Gay Marriage

This is a common stereotype. If it were primarily sex driven (assuming that means - promiscuous), there would be no one asking for same-sex marriage.

Lesbians are homosexuals. I don't understand the distinction that you are making. I do not know ANY "sociological lesbians." I only know homosexual lesbians...

 

This has nothing to do with me, and whether or not I find homosexuality disturbing. Homosexuality, in and of itself, is not a clinical condition, by any definition, and therefore, homosexuality, itself, cannot be treated clinically.

Are there individuals who perform such treatments? YES!
Are there individuals who will seek out such treatments for themselves or others? YES!
Does the fact that a treatment exist indicate that such treatment is efficacious, or warranted? NO!

Many people with cancer forsake the advice of oncologists, and are treated by 'herbalist.' This does not mean that any scientific evidence suggest that the herbs are effective.

It is a common argument that ADHD is not a real condition, but it is treated. The fact that something is treated is not sufficient (on its own) to consider something a clinical condition. In this example, the fact remains that stimulant medications WILL improve the concentration of any patient, with or without a condition.

Should homosexuals who desire "treatment" for their homosexuality be entitled to seek out such treatment? ABSOLUTELY! Just as the chemotherapy patient above can seek out an herbalist...

 

Honestly I dont want to make this a game of semantics and naming conventions.. but 'Homosexual' is a word made up by Doctors to describe (what they believed) was a Psychiatric 'Condition'.
In that case it was attributed to men.

('Homo = Man')

Yes, I think its a poorly chosen word. Yes it was originally to describe Men sexually attracted to men.

I have no idea what these people would have come up with to describe female-female sex - Feminosexuality?

So usually when you say 'Homosexuality' you are refering to Men.
Lesbianism (refering to the legendary all-female society on the greek island of Lesbos).

I am surprised you are 'confused' why someone is refering to Homosexuality as to Men and something else for women.

 

HA ha selfcontrol is a nonhetero loser

 

You know thats what I love about internet people, all I have to do is offer an opinion and you have people hunting to find truths, and wishing they could hit you, truly you all are much more humorous than me.

 

Anyone who dares to post a 'non established thinkspeak' opinion in these forums is usually in for a full-scale vindictive attack on their 'Karma' button and comment board.

I repeatedly get comments saying things like "FUCK YOU you fucking asshole"
or
"I WISH I could STOP YOUR THINKING from being posted!"

That kind of stuff.
Either you affirm that homosexuals are born 'as' a perfectly normal type of human and are to be celebrated - or prepare to be destroyed you mutherfucker

 

dude your hardcore stressin and need to chill out, I can post opinions IF I WANT and I could truly care less about you. Destroy me biatch!

 

Molly - I was giving you an example - not an actual threat.

Calm dooon Lass

 

The dictionary definition of homosexual says that it refers to both males and females. I've never heard anyone suggest that there was a major moral/sociological difference between lesbians and gay men (beyond that lesbians are hotter), so I'm interested in what you think that difference is. Obviously there are differences, but I wouldn't say that they are relevant to the gay marriage issue.

 

I personally find that attitude rather frustrating. I think it's because most people take less pleasure in debate than I do, but there's a tendency for people on both sides to wuss out, start saying how "everyone's entitled to their opinions" (which is irrelevant, and is usually only used to mean "I'm entitled to my opinion") and then sling insults around.

It's really not helpful to debate, but don't worry, it just happen to people on your side. (Someone keeps trying to neg-rep me, but they're crap so it comes up with a little grey thing and has no actual effect. This amuses me.) The only way to have a debate of this nature is to rise above personal differences and discuss the issues at hand.

 

And you're a hetero loser. That's got to be harder. You must be very proud.

 

It is such an inference that a three-year-old could make based on the noted and proven difference between males and females.

Are you suggesting that there is nothing innately female about ‘motherism’ and distinctly male about ‘fatherism’?

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by motherism and fatherism. I would imagine, from the name, that they are typically allied to females and males respectively, but that, like most "gender-specific" traits, there are infinite shades of grey between them. It was basically proved that the fem/sub and butch/dom ends of the spectrum are not exclusively occupied by men or women, and that most people do not have extremely masculine or feminine personalities, regardless of gender.

However, this doesn't prove much. What I was suggesting is that there's no more difference between lesbians and gay men than there is between heterosexual men and women; so there is no rational reason to consider homosexuality among men any more immoral than heterosexual male behaviour. Both homo and hetero men are typically motivated by sex and dominance, and both would be as promiscuous in the same societal circumstances.

 

You shouldn’t be entirely sure what motherism and fatherism mean. There are no static definitions of the notions. They simply refer to the idea that there is something in the father that prioritizes quite differently than the mother. They are the definitions that feminist ethicists have attempted to give. It is the subject matter of thinkers like Jaggar, Heinz, and Brabeck.

One thing that is certain, these are not gender-specific traits in the gender-wide sense. These are traits of parents. Traits of mothers, not females. Traits of fathers, not males. Another thing that is certain, basing ideas on models that are bound to reveal that there are women that are more manly than some men really begs the question. Unless the results are reported as they are, the general statement that the ends of the spectrum are not “exclusively occupied” by either gender.

You are absolutely right that there is a whole world of grey out there. Knowing and admitting that fact, how can you be so sure that your black and white is right and mine wrong? Would it not be more reasonable to suspend judgement and legislation until the grey is cleared up? Should we not at least have some legitimate agency on the issue before we force it into societal norm?

As it stands, society is not ready for such a fundamental shift.

That is fine. I do not think homosexual relations are immoral. But it is widely speculated that the most promiscuous relators are homosexuals. It is part of the reason that AIDS is so prevalent in the homosexual community.

Regardless, I was responding to this assumption ...

They are absolutely relevant to the gay marriage issue. Without certain knowledge on the issue, you may be doing more harm to children than you think.

 

You've mentioned the legitimate agency thing before. While I may have misinterpretted the term, it seems to me that there's no legitimate agency to say the heterosexuals are normal, beyond the fact that they occupy the majority.

Regarding the later comments, I know that promiscuity is prevalent amongst homosexual men and women. However, I think a big part of the reason for that is the absence of a marital structure. Like it or not, marriage is a big part of what stops (or at least stopped) fathers from getting bored with their wives and leaving them to look after the kids. I feel that, in the absence of those bonds, many heterosexual males would be as promiscuous as the average homosexual. While I can't prove this, I'm sure it would be borne out by research.

I'm not being glib here, but I really don't see what gay marriage has to do with children. Like it or not, marriage has, over the years, come to mean more to many people than just looking after kids. So I very strongly doubt with everyone who wants to have a gay marriage wants to raise children, and with that in mind, I don't think protecting the children is a legitimate reason for not allowing gay marriage.

 

Ha ha.

I suppose that would depend on what you mean by normal! I would give some credence to the idea that heterosexuality is normal. You have to remember, though, that I never said homosexuality was not normal. If the right to marriage hinged solely on the actors being normal, then I would not be able to argue that the gay community has no agency amoung them. Unfortunately, marriage hinges on much more than normalcy. Have you ever seen the show “trading spouses”?

But supposing, by some alchemy, that there was a need to rationally prove heterosexually was ‘normal’, I think an argument could be made giving agency to that truth-seeking group (I can’t think of what they would be called). That argument would hold Mother Nature’s proof. The only way that Mother Nature has allowed us to procreate is through heterosexual sex. So to say that hetero“sexuality” is normal is rational.

I don’t know if there is a reason that legitimate agency would have to be had for such an argument.

Well said. I can’t say that I disagree. It seems like a safe assumption to say that a big part of the institution of marriage is to ensure the children are taken care of.

What I do disagree with is the ease in which you make that part of the institution (however just or unjust you see it) something that can be tossed away.

On this I have to adamantly disagree, and am willing to defend this point to no end. Marriage has in mind two simple concepts, love and child rearing. If gays are going to be included in the institution they must be allowed to raise children. You can not say that they can get married but not adopt. It does not suffice to say that some gay couples won’t want children. It is inevitable that one gay couple will want children. Likely inevitable that the majority will. If you want to compare homosexual relations to heterosexual relations than you are forced to agree as most heterosexual relators desire children at some point or another.

Marriage has always meant more than just rearing children. The addition of life long partnership, love, and support is not a new thing. I do not agree that marriage has become “more than just looking after kids” simply because marriage has always been more. Regardless, you must agree that “looking after kids” is still a part of marriage. You admitted above that this was a consideration in the institution of the idea.

Thus, a change to the definition of marriage includes a change to the rearing of children. Thus, what is necessary in the rearing of children (with the line drawn at professional, read governmental, raising of children) must be considered.

That point is not refuted by the idea that some gay people won’t want children.

Gay marriage is only termed as such because gays are not included under the definition of marriage. When that is changed, your thinking on “what gay marriage has to do with children?” will read “what marriage has to do with children?”.

Are you willing to ask the reworded question?

 

Yes, totally willing. The reason I dissociate gay marriage from children is because gay people cannot strictly speaking procreate. If gay people want children, they would have to adopt. So denying gay people the right to marry on the grounds that they might be bad parents seems a little over-zealous; if they want to have children, they will be vetted for suitability by adoption agencies in the same way that heterosexual couples are. To be honest, this is probably more likely to result in a child being raised by suitable parents, compared to the process by which parents are normally chosen - by procreation.

With regards to the previous issue - about whether the right to marry hinges solely on being "normal" - I think a great many people who are unfit to marry do so legally. While we may not be happy about that, there's not a great deal we can do to prevent it without eroding people's existing rights. I would be perfectly happy to see all couples tested before they got married to see if they should be allowed to, but that just isn't feasible. So if heterosexual couples are not "cleared" to marry, I don't see a reason for homos to have to go through the same process, which is essentially what the debate on homosexual marriage is: a processing of deciding a huge number of people's suitability to marry.

 

Just to add more on this point: I wasn't actually saying that exactly. I feel that marriage should be a part of raising children, and that it is beneficial to raising them, because it shows a bond between those involved which they have committed to. However, I don't believe that raising children is necessarily an integral part of what marriage is.

I don't feel it requires much of a redefintion of marriage really. Marriage is a cementing of a bond, a statement of commitment. It states that people want to stay together indefinitely. At least, that's what it should mean. If it means this, it not only represents an important part of raising children, but does not exclude those who do not wish to do so.

I know that a big part of the opposition to gay marriage is the feeling that it is attacking the foundations of society. People say that like it's a bad thing.

 

No, Homo as in same!!! As in homogenous, opposite of the root "hetero," which means different.

 

No it won’t. That is, unless you can account for what role ‘motherism’ plays in the process. To assume that some arbitrary process by which adoption agencies select “fit parents” (which traditionally means no criminal record or physical/mental disorders) will account for the unknown variables is absurd and rash. Such arbitrary processes based on past records will do more to ensure that ‘motherism’ and ‘fatherism’ are sent further into abstraction.

Couple that ignorance with the abstraction of either or (depending on which sex is marrying) of those innate and sexually related ‘isms’ through including same sex marriages and you have successfully provided the very reason that any legislation on the issue should be suspended.

I must disagree that a professional process to decide ‘fit’ parents will lead to better child rearing as it is a premise for the idea of state controlled rearing programs. I can only imagine a few things more tyrannous than that very idea.

You can’t logically make that argument. Your conclusion that gay marriages should be accepted doesn’t logically follow from the premise that marriage is already screwed up.

That is a fallacy in logic.

If marriage is screwed up already, than you should be doing everything in your power to stop further damage, and restructure the system in order that it may function better.

On a grander scale, you argue that the process of elimination in the adoption process will be better for children. Based on this, you must agree that an arbitrary process for marriage will yield positive results. Yet on the marriage issue, you argue that an amendment that might possibly (there is good evidence to support) further degrade the institution itself should be passed.

That is a fallacy in logic.

No. This is not what the issue is. The issue is whether homosexuals have legitimate agency upon which a right can be granted. Not a single person here has provided a reason why legitimate agency should be disregarded in this case. Not a single person here has provided a comparison or contrasted this agency-lacking issue with any other agency- lacking issue (for example, the polyamorous societies of America). Not a single person here has attempted to prove that rational agency is legitimate in the gay community. That is the central issue at hand. You can debate all you want about whether or not homosexual actions are normal or the same as heterosexual acts. You can debate all you want about what the institution of marriage was intended to protect or ensure. And I will discuss with you anything that you bring to the table. I have no problem with that. I enjoy the this type of discussion more than the inane drivel posted in most other forums.

But do not forget what this issue is about once all the pussyfooting around is done and the dust from those silly arguments has settled, as you will have not shown that there is legitimate agency upon which another abstract community is begging for the right to marry.

Fine. But this argument can only be applied to married couples that don’t have children, and don’t intend to have children. Fortunately these couples are in the minority (I think it fortunate because I would hope that most North American and European couples would understand the need to increase their population, but this idea is neither here nor there right now). In a sense you are absolutely right. Raising children is not an integral part of what marriage is for some people. But there is no denying that having and raising decent kids and productive members of society is an integral part of life for the majority of married couples.

The current definition of marriage holds the phrase “between one man and one woman” (or something along those lines that alludes to one male and female”.) So it does require a redefinition. Ideally, marriage is as you would have it. Marriage does not exclude those people who don’t want, or can’t have children. What it does prohibit is the union of homosexual couples regardless of whether or not they want kids.

It may attack the foundation of society. Quite a word “attack” is, eh? There is no doubt that a redefinition of a societal institution will have some effect on society. The problem with this is that the effects it will have on society, both negative and positive, are unknown and untheorized. Even though the government and the citizens of our good countries do not know what the effects will be, the change will occur.

That, to me, doesn’t seem like a reasonable thing to do. It seems that people are so anxious to do ‘something’ that they haven’t paused and wondered if they should.

That is the line of argumentation behind my legitimate agency argument. That is what my real opposition to changing the definition of marriage hinges so delicately on.

As it has been mentioned, the world is full of uncertainty. Allowing gay marriages might have positive effects, it might have negative effects. Either way, we have no idea what is going to happen and we haven’t bothered to pause and think about it. When is the last time you read a theoretical model of society 50 years in the future that highlights the possible effects?