things that should be allowed if same sex marriages are recognized. This is an idaequate response, as it does not apply to at least two of the items in that list.
As of right now, the things on that list ("poligamy, bestiality, under age sex, prostitution") are, generally speaking, crimes. Same sex relationships between two consenting adults are not. Instead of siezing on the trivial cases involving lack of consent, the two consensual activities - polygamy and prostitution - should be distinguished. Same sex couples right now can legally live as if they are married, though without legal recognition. If a man and two women try to do that in some states, they commit a felony.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Notice the little aid's comment--the disease from doggie love--that he implies should not be cured if the patient can't afford it. After all, its the patients fault he caught the disease.
This so easily translates to Aids is a disease of sin, and all money going to research it, cure it, or pay for the health of its victims should be stopped. Death and suffering is deserved.
I love this line of reasoning actually. It makes lesbians God's Chosen people since lesbians have such a low instance of sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS.
Gay men get it cuz god hates gay men? Heterosexuals get it because god hates hets? Lesbians don't get it cuz even God loves two women. Yeah baby.
posted
Honestly, I think that marriages of convenience, marriages for money, marriages for reasons of state etc., all of which are legal, are in theory very similar to prostitution. It is legal to give a person extravagant gifts in exchange for a sexual relationship.
As for polygamy. Again, theoretically, I have no problem with it - assuming that the complexities of the various contracts could be arranged. Sadly, like prostitution, it is, in reality, exploitive. Polygamy os often used to take advantage of submissive and often very young women and prostitution to take advantage of those that have little choice in the matter.
Which brings us back to consent.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) Assuming you don't believe this, then "reproduction" as a "difference" doesn't seem to be an adequate reason for exluding homosexuals from "marriage", though you're free to explain to me why my reasoning here is faulty, if you think it is.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
