Gay Marriage

We could wait forever to get as close to certain as we can, and still never get there. I guess it's easier to wait and see if you don't have a vested interest in the change. i don't see what is likely to happen in the next 10, 20, or 50 years which will change the issues surrounding the debate from what they are now, and any informed decision would be based on those issues.

With regard to the other post, I'm sure the women who did not want equality - and let's say they are not "rational" for the sake of this argument - gave reasons for it, similar to that of your homosexual friend; that it would rock the boat, and damage society. These women had learned to accept their place within the status quo, rather than aspire to anything greater. I know this is a generalisation, and may not be accurate, but I think the same logic could be applied to homos. You could argue that a homosexual who doesn't think he/she should have the same rights as a heterosexual - even if he or she does not intend to exorcise those rights - is as a irrational as a woman who feels the same.

 

No it isn’t. I own no bicycle, but I have a home.

Yes they are, very much so. But, I might ask, is that all that a home in our situation is defined by?

Such a case is unimportant. Suppose I idealize some other notion of what home is. Suppose that my example of home includes all the comforts that my mother offers plus the comforts that my father offers, PLUS all that other jazz.

If that is what my idealized home is, does it still follow that the realization of such a home is unimportant?

Must you not at least consider what is involved in such a delicate equation before you cast your judgement on what does or does not follow from any given circumstances?

I’m forced back to the question that I have been requesting get answered for about 30 pages of this thread .. by what proof are you certain of this?

Do you question the societal changes that their revolution brought about? When all is said and done, the legal outline will be subordinate to the societal changes. It is the case with the women, why should it be different now?

It was in response to your suggestion of conclusion ... here is the full context ...

You said ...

And such a definitive statement resulted in the sarcastic response ...

Simply because mentioning cultural lag implies a host of other considerations.

I'm sorry you missed it. I’ll state it so that you won’t have to make such inferences. Your definition of home includes much less than is included in the home of a married couple. I know many people that can have a home under your definition of home. Most of them are single with no prospect of heterosexual or homosexual marriage at all.

Let us keep the discussion on what is traditionally the married couples home.

 

Which would be my response to what I said.

I would also, though, answer that there will be a point where the next step in the process would prove quite far away. Would you say that we are there now?

I don’t think so as I have heard legitimate reasons why the process should continue and not stop at the point it is now.

Ahh ... I see. You have a vested interest. You are not concerned with what is best for people, but what is best for yourself.

This is not a good position to admit.

Wait ... you might mean that you are not of that abstract group of homosexuals who are pleading to get married, and that the real ‘vested interest’ is that of mankind as a whole, not just an abstract group. Well in that case, just cool your heels. A quick fix is worth less than the permanent solution.

You haven’t done enough research. Models of the future are based on what has happened in the past. There are records of the past. The literature is out there. You only need to make the concerted effort to find it.

Unfortunately you are right. You can not apply the same principle in both cases.

Oh could you now? That is quite a feat. Perhaps you should publish such findings, as you’d certainly be considered for a nobel prize and be rewarded with millions and millions of dollars.

I don’t think that argument can be made. But give it a try. I will seriously critique it and tell you what is left.

 

I cant claim to have researched it, but it just seems like common sense. If a minority of women can be seen as irrational for wishing to cling to a status quo which denies them equal rights, how can you say that a minority of homosexuals doing the same could not be considered irrational.

You have said...

But you do not say why, at a time when I feel it may have been beneficial to clarify.

 

Here, I simply am not sure what you mean. You've said that there is no legitimate agency now to allow gay marriage. What do you imagine is likely to change simply by waiting it out? The only likely change I can think of is if legitimate agency was abolished as a measure of what should and should not be allowed; I cannot think of any way that legitimate agency will be achieved at present, or anything that is likely to change that fact in the future. This does not necessarily mean that we shouldn't have equal rights, merely that the criteria upon which they are granted is flawed.

If it comes to it, the right to marry is superficial, and people will do without it. I just take issue with the fact that they should have to. No-one would deny a whole race the right to be married, even if they did not necessarily want to. They would be able to if they did want to.

 

I am not sure I agree that such reasoning is common amoung the sensible. The feminist movement solidified the position of women as legitimate human beings. Homosexuals have recognized human status. Homosexuals are, on the fundamental level, free to do with themselves what they will. By not changing the traditional definition of marriage, no real harm is being done to homosexuals. An argument can be made to suggest that the point of life is happiness and that restricting a person from getting married to the person with whom happiness can be found is a harm. I have never heard such an argument successfully stand after some criticism. There is too much dependence on marriage as the key to happiness. You are really going to have to convince me that the harms and circumstances of homosexuals before the redefinition should be considered on the same level that women were on before the feminist movement.

I hope I have cleared it up a bit more.

 

I mean that it might take a long time. I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t. Why not be as close to certain as we can. I also would assume that we would know it when we get there. You, me, and everyone else. Right now the people are pretty divided on the issue. If we are to do what is best for humanity, should we really be rushing into the change?

The gay community has no legitimate agency. We should not be sitting around waiting for it to happen. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that the right decision is made. The brilliant minds in all fields of thought and experience should be providing literature and theories and arguments and models in order that we might, or might not, eliminate reasonable arguments against the redefinition.

Don’t make the assumption that, because we seek to delay the issue, we are going to stand there with our thumbs up our asses. We hold the position we do because we have a vested interest in the benefit of mankind. Everyone should be considered, not only the homosexuals. It may turn out that changing the definition of marriage has only marginal effects on the rest of society. Right now we don’t know if it will. Right now we are nowhere close. Most people seem to get tied up in the emotion of it all and the excitement of change, and they lose focus on what ought to be done.

If I have not provided reason enough to sway you that a notion like agency is a good thing than I look forward to a discussion on the matter. You will have a tough time convincing me of some of your conclusions that are already made. You will have an infinitely tougher time convincing me that the idea should be trashed.

If no agency were necessary for rights to be assigned, have you any idea of how many special interest groups would be granted rights? The corporation already has an influence over how you live. Imagine if you trashed the only structure that made it so that your reasonable argument, against whatever right they are applying for, actually matters.

People tell me all the time that I am a self interested bigot and a fool with tyrannous ideas. But that, the very thing you are suggesting, is real tyranny.

That is, unless you have devised some alternative system of equal strength and end. You’d make millions off of it.

The idea that rights are assigned to us and taken from us is, to me, an absurd way to live. If it were up to me, gays could marry whoever or whatever they wanted. But my idealism is undermined by a necessary realism. We have to work with what we have, unfortunately.

 

Bill Flanigan and Robert Daniel were partners for five years. After Robert was admitted in critical condition to a Maryland hospital, Bill asked to see him and confer with RobertÕs doctors. Instead Bill was treated as though he wasnÕt family and kept out. Robert fell unconscious permanently and died shortly thereafter; Bill was never able to say goodbye. Even though national hospital accreditation standards say Bill and Robert should have been treated as family, hospital staff didnÕt recognize their relationship.

Bill and Robert had drawn up legal contracts, declaring each other "next of kin" for healthcare issues. BILL HAD THE CONTRACT IN HAND, and was still denied visitation. There is NO LEGAL PRECEDENT to protect them, despite the contract. Bill is not only left without a partner, but also without any recourse.

 

This is a very weak argument. We recognize companionate marriages all the time! How about letting women marry passed menopause, or who have had their reproductive organs removed...?

Companionate marriages are equally as important culturally as child rearing couples.

 

Let me get this right, you are arguing for transexual marriage, but against homosexual marriage?

BTW: Transexualism and homosexuality are TWO DISTINCT issues, and should not be confused with each other.

 

So instead, we should treat minorities inferior, so as not to upset the general public?

 

kind of.

 

Huh? Freedom of religion has existed since the conception of this country. Your religious beliefs have always been legally protected.

 

Normal or abnormal?:
Gays, lesbians, sociologists, psychologists, researchers into human sexuality, members of liberal and some mainline faith groups, etc. normally view homosexual orientation as normal, natural, permanent and unchosen. It is defined as feelings of attraction exclusively to members of the same gender. It is believed to be caused by an interaction of genetic and environmental factors. Studies on identical twins separated at birth and raised independently have confirmed these beliefs. Pedigree studies of the sexual orientation of ancestors of gays have added support. Anatomical and similar studies have been inconclusive.
Religious conservatives tend to view homosexual behavior as an abnormal, unnatural, changeable and chosen preference for sexual activity with persons of the same gender. It is often viewed as having been caused by poor parenting. A very small percentage of mental health professionals agree with this position.

 

None of these studies have been conclusive:

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

​

http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/chase/h/articles/schmidt/index.htm​

Moreover, even if homosexual tendencies are inborn, that doesn't make them normal. I'm sure you've heard the term "birth defect" before.​

 

But what is a "defect" and what isn't? Homosexuality is not in the same category as, say, hemophilia, because the former does not pose any health risk in itself. It also does not prevent a person "suffering" from it from doing anything that a "normal" person can't, so in what way is it a birth defect?

 

It inhibits normal sexual functioning. Heterosexuality is undeniably normative, as it is essential to the survival of the human race.

 

But the majority of the human race isn't homosexual. 'S not like gayness is gonna overrun our species, an we'll all die out. Jeeze, tha paranoia that some people have.

 

So who cares if it isn't "normal" anyways.

Deaf people aren't "normal" so should they not be allowed to marry?

What about midgets?

Tall people?

Tall people and midgets?


I don't see what the big deal is. Live and let live. Let committed same-sex couples insure eachother, claim eachother as dependants, and get the same partnership benefits any life partners have. It isn't going to hurt anyone. And it will only benefit those couples.

 

I never said any such thing. I simply believe that heterosexual marriage provides societal benefits and therefore warrants a special legal status. It's not just about the individuals in any particular relationship.