posted
Why does everyone keep asking me questions instead of addressing what I've said? After 16 pages of debate it seems odd to fizzle out after a different idea has been raised...
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't think that a law saying you can only marry someone of your same race would be fair. But thats a straw man and you know it, I don't accept that your example is close enough to the current situation to draw any sort of conclusion from.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is it a straw man when I took great pains to state the following?
"I don't think the analysis of mixed-race marriages is exactly the same as that for same-sex marriages. I used it only as an example of how tricky this 'fairness' things is." As to addressing what you said, it was necessary to know your definition of fair in order to respond. The question was a good way at examining the borders of the concept.
quote:No, I don't think that a law saying you can only marry someone of your same race would be fair.
Then please explain the difference between this statement:
quote:That is NOT what is happening today. In fact, it is almost the opposite, today we have the law that says "Anyone (over 18 or whatever) can marry one member of the opposite sex, who they are not related to."
If you do this you get benefits from the gov't. If you do not do this you do not get benefits from the gov't.
"Anyone (over 18 or whatever) can marry one member of the same race and opposite sex, who they are not related to. If you do this you get benefits from the gov't. If you do not do this you do not get benefits from the gov't."
quote:SSM activists say "We don't like your law. Change it yourself or we'll get an activist judge to change it for you." This is disrespectful and arrogant. The SSM activists are not allowing their opponents to receive the full benefit of their citizenship, the right to have our vote counted and respected. Instead they want to go around majority rule with their activist judges. And they complain about us being close-minded zealots...
This is largely irrelevant. Many same sex civil marriage advocates do not want it implemented via judicial mandate. And many opponents are not concerned with whether it's done by judicial mandate; witness the amendments that not only prevented the judiciary from acting on this issue, but the legislature. Further, this argument says nothing about the merits of whether the benefits of civil marriage should be extended to same sex couples or not. So while I happen to agree with the statement, "Judges should not mandate extending the benefits of civil marriage to same sex couples under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment," I also agree with the statement, "legislatures ought to extend the benefits of civil marriage to same sex couples as an endorsement of the principles informing the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
As for your post, I am glad to hear you say that "Judges should not mandate extending the benefits of civil marriage to same sex couples under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment", as for the second part - I guess I'm just still not convinced, even after 16 pages of posts. Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone (over 18 or whatever) can marry one member of the same race and opposite sex, who they are not related to. If you do this you get benefits from the gov't. If you do not do this you do not get benefits from the gov't.
And this is not:
quote:Anyone (over 18 or whatever) can marry one member of the opposite sex, who they are not related to. If you do this you get benefits from the gov't. If you do not do this you do not get benefits from the gov't.
I don't think "unfairness" is dispositive. But I can't come up with a definition of unfairness that includes the former and not the latter.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I understand your point, and I admire your tact in bringing it up again after I failed to realize its implications previously.
I guess the only thing I would revise about my former posts is that marriage laws as they are currently, are not (IMHO) unfair .
Considering that it is obvious to nearly everyone in America, if not the world, that limiting (by law) the pool of eligible partners for marriage by your race is unfair. I am willing to accept that, but the fact that there are people who disagree puts the definition of fair into question (your post again!).
I think recognizing unfairness is much easier than detecting a truly universally fair system. Actually, I don't think it is really possible to have a perfectly "fair" system. No one will be 100% happy with any law or system of government.
So* now that I've revamped my position, let me say this - the method of government that is the least unfair is a democratic republic, like ours. Since the majority of the country is still in favor of keeping the status quo in marriage, and in fact, making sure through an amendment that it doesn't change, I guess the argument now comes down to what people think is best for the country.
Is that the conclusion that you have reached? If so, most of the talk from others must have seemed like a waste to you, since they were arguing about the unfairness of the law instead of why their position is best for the country (not only measurable statistics, but also considering the moral steps that changing or keeping the law would represent).
Sorry, this has gone on too long, but just know I turned a corner in understanding this, even if I did it slowly, so... thanks.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think certain types of unfairness in law are tolerable under certain circumstances.
I don't think the harm (if any) caused by recognizing civil marriage of same sex couples is sufficient to justify the unfairness.
Dagonee Regarding the morality issue: Civil marriage is no longer a driving force for morality in this country. It has devolved into a collection of rules of property ownership and a means of creating a host of legal relationships (medical guardian) by default. Elaborate rules of guardianship of children exist outside civil marriage.
posted
There are no measurable statistics that are trustworthy about why SSM would be good for the nation, or why it would not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RoyHobbs: Dag, I understand your point, and I admire your tact in bringing it up again after I failed to realize its implications previously.
I guess the only thing I would revise about my former posts is that marriage laws as they are currently, are not (IMHO) unfair .
Considering that it is obvious to nearly everyone in America, if not the world, that limiting (by law) the pool of eligible partners for marriage by your race is unfair. I am willing to accept that, but the fact that there are people who disagree puts the definition of fair into question (your post again!).
<whistles softly> Wow...
You accept that banning interracial marriage is unfair only because lots of people say so?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are no measurable statistics that are trustworthy about why SSM would be good for the nation, or why it would not.
What are you using for the basis of this statement? I don't believe that this is an accurate description nor do I believe that you've demonstrated that you have familiarity with this issue at anywhere near the level where making such a statement would be at all responsible.
"It is unprecedented around the country to have a state's highest court recognize that in the absence of an adoption and even in the absence in some instances of a domestic partnership agreement that two men or two women could be the full legal parents of a child born through assisted reproduction," said Joan Hollinger, who teaches adoption law at the University of California, Berkeley.
To me, that's just weird. Why not just adopt? If I had a baby and a woman was my partner and she wanted to be Mom as well, I would think she would just adopt my baby...Legally I think this will be a mess.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: I hope posting a link to a news article is ok, if not please remove and it won't happen again. I just read this today. I thought I was confused enough about all the definitions and issues--but take a look how confused judges and lawyers are with all the definitions. It makes me wonder how many parents children are legally going to be able to have. Somehow both of them are now legally considered to be the children's mothers. This will be interesting to watch unfold legally. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0508230041aug23,1,3231899.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
My partner and I are both legally our daughter's parents. One of us was the birth mother, and the other did a step-parent adoption in California.
All this ruling says is that if our daughter had been born in California, the adoption wouldn't have been necessary, and we'd both have gone on the birth certificate to begin with.
Suppose there's an opposite-sex couple. The father dies, and the mother remarries, and the step-father adopts the children. If the mother and step-father (now legal father) separate or divorce, should he lose parental rights?
This wasn't a case about two women both being the legal parents of a single child. That's already the law in California.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: From the link above:
"It is unprecedented around the country to have a state's highest court recognize that in the absence of an adoption and even in the absence in some instances of a domestic partnership agreement that two men or two women could be the full legal parents of a child born through assisted reproduction," said Joan Hollinger, who teaches adoption law at the University of California, Berkeley.
To me, that's just weird. Why not just adopt? If I had a baby and a woman was my partner and she wanted to be Mom as well, I would think she would just adopt my baby...Legally I think this will be a mess.
Treason, we had to adopt. We were actually lucky, in that they'd just passed a law making it possible for us to do a step-parent adoption, rather than a second-parent adoption. Both are incredibly invasive. You have to have a social worker come and observe you. Both are expensive, although the step-parent adoption is a lot less expensive.
Let's see... you get to go and have your fingerprints run through a federal database. That's always fun. You get to take time off from work to go to court and have someone who doesn't even know you rule on whether or not your child is really your child.
When I say we were lucky, I mean that we were lucky we didn't have to go through the time and expense and invasiveness of a second-parent adoption. But ultimately, we were already both her parents. All this did was give us a piece of paper saying that the state agrees.
It would have been a great deal more civilized had we been able to get that paper without all of the nonsense.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa- I guess I understand your point of view. (I am adopted, so it seems natural to me in a way it probably does not to everyone) It seems the "original" parents (for lack of a better term) should be considered first. SS or not. But thinking about it, I suppose when you adopt, they recreate the birth certificate anyway to put the adopted parents on there. So my point is moo. (It's like a cow's opinion, it's moo)
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: I didn't see it as an attack, either.
As a matter of fact, your question was actually a very perceptive explication of the fact that I have only issued statements on my policy concerning a radical redefinition of marriage without regard for its possible consequences on society, and on my belief that the Mormon Church has a regular procedure for determining what is and is not a sin, and it is not a matter to by whimsically changed in order to comply with the fads of modern society outside the church.
I have also assessed the extremely poor quality of the "science" that claims to have "proven" the genetic inevitability of homosexuality without any serious attempt at gathering evidence or trying to falsify the hypothesis. The outcome of widespread genuine scientific inquiry would be interesting. No one has even tried to do it - the few pathetic attempts are not science, since they're trying to prove, rather than disprove, something, and almost all rely on anecdotal or self-reported evidence.
When real evidence comes up, I will be fascinated to see it. Until then, my speculation can beat your speculation ...
But you see, we live in a time when if you question in any way the dogma of the PC Left, they immediately brand you with all the worst names they have, because the last thing they can tolerate is diversity of thought, since it always leads to uncomfortable questions, and we wouldn't want anybody on the Left to be uncomfortable.
So you will hear from others that I'm a raging homophobe who hates gays and indulges in gay-bashing. But if you examine what I actually say, and how I treat homosexual characters in my fiction, you will discover that (a) I didn't say any such thing in my essays and (b) I don't show any such attitude in my fiction. None of my homosexual characters represent a "position" on homosexuality. They represent themselves, human beings with a wide array of motives and choices, and I present them, as I try to present all my characters, as if they were the heroes of their own story.
The funny thing is that I've been criticized very hotly by conservative Christians (including Mormons) because I'm so PRO-homosexual.
Then again, you should see the hilarious hate mail I just got from an unbelievably self-righteous Mormon who seriously thought I should be excommunicated because I had expressed such warm feelings about John Paul II in my recent essay. It's just mind-numbingly bigoted and smug.
So you see, in the world I live in, I'm such a namby-pamby moderate.
I just could not choose which bit to quote, here. Ok, I'm a newbie, so those of you who love flaming incompetence, please have a go
Mr Card (Orson feels too informal),
I'm new to your books. And it is the quiet homoeroticism in Songmaster that puzzles me.
There is a spoiler below, but I'm guessing that, if people have read this far, then they kind of have the gist
Josif is said to be portrayed positively. Yet he is reviled by everyone except those who love him. And those who love him are somehow the less because they love him. And the poor lad suffers hugely for being seduced by Ansset, and is destroyed.
And some of Ansset is also destroyed because he seduced Josif (though I grant that any orgasm with any perosn at that point would have been quite horrible for the poor child)
Setting this against your statements above, I find that you may portray at time a homoseual character in a positive light at times, but that, from this sample of one book only, it portrays an act of love between two consenting males as having unduly severe consequences.
I was hoping you might comment with that view in mind?
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First post is a response to a thread that's been down almost a year. That's getting right to the point.
I won't answer for OSC, but it looks like his quote that his characters, "represent themselves, human beings with a wide array of motives and choices, and I present them, as I try to present all my characters, as if they were the heroes of their own story." relates directly to your question.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First with great apologies, I did not read the entire thread, though what I did read, I found interesting. One problem I have with the Gay discussion (in society in general) is the general irrational hypocrisy. The discussion switches between the moral and the practical as it suits the needs of the speaker. I'm sure my position will show little difference but I do try to take a very practical approach to the matter.
First, from a purely legal perspective, there is no reason for same sex couples not to have equal rights. Here is where people try to interject religious and moral beliefs that have no place in law.
Don't get me wrong general morality does have a place in general law. But not everything that is illegal has to be immoral, and not everything that is immoral has to be illegal. Beyond the general; morality and legality are separate issues.
The marital couplings of gay people with respect to civil rights is purely a legal issue. They are being denied rights in the same circumstance in which others are being granded special rights.
So here we have the double standard in agruing this issue. There are those who will use morality to agrue law, and those that will use law to argue morality. Neither is effective or productive.
Again, remember that I'm not totally divorcing law and morality. There is a general and universal morality that is constant in all societies and in all religions upon which are legal system is based. But beyond the general and universal, law is law and religion is religion.
So, in my view, from a practical, legal, and civil rights perspective, I can't see, and have never heard, any reasonable argument against extending uniform civil rights. Isn't that at the heart of civil rights, that they are uniform?
So much for the legal aspect, now to the moral aspect.
First, the one critically important factor that most who argue against homosexuality are denying, and I use 'denial' in the most therapeutic sense of the word.
We, or at least society, generally agrees that homosexual sex is immoral; it is a sin. The issue that society very blindly ignores is that hetrosexual sex is also immoral. Depending on the specifics of your religion, only hetrosexual sex inside of marriage and for the purpose of pro-creation is allowed. To some extent, sex is a sacrament of marriage, not a fun little toy that makes your willie go squirt.
Now for a reality check. Whether you admit it or not, a substantial majority of your sons and daughters are out there drinking beer, smoking pot, and having sex. If you condemn gay sex, then you must equally condemn your own sons and daughters for their sins.
The problem is that while many religiously inclined will say they condemn pre-marital sex, it is done with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink. They know that they have to openly condemn it because the people listening will not tolerate any other position, but I suspect that even those listening accept the harsh reality that people do have pre-marital sex. If fact, it is likely the most who condemn it, did it themselves. Just watch TV, and you see it on nearly every program. It is accepted as a societal norm, even while it is quietly condemned with words, but oh so rarely with actions.
So, figuratively, why is your sin so much less a sin than mine? Why is it 'nudge-nudge-wink-wink' when it comes to your sins, but hellfire and brimstone when in comes to mine (figuratively)? Why do your sons and daughter openly condemn the sins of others while they themselves commit the same (or similar) sins?
If you condemn homosexual sex, then I feel you are a hypocrit if you do not with equal vigor and effort, actively and publicly condemn hetrosexual sex. Sin is sin, your sins are no better than mine.
Further, if we step for a moment beyond the physical; is love ever a sin?
One final point, we do not condemn hetrosexual sinners as universally and completely immoral. We see that they can sin in one area, but still go on to live good, productive and generally moral lives. The point they tend to forget, is the that same it true of gay people. You may feel they sin in one area of their lives, but that does not make the universally immoral. More importantly, it is very wrong, perhaps even immoral of you, to condemn gay people totally and universally, for one particular aspect of their moral lives. If that were true and valid, most philandering televangelist would have been off the air ages ago, and you and your own sons and daughters would be on the road to hell by now.
Final final note, it is not up to us to condemn or forgive, that is the providence of God. It is up to us to embrace and support our fellow Christian (or fellow members of other religions), gay, straight, or otherwise, and help them on the impossible road to enlightenment.
Just one man's perspective, which admitedly is a very unscientific, though hopefully practical, perspective.
posted
Holy crap, I thought this thread was gone forever ... Can't we even have a full year without freaking out about this?
(Not a comment directly on BlueWizard's post. He seems to be on the more reasonable end of the scale. I'm just still sick of the subject.)
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very well put BlueWizard. I doubt I could have said it better.
However, I believe one could argue that those who are against gay marriage are equally against drugs, premarital sex, divorce, adultery, etc. But you gotta pick your battles. Just as there are those who protest gay marriage, there are also those who dedicate their lives to, let's say, improving gun control. If you want to get something done you have to dedicate time to it, which means less to for other causes that you may feel equally strongly about.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rollainm: "However, I believe one could argue that those who are against gay marriage are equally against drugs, premarital sex, divorce, adultery, etc. But you gotta pick your battles."
I do see your point, but I also see people picking their battles to condemn other people while conveniently ignoring their own sins and the sins of those close to them. While it doesn't apply to all people, I generally find amoung the most vocal an 'our sin vs their sin' attitude, and for some reason the sins of others are always much worse than their own sins.
Part of my basis for taking this particular stand is the unbearable guilt that is heaped on impressionable young gay people by the hellfire and brimstone crowd. To those young people who are experiencing near suicidal levels of guilt and shame, I would say that your particular sin is no worse than the sins of those amoung your peers or amoung the adults that are condemning you. You, young gay people, don't need to feel any more guilt or shame than the rest of the hetrosexuals in your peer group. When those people become absolutely perfect saints, then you can feel guilty, until then we are all sinners together.
posted
I just want to clarify. Are you saying that being gay, or having gay sex, is a sin, but its ok with you because you and everyone else sin too? If so, I think that this attitude would contribute more to any misplaced guilt or shame, and inderectly support the anti-gay marriage agenda.
I don't think any person should be taught to believe that their innocent and harmless thoughts, desires and emotions are sins or that they will lead to sins.
If thats not what you were saying then, never mind.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oouuu, Vonk, you've worded your question in a very trick way that makes it difficult to answer. I guess what I am saying is that we need to make sure actions are put into perspective.
I guess relative to gay people who are experiencing deep near suicidal shame and guilt, I would simply add the perspective that their thoughts, desires, and actions are no better or worse that those of their peers. Why should straight kids engage in sin, and do so somewhat guilt free, while those same kids heap unbearable guilt and shame on gay people.
It is up to the individual as they travel their own spiritual path to determine the true nature of sin and the guilt that accompanies it. What I object to is sinners heaping guilt on other people while very conviniently ignoring their own guilt and shame.
The amount of guilt and shame that is force on young impressionable gay people is completely out of proportion to the guilt and shame that is heap on other people for similar crimes. Again, it is a plea for a proper and reasonable perspective. OK, maybe the Bible says gay people will burn in hell, but I suspect it also says promiscuous people will burn in hell. So, why are gay people any more guilty than the promiscuous people? I say they are not. And in telling that to gay people, I would simply be trying, not to erase their guilt, but to put in their guilt into the proper perspective relative to the other sin that is occurring all around them.
So, my question is where are the vocal rallies and protest against straight sex; those protests should be going on daily at high school and colleges across the country. Where are the fanatic protests outside divorce court, why isn't the most dishonorable Reverend Phelps protesting and carrying hate signs outside the funerals of straight teens condemning them for Phelps's assumption that they must have sinned sexually.
My protest is directed at the completely disproportionate enthusiasm with which gay people are condemned, yet straight sinners are conviniently ignored.
Specific to the topic of gay people, being gay is not a sin, commiting gay acts is, although that is the religious view, and not necessarly my own. Personally, I don't think pre-marital sex is universally a sin (gay or straight), but at the same time, I do not think it is universally sin free. The sin is in the context. There can be loving emotionally fulfilling one night stands, just as there can be lifelong marriages that are an abomination.
So, my plea is for a reasonable and fair perspective.
Remember the Old Testament says that adulterers should be put to death. That's pretty serious. That should certainly warrant a protest or two outside of divorce court, so why aren't there any? Why are philandering televangelist forgiven instead of put to death? The Bible clearly says they should be unforgiven and stoned, so why don't we? See, it's a matter of perspective. It's a matter of our sins vs their sins. Our sins can be forgive, but the sins of others must be fanaticaly condemned with what I consider a sinful level of vitriol.
I can't give much weight to the protests of the religious right until I see equally vigorous protest in all aspect of sin, and an universal and true saintliness in their own lives. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, they are just spewing a load of self-serving hatefilled crap.
So, can the answer to your question be found in anything I said here?
posted
Had I made BlueWizard's second to last post my response to vonk would have been a bit more blunt.
I'm not religious. I guess I'm somewhere between atheism and logical positivism, so the term "sin" doesn't really mean much to me. Homosexuality is not a sin. Murderers, rapists, and burglars are not sinners. Rather, it is morally and socially wrong to murder, rape, steal, vandalize, etc. I find nothing morally or socially wrong with homosexuality. Like BlueWizard said, it's a matter of perspective.
It IS morally wrong (hypocritical) for someone who believes homosexuality, premarital sex, adultery, and divorce are sins to condemn homosexuals while taking part themselves in premarital sex, or adultery, or divorce, or any other act they themselves consider sinful. And then there's that whole "Judge not..." bit, but that's another discussion. BlueWizard is generalizing a specific group of people here (homophobic, hypocritical, politically-driven bigots), not all people against homosexuality.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: .... Murderers, rapists, and burglars are not sinners. Rather, it is morally and socially wrong to murder, rape, steal, vandalize, etc.
Why are these not sinners in your view? I am making the assumption that "morally and socially wrong" is not as great a magnitude of "offence" as "sinning". If that assumption is incorrect I can accept your view after explanation.
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by rollainm: I'm not religious. I guess I'm somewhere between atheism and logical positivism, so the term "sin" doesn't really mean much to me.
Read his post. If "sin" basically means a crime against the divine, how can you believe in sin if you don't believe in the divine?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by rollainm: I'm not religious. I guess I'm somewhere between atheism and logical positivism, so the term "sin" doesn't really mean much to me.
Read his post. If "sin" basically means a crime against the divine, how can you believe in sin if you don't believe in the divine?
You can't.
But I would define sin more along the lines of "Doing something you know should not be done."
Whether that actual act is wrong to me is less important than the logical processes that preceded it.
Atheists go to sleep every night without praying, I do not feel that is a sin, why should they be required to do something they know not to do. Christians gets in a heated arguement with an atheist that ends with the them both cussing the other out and storming off. The Christian, and quite possibly the Atheist are both sinning because both know how to hold a civil discussion without insulting the other.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who in their right mind could think homosexuality is genetic? Think about certain things male and female bodies wouldn't produce if they're "born that way". Why won't advocates of this belief acknowledge the physical aspects of homosexuals that no argument, mental or envromental, can outweigh?
Sorry, just something I read in the first post that annoyed me.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cheiros, humans still have tails. We still have an appendix, which has no discernable purpose. Not everything about the human body makes sense. Your argument does not stand.
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly. Are these "certain things" you refer to eggs and sperm? What about this physical aspect closes the case in your opinion?
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
cheiros do ender Who in their right mind could think homosexuality is genetic?
Who in their right mind could deny that there is a genetic component to homosexuality? Just as there is a genetic compenent to almost every aspect of life and perference. Why do some people like pork chops and others like lamb chops? Why do some people like strawberry ice cream and others like chocolate? Why do some guys like blonds, while others like redheads, and still others like guys? You can say that they are just making a choice, but if you go down one more level, something is making them make that choice. Something is making strawberry ice cream more desireable than chocolate.
Something is driving that choice, and it is the natural genetic diversity that one would logically expect to find in a long surviving species.
I see gay people the same way, how could they not exist? With over 6.6 billion people on earth, how could some of them not like strawberry ice cream, and how could genetic diversity and random genetic mutation not produce some people who were attracted to the same sex, just as some people are attracted to blonds and others are not? While you may think the existence of gay people is illogical, it seems to me to be a perfectly logical statistical likelihood. It seems to be just one of the many many diverse likelihoods of over 6.6 billion genetic pairings.
Think about certain things male and female bodies wouldn't produce if they're "born that way". Why won't advocates of this belief acknowledge the physical aspects of homosexuals that no argument, mental or envromental, can outweigh?
I actually have no idea what you are talking about. What 'physical aspect' could you possibly be referring to? If you are talking about the mechanics of the reproductive organs, I still don't see the point. The mechanical functioning of the reproductive organs of gay people work just fine even if they don't lead to reproduction.
Remember something deeper than thought drives the desire to couple (mate, reproduce, whatever). The desire for sex, affection, companionship, and the ability to love while related to reproduction, are actually incidental to reproduction.
Everyone desires these things whether they intend to reproduce or not. It is the acting out of these instinctive biological imperatives that lead to reproduction, but again reproduction is incidental, the biological imperitives are the way that nature forces reproduction, but does it through uncontrollable desires and urges. Gay people through random genetic deviation, simply channel those desires and urges in a differnt direction.
To think that homosexuality is pure choice, is hopelessly misguided, and probably driven by a social agenda.
quote:I would define sin more along the lines of "Doing something you know should not be done."
It can be defined that way. Just expect to confuse people and miscommunicate when you do, except, I'd imagine, under very specific circumstances.
From dictionary.com:
quote: 1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate. 2. Theology. a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience. 3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
I'll grant you, your definition is valid under number three. I think, however, that most people, most of the time, will use it to mean deviance from the will of God, or something similar. Either way, it's clear that rollainm was using definition number one.
cheiros do ender, It sounds like you aren't qualified to answer your own question.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My response to the claim that genetics cannot influence sexuality is the question- do flies have free will? Because you mutate a specific gene in flies, and the boy flies spend all their time trying to mate with the other boy flies. And every time you mutate this one gene, the flies behave the same way. No genetic component there at all. So, it's only flies, but for some reason, scientists aren't allowed to mutate people like we can flies. ;-) However, gay flies seem to only exist in the lab. This is do to the fact that they do not mate so an evolutionary deadend. This may be cheiros was claiming. However, in humans, looking at self-reported homosexual males, their sisters have higher fecundity than the average population. So, the genes are being passed on through the sisters. Common enough in genetics.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched a documentary about a year ago that asked whether there was homosexuality in the animal kingdom and if so was it conditioned (by whatever forces)or genetic.
There were many cases of gay animals (or animals that preferred same-sex companionship and/or sex) from far to jungle to to zoos. Some of the animals refused to mate with the opposite sex even if it the opp sex was abundantly available.
The sickening but laughable part was when the documentarian asked a woman who somehow headed wildlife television programming why all of the gay animal sex always ended up on the cutting room floor and was never mentioned on any programs. She said, in a stuffy, scolding english accent, that they would not want to teach such immoral behavior to the masses who watched.
Yes, let's all live in an imaginary world that only depicts what we want! Posts: 17 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: I see gay people the same way, how could they not exist? With over 6.6 billion people on earth, how could some of them not like strawberry ice cream, and how could genetic diversity and random genetic mutation not produce some people who were attracted to the same sex, just as some people are attracted to blonds and others are not?
And similarly, how could there not be some people who are attracted to prepubescent children? Yet the existence of such attraction is not relevant to evaluating the morality of pedophile behavior, IMO.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, but it pisses me off when people compare homosexuality to pedophelia. Can a child give legal consent? No. Can another adult? Yes. Whether they are opposite sex or not.
Between consenting adults, there should be no objective morality laws. Some people would outlaw bdsm, or threesomes, or any number of non-missionary position, non-strictly-for-fertilization sexual practices. IMHO, you can't have it both ways. If you feel that gay sex is morally wrong, where does the line go? The slippery slope argument flows more than one way.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just poking my head it out of morbid curiosity as to how this thread is still going.
P.S. Was it already mentioned how Brokeback Mountain did not refute OSC's view on homosexuality? I still side with St. Paul that everyone is latently gay, but maybe it's just the case that everyone experiences sexually related abuse or trauma.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, pooka, it kind of is. I mean, I can choose to sleep with a guy. But what I can't choose is for it to feel anything but wrong. As wrong as it would feel to a heterosexual person to sleep with a member of the same sex.
Sure, it's a matter of choice, on that level. But that's a semantic argument.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I commented on the genetics is because it was earlier stated "Who in their right mind could think homosexuality is genetic?" Whether or not it is genetic does not determine the morality of it. Ultimately who you choose to have sex with is a choice, even if who you enjoy having sex with is not. I find the pedophilia comment a bit offensive. Pedophilia might be genetic. But it is not the same as homosexuality. Homosexual acts do not have a victim any more so than heterosexual acts imply a victim.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irregardless, And similarly, how could there not be some people who are attracted to prepubescent children? Yet the existence of such attraction is not relevant to evaluating the morality of pedophile behavior, IMO.
While others object to you bring 'pedophilia' into the mix, you are none the less right, everything on some level is related to the complex and diverse combining of genes. Pedophila likely is genetic deviation, but if you read this thread -
on pages 3 and more so, 4 and 5 we discuss the nature of sin and morality. In the simplest words sin=harm. Something is a sin because it causes some spiritual, emotional, psychological, physical, or practical HARM.
That harm is not necessarily true of homosexuals, and is usually true of pedophiles. More accurately, I should refer to behavior rather than tendency or propensity.
To expand, homosexuality, propensity to thief or murder, propensity to benevolents and charity, propensity to like strawberry over chocolate, and pedophilia all have a genetic component. They are all the acting out of innate genetic desires.
However, to any sane person, we must temper genetic urges with civil restaint. Straight guys of any age find teen girls attractive; they are beautiful, how could they not. Further they may even find them sexually desirable on a fantasy level, but they do not act on those urges. Further they have alternative, legitimate, and legal method of satisfying their desires.
A person with pedophilic tendencies and normal psychological control can and do moderate their urges and channel them in non-harmful directions. Just as some people with murderous desire, do not act on murderous urges or find legal ways to act out those desires.
The current controversy of homosexuality is based in the real and civil context of harm. Who do two consenting people cause harm if they choose to express themselves in this way? Not one that I can see.
Now some may argue that sex between a consenting adult and a consenting, eager, and willing child causes no harm, and in an extremely small number of cases that might be true, but we can not allow the harm to many many kids simply because a few might not be harmed. The potential for harm is substantial and so likely that it can not be ignore, so we make this practive illegal.
Note that in some societies today, the age of absolute consent is as young as 12. However, any where in the modern world, it's reasonably assumed that young people are having sex with young people. In slightly more enlightened areas, that young age of consent is tempered by laws that modify it to control the age gap or age diffential between the partners. In otherwords, to insure that it really is young people having sex with young people.
So, back to the central point, yes, pedophilia is genetic just like homosexuality, and just like preferring strawberry over chocolate. The central issue strictly from a civil and legal perspective is whether gay sex causes harm that is significant, substantial, and likely to the extent that society can justify outlawing it.
So, far all bans on homosexuality have been based in fearful prejudice and/or religious objections. You are certainly free to object on religious grounds as long as you keep in mind that religion doesn't dictate civil or criminal law.
Remember that not everything that is immoral has to be illegal, and not everything that is illegal has to be immoral. Morality is the personal choice of the individual and his conscience guided by his/her religious faith. Legality is the consensus of society with the intent of protecting that society from genuine measurable HARM.
posted
I think there are genetic elements to pretty much everything, but that it is often not the whole story.
But I also beleive that there can be instances where events shape the choice (and I use that word rather loosely) of one's actions.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is not beyond the realm of what the genetic determinists claiming that driving an SUV is a genetically influenced choice. These people don't think they are harming anyone as long as they can afford to pay for their gas. And, in the interest of drawing in the OSC aspect, I was rather surprised to hear he commutes to another state in a pickup. But I don't know what the reasons were for that. Anyway, OSC's view on gays which I do agree with is that it is not a private matter between consenting adults, but has a definite influence on the moral "economy" of society.
Well, I am going to try harder not to edit my posts. I've gotten lax.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka Anyway, OSC's view on gays which I do agree with is that it is not a private matter between consenting adults, but has a definite influence on the moral "economy" of society.
From a purely religiously driven moral perspective, I agree with you. But, religious morality does not necessarily drive civil and criminal law. The question presented to society today is not what is moral or immoral, but what can justifiably be made legal or illegal based on true, direct, and measurable harm to society.
If we want to deal with the moral 'economy' of society, doesn't rampant promiscuity and pre-marital sex also undermine the moral economy? So, should pre-marital hetrosexual sex be made illegal? And, if it was, would anybody actually be willing to enforce it?
Don't corporate money-grubbing and greed undermine the moral economy as well? So, while greed is clearly immoral, should it actually be made a crime in and of itself?
So, on purely moral grounds, I might agree with you, but I can't agree on the grounds of civil and criminal law.
Princess Leah I think there are genetic elements to pretty much everything, but that it is often not the whole story.
But I also beleive that there can be instances where events shape the choice (and I use that word rather loosely) of one's actions.
Again, I agree. Truly harmful urges can be moderated. Anyone with sound psychology can control their harmful urges and/or channel them into legal activities.
Further, events in our lives certainly affect who we grow to be, and how we grow to act. That can both influence the decisions we make, and influence our ability to make those decisions. But explanation doesn't mitigate actions. Just because I can explain why you murdered someone, doesn't excuse the fact that your did. True harm and true danger need to be controlled, if the individual can't do it then society must.
But who does homosexuality really harm? I don't see it as harming anyone any more than pre-marital hetrosexual sex does. Not implying that harm can't happen in either case, just implying that the occurance of harm is not significant or frequent enough to make the activity illegal.
posted
How does it effect the "moral economy" of a society? Even having rules that are too strict can have that effect. You get a bunch of people who will rebel from the so-called standards of society which wouldn't happen if they had reasonable freedoms. Middle groud and really understanding things is what is needed. Like the way irresponsible sex can cause a lot of harm in the form of diseases and children peopel cannot or do not want to take care of, but responsible sex between 2 people who have thought things out? How is that anyone's business?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Who in their right mind could think homosexuality is genetic? Think about certain things male and female bodies wouldn't produce if they're "born that way". Why won't advocates of this belief acknowledge the physical aspects of homosexuals that no argument, mental or envromental, can outweigh?
Sorry, just something I read in the first post that annoyed me.
(Newbie, here. Just thought I'd jump into the deep end of the pool at the beginning, simply because this topic interests me.)
Who in their right mind could think that homosexuality is not genetic? Or heterosexuality? Or bisexuality? Or asexuality? Each of these forms of sexual attraction have a strong genetic componant.
How many of us ever sat down at puberty, carefully reviewed the various attractions available and made a clear, deliberate choice about which path we would take? I am heterosexual and the first physical sexual stirrings I felt were 'aimed' at another 12-year old named Jeff. I did nothing to 'aim' these feelings. They 'just happened'.
Additionally, there are many species of animals where homosexual behavior, even homosexual behavior to the exclusion of all other behaviors, occurs at about the same percentage as that in humans. That's a pretty hard statistic to ignore.
However, the point really isn't about how someone came to make his/her gender choices. The point is whether or not we humans allow individual religions to dictate the legality or illegality of consensual adult behavior. There are thousands of religions and denominations within major religious groupings and they all have different 'absolute truths' regarding human sexual behavior. Religions have every right to dictate the behaviors of their members. Religions have absolutely no right to dictate the behaviors of non-members. Secular society has the right to pass legislation permitting/forbidding behaviors that affect that society and religion has no business sticking it's nose into those legislations. Allowing religion to dictate legislation for an entire society is theocracy and is permissable only under a freely-chosen theocratic society. Religion has no standing in a secular government.
Whether or not homosexuality is a 'sin' MUST have no bearing on secular legislation and marriage is secular. Marriage is NOT religious. Anyone can marry without the presence of a religious representative as long as s/he follows secular procedures set up by secular government. No one can marry in a religious ceremony without getting a secular license. Even in churches where it is possible, dogmatically, for a couple to 'marry each other' and where the religious representative merely acts as witness, couples who do so will be considered to hold a 'common-law' relationship to each other without secular licensing and their children will be, legally, illegitimate.
Marriage laws exist to protect the legal/financial rights of spouses and children. The only legal way that secular government can forbid homosexual marriage is by providing clear, neutral evidence that such unions harm the secular society and trample on the legal/financial rights of spouses and children. So far, no one has provided such evidence and, lacking such evidence, I would never vote against homosexual marriage.
And the religions most against homosexual marriage, especially fundamentalist Christianity, need to start looking for that beam because the GT is entirely clear that anyone who remarries after divorce (excepting sexual 'cheating') is committing adultery...one of the Big Ten No-Nos. In order for Christians to call for secular law forbidding homosexual marriage they must also require that every divorced person be legally forbidden to remarry and that those currently remarried leave their present spouses and either return to their former spouses or remain alone and celibate for the rest of their lives.
Anything else is gross hypocrisy.
Posts: 1 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
