Gay Marriage

Ha ha ha. Tough question.


My official answer is I don’t know.

I would tend towards yes, based on the unpredicted and undesirable effects that the last two paradigm shifts of civil society had had on current society (the feminist revolution and the sexual revolution).

In 50 years come back here and start a thread asking about the effects of the homosexual revolution and I’ll be better suited to answer. After all, I am no theorist.

I say ask me in 50 years because there is no way that theoretical models will be made. If they are, there is no chance that they will be made available.

 

Are you that afraid of being wrong that you're not even willing to have a guess?

 

I could not trust the betterment or detriment of humanity on a guess.

 

I doubt it'll have much effect if it's posted on here.

 

only on my rep.

 

It is interesting to note that the two movements you mentioned were to allow individuals to do what they wanted as individuals.

Gay marriage is an issue of individuals forming a cooperative unit.

The sexual revolution ("I can have sex without marriage") and the women's movement ("I can do what I want without consulting my husband") were movements away from the home.

Gay marriage is a desire to form a home.

 

No correlation is meant between the three outside of the idea that they are social movements resulting from an abstract group seeking an abstract justice through abstract means.

Funny, though, how people want to come back to that which they ran away from 40 years ago.

 

Do you care?

 

yeah, if it gets me banned.

 

I doubt it will. That French_affair (name?) guy's still around, isn't he? To be honest, you'd have to say some pretty abhorent stuff to get banned, and I'd be surprised if it's that bad.

 

Abstract groups!?!?!?

The issues raised by the women's movement in particular were not based on theoretical notions. Historicaly, a home needed a full time, in residence, worker to maintain it. (Cook, clean, etc.) Technology eased that work to the point that "homemaker" was not a full time occupation and was not given the respect that it once had. The cultural lag left the impression that women were not only the weaker (as in lifting capacity) sex, but also the lesser sex. The women's movement was a reaction to the real complaints of real women, not some theoretical notion about the proper relationship between men and women.

My point is that since the industrial revolution, technology (especialy transportation tech.) has lessened the importance and real value of the home. No longer is a married person significantly materialy better of than the unmarried. Not surprisingly, there have been movements (such as those you mentioned) to allow or recognize this by deemphasizing the importance of the home. The ease of divorce is an example of this. Individual freedom has become more valued than being a stable (i.e. married with kids) member of the community.

The gay liberation movement, that has resulted in the acceptance of homosexuals (more or less, how many times have you heard "I don't care if thy are gay, I just...." The first part of that sentence is a big change from when I was growing up.)

Back to what I was saying. The gay liberation movement was a part of that seperation from home tendancy. However, it has come to the point where the notion that gays can form a marriage and a home is becoming accepted.

Gay marriage is not a step away from the traditional view that the home is the bedrock of a community and should be protected. It is a reenforcement of that view. (I hope "practicing" is neutral enough to avoid the choice/inborn argument.) Even those practicing non-traditional sexuality dearly want to form stable home units upon which civil society can rest.

 

An underlying factor in the anti-gay marriage thing seems to be the idea that it makes not having children seem acceptable. I think it really should be, since the world is already grossly over-populated.

 

Hmm... Married without children is about the worst tax bracket to be in.

 

Why should gay marriage be legal again?

 

Gay marriage should be legal because those wishing to form a permenant union and face the world as partners rather than individuals should be allowed to do so. Heterosexuals have the societal reenforcement of medical decisions, spousal privilage, inheritance, etc. in the legal institution of marriage. The value of stable unions between people is so great that society should extend those reenforcments to homosexual unions.

 

Why should it, why shouldn't it? yada yada yada. Keep up.

 

Abstract groups seeking abstract justice through abstract means, more specifically.

Which is exactly why I am being a stickler on the idea that theoretical models should be studied and exhausted before any legislation is passed this time. Will you deny that the negative effects of those two revolutions could have been avoided had some restrictions been placed on those abstract groups by the critics of the time?

And thus, cultural lag, is blamed on such a shift. Good. I, for one, am happy to have finally arrived at a suitable conclusion on the matter. Unfortunately, the causes are neither here nor there right now. I am not considering the causes, but the effects.

“Real complaints of real women”, and not just real women, but all women. At least all rational women. I have yet to come across a reasonable argument that suggests women should remain sub-human. They had agency. They had urgency. They had legitemacy. Their causes were noble. In the wake of that movement, we are left with fathers who don’t know how to be fathers, with single mothers who claim sole rights to their children yet demand 50% and support. (of course this is a vast generalization).

Where is the suggestion, that we should avoid theoretical models, coming from?

I can’t recall reading anything to suggest that the negation of home life was a goal of either of the sexual or feminist revolutions. That is, outside of your post. Perhaps you could point me to the literature in which this is suggested, I would be eternally grateful.

But you are right on one thing ...

And you mean to suggest that the gay revolution will ensure that these societal norms will be turned?

On what basis are you making that assumption? How do you know that two men and a kid is going to be a better home? Is it on the basis that marriage is the promotion of home? That tells me nothing of what transformations will occur as a result of the transformation of the basis of your proof. It is the lack of such theories that leads me to think that we ain’t ready for such a transformation. It may turn out well and if it did, such a gamble would pay off.

But what if it doesn’t? Who will we blame then? And do you really think those people will accept the blame? Won’t we be in the same position on some other issue 40 years from now? History is repeating itself, shouldn’t we have learned the lesson yet?

What definition of home is being accepted? Some idealistic notion of what may happen? Where is the model for that? Where is that theorized? It is currently being argued for. That is the very redefinition that we have spent 58 pages arguing about.

It is a step away if the definition of home highlights the role of ‘motherism’ and ‘fatherism’, which it does. So it is, indeed, a step away from the traditional view. Such broad generalizations will always meet counter opposition.

 

I will question you and I apologize because , yes I don't have any information about legalities of marriage ...

but...

"Those wishing to form a permanent union and face the world as partners rather than individuals" are allowed to do so even when it is not recognized by the government. Just like adultery, government has no right to say in who the guy should choose as a partner to quench his sexual thirst.

Also, I dont think they should have spousal privilege because they don't have any children so they do not contribute to the society like a normal couple would.

Even if they adopt, the child that they are adopting is not their's by birth.

 

So, should heterosexual couples who, for whatever reason, cannot have children be allowed to marry?

 

Yes because they have a potential to have children.
but I think the bigger question pertaining to gay marriage is: Can the government be effected by the overall moral nature of a society? Or it can be worded as "can it dictate the moral realm of a society"?