Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Theben]

Is there some reason why you're wasting valuable bandwidth arguing with PA?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Theben
Is there some reason why you're wasting valuable bandwidth arguing with PA?

sorry

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Monk
It doesn't specifically address the point of whether sexual orientations change over the years due to other impulses apart from repression and the annulment thereof.

I was beginning to suspect you're not putting not emphasis on environmental factors when you're saying only outwards behaviour and not sexuality changes. That's when I disagree.

I know it's hardly empirical evidence I'm providing here, but I can't help but mentioning a gay friend of mine who partly explains his homosexuality as the effect of severe abuse by women in childhood and teenage years. It's fairly common for men realizing they're not in their prime anymore to suddenly seek out the companionship of younger women to compensate for lost youth, and I reckon priests are more likely to screw the altar boys if the holy men in question happen to be Catholic.

I just like to use a few relatively extreme examples of sexual behaviour for the sake of clarification to reach the conclusion that sexuality is a dynamic process with plenty of potential for flexibility, even outside of childhood.

General failure to direct and guide sexuality like this idiotic 'Reparative Therapy' doesn't logically mean sexuality cannot be mainly environmentally determined. Given the 'right' impulses (do take note of the quotes), anybody could probably have become anything.

I think it would be interesting to check around for studies on identical twins and whether instances have been reported where one was decidedly heterosexual and the other wasn't. Unfortunately the Google search for 'Gay twins' comes out rather fruitless if you're searching for psychological case studies, but I'll try a more sophisticated search on the other side of the hangover.

Monk- I understand your position, but I think you're making several assumptions with regard to sexuality and the ability of people to express their natural sexuality in society.

There exists in many people a desire to see heterosexuality and homosexuality (and bisexuality too) as being on some moral sliding scale, wherein heterosexuality is seen to be natural, good and worthy of reward or esteem, and homosexuality and bisexuality are depicted as depraved, immoral or departures from some supposed norm.

This isn't a view based on observations of what occurs in nature, nor is it a view that has much to do with observation of humanity- it is a viewpoint that stems from a religious/cultural bias, originating in the Western world mainly from the three monotheistic faiths, all of which contain some condemnation of homosexuality (amongst many other condemnations and taboos, some of them to do with diet, clothing, menstruating women, women's roles in society, visible disabilities such as blindness or lameness, et cetera).

This binary view of human nature and behaviour hasn't always been the case, and certainly hasn't applied to all humanity or all human societies.

The idea that heterosexuality is 'normal' or more 'normal' because humans need to reproduce to sustain the species is laughable, because it ignores a fairly simple to understand fact- given the necessity of doing so, a gay man and a lesbian could reproduce, not through artificial insemination but the usual method. I even know of lesbian mothers and gay fathers who've done this, and they haven't had to be 'heterosexuals for a day' to do it.

Heterosexuality is more than just sexual acts, it's also sexual attraction, love, emotion, and all the other things that make up human relationships- in fact, just like homosexuality and bisexuality.

Even a passing acquaintance with the history of Ancient Greece, or cultures other than those associated with the monotheistic faiths will show you that this distinction between 'good' heterosexuality and 'bad' homosexuality and the moral condemnation associated with it, is not, and has never been, a universal attitude.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html

People like Kenobi and the evangelical Canadian teacher whose remarks I quoted, judge gay men, lesbians and bisexuals morally- frankly, my sexuality does not determine my moral behaviour or code, and I do not believe, nor can it be shown, that simply by virtue of being gay, I am immoral.

That being said, you have to understand that although I believe that human sexuality operates on a sliding scale, many people do not, and also that force of circumstance requires me to accept the (inaccurate) dichotomy imposed on human sexuality since the Nineteenth Century, since people like Kenobi and Park Avenue blithely ignore the parts of human history and culture and biology they don't like, to make moral or normative judgments about people they've never met.
They also seek to restrict the civil rights of gay men and lesbians, or at the least, maintain a superior set of civil rights for heterosexuals.

If you grow up in a sexually repressive environment, whether you are gay, or lesbian, or heterosexual, or bisexual, or whether you identify as transgender, it is extremely unlikely that you will feel comfortable about expressing your sexuality, or that your sexuality (let us say for the pruposes of argument, your 'innate' sexuality, that which you would be without cultural/religious modifiers) will be 'naturally' expressed.

I'm not simply talking about sexual acts, either, I'm talking about affection, companionship, love, the reciprocation of profound feelings found in a partnership, like mine, which has lasted for twenty years.

People like Kenobi deny this, by reducing it all to sexual acts- as if to say the whole of Western culture was simply sexual acts, with no love or emotion present.

One of the reasons people like MrFun and me get so agitated by the kind of bigotry displayed in these threads isn't simply that the language used and the erroneous assumptions are offensive on a persoanl level (which they are) but that they also have political repercussions.

Kenobi wants to turn the clock back, to some alleged golden age when women knew their place, reproductive rights were WRONG and gay men and lesbians were invisible, and he does this not out of logic or reason, but out of obeisance to a religious creed two thousand years old.

I don't think his religious fervours and bias should have much to do with the determining of civil rights in a secular state in the twenty first century.


Twin studies- make of them what you will, and be aware that some of the studies were undertaken to prove or disprove a point:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_biol.htm

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.

html

http://cmgm.stanford.edu/biochem118/Projects/2003/Redden.pdf

http://www.studentorg.umd.edu/glc/kristof_10_25_03.html

http://www.queerbychoice.com/homophobes.html

[Monk]

Happy Bloomsday, Molly - well, better late than never, anyway. Your points are understood and well-recieved. Thoughout the thread my main focus has lied with the facts rather than values, but were I to discuss the latter I'd agree wholeheartedly with MrFun's position, and I'd probably have a wee bit of national pride if my country had remained progressive after the eighties breakthrough with state-sanctioned partnerships. I also understand fully if there's some reluctance on MrFun's behalf to accept sexuality as a very dynamic concept because that recognition would inevitably be followed by a Park Avenue post saying 'Then go ahead and change yourself instead of complaining about inequality' or something to that extent.

Yeah, I'm aware that by assuming it's mainly an environmental thing and presenting arguments in favour thereof, said facts could be abused by people with obnoxious values, but I must point out we shouldn't accept the notion that 'this talk about changing sexual orientation assumes the mindset that being gay in of itself is horribly wrong' - this would depend on the persons discussing and their willingness to seek out some truth rather than acquiring fuel for some ideological purpose or a bored, insincere troller taking cheap shots at people.

Oh and Molly, thank you for the links. I looked through the web for some times just to verify that there were indeed several cases of identical twins with different sexualities which I would assume prove there is undoubtedly some environmental impact on human sexuality.

And another thing, that post made me wonder if you've read Foucault's accounts of sexuality in a historical perspective and if so, whether you can recommend it. (Edit: Naturally, this question applies to you too, MrFun)

[Whaleboy]

Unnaturally.

It's unnatural that you clothe yourself and buy meat from a shop as opposed to hunting the nearest herd of wildebeest. Face it, you simply cannot argue that homosexuality is a perversion or an abnormality, considering how common, how natural, how ancient, how widespread and how benevolent it is.

Molly

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Monk
Happy Bloomsday, Molly - well, better late than never, anyway. Your points are understood and well-recieved. Thoughout the thread my main focus has lied with the facts rather than values, but were I to discuss the latter I'd agree wholeheartedly with MrFun's position, and I'd probably have a wee bit of national pride if my country had remained progressive after the eighties breakthrough with state-sanctioned partnerships. I also understand fully if there's some reluctance on MrFun's behalf to accept sexuality as a very dynamic concept because that recognition would inevitably be followed by a Park Avenue post saying 'Then go ahead and change yourself instead of complaining about inequality' or something to that extent.

Oh and Molly, thank you for the links. I looked through the web for some times just to verify that there were indeed several cases of identical twins with different sexualities which I would assume prove there is undoubtedly some environmental impact on human sexuality.

And another thing, that post made me wonder if you've read Foucault's accounts of sexuality in a historical perspective and if so, whether you can recommend it. (Edit: Naturally, this question applies to you too, MrFun)

Yes, I can recommend Foucault's work on sexuality, although I don't think he was entirely correct with regards to an entirely 'social' or act based construction of homosexuality- although in Ancient Greece sexual acts between older men and younger men were tolerated, with the idea that the younger man was necessarily a passive or receptive partner, although this was not always the case, as is mentioned in Platos' 'Symposium' for instance, and as would also seem to be the case judging from comments made in Plutarch, and Thucydides talking about Harmodius and Aristogeiton:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/thuc6.html

"Athenian lovers Harmodius (alternatively transliterated as Harmodios) and Aristogeiton (Aristogiton) were remembered in ancient Greece as the great tyrannicides.

Aristogeiton resented the advances made by Hipparchus, the brother of the reigning tyrant Hippias, toward his friend Harmodius. Rebuffed, Hipparchus insulted Aristogeiton's sister and forbade her to take part in the Panathenaic Procession, thus disparaging her virginity and questioning her marriageability.

Provoked by this personal quarrel, the two friends planned to assassinate the two brothers. At the Greater Panathenaea festival in 514 B. C., Hipparchus was stabbed, but Hippias was not hurt. Harmodius was killed on the spot, and Aristogeiton was executed under torture.

After Hippias' expulsion in 510 B. C., Harmodius and Aristogeiton were made heroes of Athens, celebrated as patriots, democrats, lovers, and martyrs. Two public statues (the first pillars to commemorate mortal benefactors), created by Antenor, were erected in the agora; skolia (drinking songs) celebrated their courage; coins were struck with their image; a law forbade speaking ill of the couple; their descendants were given hereditary privileges, such as sitesis (the right to take meals at public expense in the town hall), ateleia (exemption from liturgies), and proedria (front-row seats in the theater); and their names were prohibited for slaves."

There are also useful references in Plutarch's 'Life of Lycurgus' and Xenophon's 'Spartan Constitution' which I'll try to find for you to show what was 'allowed' officially and what was tolerated or practised, actually.

Re:Bloomsday- I did Re:Joyce, thank you very much.

[Whaleboy]

MB: You type too fast, and I'm a bloody novellist for heavens sake!

[MrFun]

Molly . . . .

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
MB: You type too fast, and I'm a bloody novellist for heavens sake!

"Another damned, thick, square book! Always scribble, scribble, scribble! Eh! Mr. Gibbon?"

: the Duke of Gloucester


What would make you think that I have not been writing since an early age?

The standard complaints of my teachers, from infant school, to junior school, to grammar school and university, was that my handwriting resembled the tracks left by a drunken half dead spider, as it hauled its failing body out of an inkwell and across a pad of blotting paper.

I give thanks to the inventor of the typewriter keyboard:

"O! Osiris! May they live forever!"

(said reference to a tutelary deity not to be taken as an indication of my belief or non-belief, )

It's easy to reply to Monk anyway- I find him sympatico. Less so with the bigots- the despair and weariness at seeing the usual innaccuracies and unpleasantries rehashed, disinterred and vomited up, has to be bypassed or quelled, as yet another set of religious or culturally determined assumptions is refuted.

[Whaleboy]

was that my handwriting resembled the tracks left by a drunken half dead spider, as it hauled its failing body out of an inkwell and across a pad of blotting paper.

I got the "cockroach on valium and speed" observation. Why oh bloody why can't we use keyboards in exams?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


I got the "cockroach on valium and speed" observation. Why oh bloody why can't we use keyboards in exams?

Because not everyone is as morally upstanding as a sexual deviant like me.

[Jarouik]

Originally posted by Monk I also understand fully if there's some reluctance on MrFun's behalf to accept sexuality as a very dynamic concept because that recognition would inevitably be followed by a Park Avenue post saying 'Then go ahead and change yourself instead of complaining about inequality' or something to that extent.

Yep, sexuality is a complex concept. Though most people I know never willfully 'chose' their sexual feelings, there are many people (like my boyfriend) that cannot be narrowly defined as either exclusively straight or gay, though it seems our society wants to do that.

Therefore, I find it interesting society is so obsessed with 'reasons' and 'choice'. As if heterosexuality was the ultimate norm everything should be judged by, and if you do not fill that norm, you have to explain it. You would hope that slowly it is understood that everybody has their own set of sexual preferences, and hardly anybody is completely 'normal'.

At least for me, even if given the choice (which I do not recall ever having), I would never change to being straight. I have no incentive of doing that - I am very comfortable with my feelings and my boyfriend. If I couldn't love him the way I do, it would make me unhappy to say the least. Heck, if I couldn't look at guys and feel attracted to them, I would feel I have lost some of my identity! Once emotional attachments are formed, it doesn't matter what gender they are formed with - you don't go around saying other people should change who they love. (And for people saying homosexual love isn't lasting, I have been with my boyfriend for several years and we live together. Also, I have *never* had sex with anyone else, as we met quite soon after I came out of the closet. How many straight people can admit to such monogamity? Though I don't judge people by the amount of partners they had, this is for those who do...)

So, setting aside arguments based on a religion (which I don't practice), choice (which does not matter) or sickness (which it is not because it causes no harm to anyone, at least not in my case), what reason is there not to give gays equal rights? It's not like being gay is contagious so once we obtain equal rights, everybody turns gay? At least the straight people I've met are comfortable enough with their identity not to become gay just because gays have rights - their love to their partners of the opposite sex is very real and not likely to change so easily...

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ming
Here is a question for you then... what if the will of the people was to outlaw religion... close all the churches... make worshiping god illegal... How would you FEEL, and would you fight to overturn a law that in your opinion was wrong and discrimating?

And answer this question as well... what if the vote came out that gay marriages should be allowed... and that churches had to perform the sevices if requested... and that you could not exclude gay people from your church. What would you say about the will of the people then

Ah, at last an intelligent question on the issue. Such a vote could not come about except by extended public debate. This has a certain virtue to it, which judicial activism short-circuits.

For example, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg believes that Roe-v-Wade short-circuited the public debate and was a decision that should not have be made at that time. (Not that she would ever overturn it.)

The practice of religion is already explicitly protected in the Constitution of the US, and in Canada. However, sexual activity and marriage are not addressed in the Constitution of the US (don't know about Canada) and can't be compared.

Likewise, fighting to overturn a law prohibiting specific activities is different from trying to alter a major component of social structure. For example, the Greek upper class once practiced homosexuality and pederasty to the extent that it became a social convention, but never tried to alter the social convention of marriage to include it.

You also raised the issue of laws against discrimination. Actually, I'm opposed to laws against discrimination and laws against so-called "hate crimes." It is, in essence, thought police tactics. People should be free to associate, congregate, and conduct business as they choose. In the case of American institutionalized racial prejudism there was indeed a great wrong that needed to be addressed, and antidiscrimination laws were a necessary evil. But to apply the same level of governmental coersion in other circumstances is an evil that is anything but necessary.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
"The people" have no say in amending the Constitution. The process is set up that way.

But what exactly is being dictated? One state allows gay marriage, per it's prerogative as a sovereign state. 38 states explicitly forbid gay marriage, and 11 states don't allow it, but don't expressly forbid it either. So how is "the minority" doing anything to "the majority?"

Given that there has only been one act of "superlegislation" in the 217 year history of the Constitution, why should there now be another? Especially when it looks absolutely absurd to read the 21st amendment's repeal of the 18th amendment.

The ERA was an act of superlegislation, even though it failed ratification. The people do have a say, in the form of accountable state legislatures in the ratification process, and that is why the ERA failed.

Each state is required to hold legal contracts and marriages made in any other state as enforcible in its own jurisdiction. That is how the minority dictates to the majority in this case. One state can't say to another, "You can't do that" except by Federal intervention. Furthermore, any simple Federal legislation will be challenged in the skewed arena of an activist judiciary. Many would prefer the route of "superlegislation" where there is at least public debate and accountability involved.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jarouik:

Even if they *did* change (though I haven't seen any evidence they could change in a significant number of cases), why would that mean gays should have no equal rights?

First of all, this isn't about protection from persecution, nor is the issue about sodomy regulations. Both are protected, though for different reasons. In this there is no difference between protections for people who have a different colour of skin, and between protections for people who desire partners of the same sex.

I do not advocate that these rights should be taken away, for the same reason we protect black people.

We do not protect black people, because they are black, but because they are persons. The same reason why we protect gay people. Their colour of their skin is irrelevant to whether they are persons or not. This is just as true with respect to skin colour as it is to sexual preference.

Just like if black people could turn white (which they can, by the way, with extensive cosmetic surgery), then you would not give black people equal rights? Not so fast, indeed.

Exactly. We protect black people because they are persons, and gay people because they are persons, not because they are black or gay.

Gay marriage is something else entirely. You are now saying that because one is gay, one ought to receive protection from the government. This crosses the line, from equality, to favouritism, or discrimination.

Now, there can be arguments in favour of discrimination, as in the case of special treatments for those who are handicapped, in order to ameliorate their difficult lives. Now, I ask you, does a gay person consider himself handicapped, such that he needs help in order to function in society?

One may object to the fact, but I point out all the arguments used by the gay folks to justify their stance. Do they not cite their own hardships? How 'unfair' it is that they are treated by the same standards as everyone else?