Lets debate gay marriage

[Tigranes]

Krezack:

 

How is it important? Why do you care who somebody else loves, and certainly why do you care what causes their love?

 

Some people accuse Sand of having his head in the sand and going IT DOESNT MATTER IT DOESNT AFFECT ME. I'm not homosexual, nobody I personally know at the momen tis homosexual, that doesn't mean that it's not an important issue (like, hey, the Iraq War!). Any major social phenomenon has long-reaching and long-lasting influences on our society, and homosexuality is an issue that, esp. since the 18th century, began to loom as a massive and alll-pervading thing on western society. How we deal with it as a whole is important to what kind of attitudes we take to other aspects such as marriag,e multiculturalism, relationships, friendship, discrimination and Christianity.

 

Is there a difference? Are people who stay single all their lives 'deviant'? Does it matter?

 

In some societies, yes, it is deviant. That is not decided by me, that is decided by the social climate. That's sort of what I was going at with the marriage stuff. But I'm not so hesitant to just act on my emotions and say "Any form of relationship should be just fine as long as they're happy, EVERYTHING IS FINE". Tempting.... but rash, because if the mechanics of standardised marriage broke down completely, that would have serious and possibly debilitating effects on society.

 

Consequences: gay people will marry. Can you actually think of any consequences?

 

The issue of gay marriage alone? Perhaps. Note that I was talking about homosexuality as a whole up there. And if you think THAT has no consequences on society outside the homosexuals themselves, then you're looking at a very narrow and shallow perspective of how social forces operate, IMHO.

 

Aristes:

 

I see where you objections to traditional marriage come from now... and I agree for the most part. Though in defense of Asian traditions, remember during the times of Confucius, medicine technology is still quite lacking. People also live a lot shorter with lack of nutrition. Your window to give birth to a health baby all the while being productive enough so you can raise him/her to adulthood is very narrow. I would say in those days, you do have a moral obligation to marry young and give your child the best chance to grow up to full adulthood, and many of the older traditions facilitate that process. Nowadays, you can have a baby at say 50 if you are rich enough, and I think that

[julianw]

I haven't looked into any research on the subject but from personal experience, most of the openly gay people I have met are still physically attracted to girls. While I am not knowledgeable enough to make a judgment, but it's believed within the religious community that we hear more about homosexuals failing to live straight lives but those who succeed are less likely to advertise about their stories since they are probably married, have a family and want to leave the past in the past.

[Trenitay]

Krezack:

 

How is it important? Why do you care who somebody else loves, and certainly why do you care what causes their love?

 

Some people accuse Sand of having his head in the sand and going IT DOESNT MATTER IT DOESNT AFFECT ME. I'm not homosexual, nobody I personally know at the momen tis homosexual, that doesn't mean that it's not an important issue (like, hey, the Iraq War!).

 

How can you compare gay marriage to the Iraq War?

 

Consequences: gay people will marry. Can you actually think of any consequences?

 

The issue of gay marriage alone? Perhaps. Note that I was talking about homosexuality as a whole up there. And if you think THAT has no consequences on society outside the homosexuals themselves, then you're looking at a very narrow and shallow perspective of how social forces operate, IMHO.

 

What consequences are there exactly?

[Tigranes]

How can you compare gay marriage to the Iraq War?

 

For the answer, see above. It's possible to make comparisons in a very limited and specific sense without having to hear the inevitable "NO DUH THEY ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT MAN".

 

Anyway, for the consequences... there it gets really speculative and long-winded by nature, so I was hoping to leave that out for now. And I'm certainly not so willing to drop a truck full of Foucault on the thread (never mind 'feminist' literature). To make another limited and specific comparison that will make you want to cut me hard (hawt), it's like living in the 1950's and saying all that stuff about black people doesn't affect me because I'm not black and I don't know any black people. The immediate consequences don't affect you, but...

 

A full acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage, for instance, could reasonably be suspected of contributing to the following:

 

-> The creation and proliferation of more types of sexuality beyond the prime two, widening the range of identities that we may take on and opening up new demographics that are relevant for the market, for politics, for family life and relationships;

 

-> As aforementioned, the loosening of the narrow 'sanctified' views of marriage, and a massive diversification in the relationships, relationship arrangements, intimate interactions and economic / household arrangements of relationships that obviously have economic, social and family effects;

 

-> Either an even greater role for sexuality in the definition of self-identity or (paradoxically) a reduction of it, determining the role sexuality has in our sense of who we are;

 

-> A rise in declared homosexual populations (possibly. Equally may not happen).

[Pushtrak]

A full acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage, for instance, could reasonably be suspected of contributing to the following:

-> The creation and proliferation of more types of sexuality beyond the prime two, widening the range of identities that we may take on and opening up new demographics that are relevant for the market, for politics, for family life and relationships;

Thats a fear mongering attitude. I can imagine a politician trying to sell that line as a justification.

-> As aforementioned, the loosening of the narrow 'sanctified' views of marriage, and a massive diversification in the relationships, relationship arrangements, intimate interactions and economic / household arrangements of relationships that obviously have economic, social and family effects;

Diversification is good. You aren't winning me over.

-> Either an even greater role for sexuality in the definition of self-identity or (paradoxically) a reduction of it, determining the role sexuality has in our sense of who we are;

Why? Because gays are allowed marry? Why would what they are alllowed marry change anything in people more than it would by the fact that there are homosexuals? I'm not quite seeing it.

-> A rise in declared homosexual populations (possibly. Equally may not happen).

That would happen, given time, if they felt they wouldn't get negative treatment. Which is a lot harder than just getting legislation changed.

[Tigranes]

Uh... what?

 

Did you people miss that bit where I blatantly stated that I am neither opposed to nor in support of gay marriage and/or homosexuality at the present time?

 

Why in the world would you think I'm trying to "win you over" towards an anti-homosexual position?

[Pushtrak]

You speak of potential fears should homosexual marriage be allowed. I was trying to show there wasn't really any merit (in my opinion, anyway) in any of the points you mentioned, not that you were opposed to homosexual marriage. Though, those points do come across as strong enough towards the negative.

[Tigranes]

They are not fears. They are consequences with a wide impact that can be reasonably suspected of happening (if not 'expected').

 

They only come across as 'negative' because you are applying your predispositions on them and framing the argument in terms of 'fears'. Observe:

 

1. Proliferation of diverse types of sexuality is not in any conceivable way a 'fear-mongering attitude' in and of itself. It may be celebrated/welcomed by some (and I lean towards that). It is only 'fear-mongering' when used as such, like anything else. Besides, if some people use that point in a fear-mongering way, does it invalidate its likelihood? No, it doesn't.

 

2. Whether you or I think diversification is 'good' or not, again, has absolutely no relevance. My point is that this can be reasonably expected to happen in the hypothetical situation of complete 'gay acceptance'.

 

3. See my previous post on marriage conventions.

 

4. I think you agree with me here and your comment was just a lateral one, so cool.

 

I'm pretty sure you don't really disagree with me. You just need to abandon the misunderstanding that I am talking about fears or negative consequences.

[Pushtrak]

1. Proliferation of diverse types of sexuality is not in any conceivable way a 'fear-mongering attitude' in and of itself. It may be celebrated/welcomed by some (and I lean towards that). It is only 'fear-mongering' when used as such, like anything else. Besides, if some people use that point in a fear-mongering way, does it invalidate its likelihood? No, it doesn't.

I keep coming back to this point to try to come up with a good response. Proliferation of diverse types of sexuality... How to broach that topic. Problem is, what is true for one place is not true for another. This relates largely to the sexual orientation of a person's self identity. And how this clashes with a Conservative values. That much is stating the obvious. I wish I had something more to offer in the way of continuing debate, but I have to say I don't at the moment.

2. Whether you or I think diversification is 'good' or not, again, has absolutely no relevance. My point is that this can be reasonably expected to happen in the hypothetical situation of complete 'gay acceptance'.

Ok, you demonstrated this as a consequence. A case of the effect from a cause.

[Rosbjerg]

I haven't looked into any research on the subject but from personal experience, most of the openly gay people I have met are still physically attracted to girls.

 

Really?

 

I know quite a few, my uncle is homosexual. None of the "real" gays (I know how ridiculous that sounds, but bear with me for arguments sake) are attracted to girls and never have been. Sounds more like you've talked to alot of semi-bi-sexuals, who are quite common in the gay community.

[Oerwinde]

In the words of one of the gay guys I know "Theres no bisexuals, you're either queer or you're not."

 

He was one of those that wasn't attracted to women, which frustrated him before he realized he was gay. He wanted a girlfriend but couldn't find any girls he liked. Then he realized he didn't like girls and has been a much happier person ever since despite his family pretty much abandoning him.

[Rosbjerg]

Well that's true - in terms of being homosexual, then there's no "middle road". Calling bi-sexual gay would be wrong too since they are ... bi-sexuals (obviously).

 

Unless you were trying to say something else?

[Hell Kitty]

A gay man can appreciate an attractive woman, or something attractive about a woman, but if the dude is physically attracted to women then the dude ain't gay. Either he's a greedy bisexual, or he's just pretending to be gay so he can turn her into his ****-hag before he tries to convince her that she's so incredible that maybe she could turn him straight and maybe they should have some of the sexual intercourse to make sure he really is gay.

[taks]

um, i was directly referencing kaftan's quote, which included inheritance. yes, that is a big deal but not the only deal. tax breaks yadda, yadda we all realize are key given the current circumstances.

Congratulations. You addressed the first point (if that can be called addressing it) but missed the second point.

um, no, you missed the point. calax was responding to what i said which was very specifically in referece to kaftan's quote. i never said inheritance drives anything w.r.t. getting married, only that it is easily solved via wills. in other words, any argument about inheritance is moot because of wills. the remaining point he made is also a will issue (living will), so moot, too.

 

follow the argument, please. it is not difficult to do. i would also suggest you read, then re-read, your own comment as well as those you are replying to before hitting "add reply" to avoid making irrelevant claims.

 

taks

[julianw]

Really?

 

I know quite a few, my uncle is homosexual. None of the "real" gays (I know how ridiculous that sounds, but bear with me for arguments sake) are attracted to girls and never have been. Sounds more like you've talked to alot of semi-bi-sexuals, who are quite common in the gay community.

Hey. You just might be right. The only gay people I have ever come to be personally associated with are all from the college crowd. I never met any 'traditionally' gay people.

[taks]

hmmm, most that i knew before moving to CO were from the bar crowd (nightclub entertainers in particular), which tends toward the bi designation. we had a male stripper troupe that used to do our ladies night (st. louis) that consisted mostly of bi men (i hired them to work for my bar in rolla, too). my friday night pool league, however, has a few teams in it from a lesbian bar and most of them are strictly gay. there was one gal that had a sex change (from a man) and she goes both ways. she was on my team, actually, and i learned more about sex changes than i ever thought i would know after a year shooting pool with her (she's 70, btw, and had the conversion when she was 61)!

 

taks

Edited January 23, 2009 by taks

[Humodour]

Uh... what?

 

Did you people miss that bit where I blatantly stated that I am neither opposed to nor in support of gay marriage and/or homosexuality at the present time?

 

Why in the world would you think I'm trying to "win you over" towards an anti-homosexual position?

 

Still, you ARE trying to establish 'consequences' of homosexuality to justify your fence-sitter position.

 

These 'consequences' could only justify such a position if you believed at least some of them to be (quite) detrimental. Which ones are they, specifically?

[Tigranes]

Sorry, but I'm still confounded as to why some people keep interpreting arguments so aggressively. I have no desire to 'justify'my fence-sitter position because it is a temporary one based on a lack of information and lack of analysis on my part. If anything, it comes from a lack of justification. The consequences I outlined were extremely speculative and nonjudgemental for that reason. Some of them *could* be detrimental in my eyes, others positive, but for me to make blanket predictions such as "accepting gays will significantly increase the proportion of gays in our society and this will mean a better/worse world" would be idiotic, given what I said just a few lines above this.

 

What I am saying, and all I am saying, is quite simple. I think homosexuality is an important issue for our world with long-reaching impacts on society as a whole, and not something you can just say "gays do whatever they want, I'm not gay", because of the kind of possible consequences I outlined above. And that's the only thing that I can argue quite strongly here; that homosexuality and its position in our society does have consequences.

 

Man, I tried not to go too far into this because my thoughts are so speculative at the moment, I sound like a bloated waffle ("X could happen, or, uh, not. X might be good, or, uh, not.)

 

Edit: I also find it hard to make a rational judgment on this topic because I am so disgusted by some Christians I personally know, who are non-fundamentalist, reasonable people in many ways, but have simply been indoctrinated to consider homosexuality a despicable thing, and get instinctively disgusted in the presence of one. And that's no good reason to decide one way or the other.

[Humodour]

Sorry, but I'm still confounded as to why some people keep interpreting arguments so aggressively.

 

To my mind I'm not being aggressive, I just found your earlier post evasive.

 

I have no desire to 'justify'my fence-sitter position

 

I didn't mean justify to me. I mean to yourself. As in: what arguments do you use to justify to yourself your position on homosexuality?

 

because it is a temporary one based on a lack of information and lack of analysis on my part. If anything, it comes from a lack of justification.

 

Then this is an issue of miscommunication. Sorry about that. Your stance below just had me thinking you were at least mildly homophobic, though, as those are the only people who I've heard ominously claiming "there will be consequences".

 

I think homosexuality is an important issue for our world with long-reaching impacts on society as a whole, and not something you can just say "gays do whatever they want, I'm not gay", because of the kind of possible consequences I outlined above. And that's the only thing that I can argue quite strongly here; that homosexuality and its position in our society does have consequences.

 

Just one more thing: I take issue with your mischaracterisation that the pro-gay stance is "gays do whatever they want". Who said that? Plenty of people have said "gays deserve equality" but that's certainly not "gays do whatever they want" since straight people aren't allowed to do whatever they want.

[Tigranes]

Yeah, it's a weird 'position' I'm in at the moment and it's hard to communicate. I don't blame you, by 'aggressive' I meant 'in terms of defending arguments and advancing my position'.

 

And once again to clarify, yes, 'pro-gay positions' can be very different from 'do whatever they want'. I don't think I equated the two up there? I'm saying I've seen a lot of people who just say 'gays, whatever, I'm not gay'.

[Hurlshort]

People tend to get aggressive because:

 

a. One side of the argument is pretty heavily influence by religion and uses that to justify inequality

 

b. The other side sees it as discrimination in the same vein as what was done to minorities throughout history.

[Tigranes]

True, although:

 

1) For me, the fact that an argumentn comes from a religious background doesn't automatically invalidate it, and;

 

2) Homosexuality has more roots than just Christian discrimination, which arguably comes directly from those other roots.