Tell me what to think (the issue of gay marriages)

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

I wanted to dispose of the 'religious wackjob' caricature first, but you have brought up some interesting points.

In most mammal species, the male is driven by instinct to spread his seed to as many recipients as possible.

If there are some exceptions, as 'most' would seem to indicate, then why should human beings not also be exceptions?

Most teens go through years of sexual confusion.

Yet you celebrate Asher's coming out thread? If you do not trust that Asher is sincere, why would you congratulate him? This makes no sense. I for one would rather trust Asher to know more about his own sexuality than you do.

Why is it not as good as heterosexual marriage?

Good question, I'll start with your first counterpoint.

Since heterosexual marriage is no longer for the utilitarian purpose of siring progeny,

Slow yourself Boris. You should know that a utilitarian argument will hardly be effective against me. First off, I can argue that marriage between a man and a woman is the best environment in which to sire, and raise children. There are other environments, but this is the best.

Contrary to this position, you have a union of two homosexual men who will not produce children within themselves. Hardly the same thing.

Now, I expect to hear you rail against men and women who are infertile, but I have to ask you this. It is one thing for people to marry and not be able to have children, by no fault of their own, and it is another for them to choose not to have children.

Also, there are two purposes to marriage, to produce an environment to raise children, and for partnership between a man and a woman, such that friendship cannot provide.

Everyone who cannot abide by these terms should not marry. It's as simple as that. No one is forcing people to get married.

And reparative therapy is a crock of ****, frankly. You'll notice that it is denounced by all mainstream psychological and medical organizations because not only does it not work, it is frequently psychologically damaging to those who undergo it.

It is denounced because the APA redefined homosexuality from the class of mental disorders. Anyone who treats people wanting to leave the lifestyle, as a professional psychiatrist faces the loss of his license by the APA. Why the change? Because homosexual activists argued and lobbied for the change.

Many people are unhappy with the lifestyle, and cannot find help for this reason. Notice, I do not advocate forced treatment. That will harm the person. We do far more harm by refusing to help those who ask.

Where's the concrete evidence that sexuality is fixed, Boris?

[Boris Godunov]

Considering there aren't any reports of gays suing to be admitted to churches where they are not wanted, I can't imagine there would be suits over marriage. After all, gays could likely find a gay-friendly church somewhere or, barring that, just go to a Justice of the Peace.

[Jac de Molay]

First off, it's not just religious folks talking about the promiscuity prevalent among homosexuals, concern is also expressed by some homosexual activists, and public health officials.

It's been mainly religious fundamentalists who have portrayed homosexuals as some sort of sex-crazed beasts- hence the spread of AIDs. Gay activists and public health dont stigmatize gay men in such a manner, so I wouldn't put them in the same group.

A monogamous may be better than promiscuity, but it is not as good as a heterosexual marriage. Thus, we should offer counseling and services to homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle.

Define better?? Define good?? The benefits of marriage, (or even a legally recognized civil union) go well beyond just biology! Theres financial benefits, taxation/investment benefit....hell, even health benefits since married peple live longer.

BTW, you can't "deprogram" gay people like they're in a cult or somethinkg.

[Ben Kenobi]

Times change. I'm sure if you go back 50-100 years you would find a vast number of people arguing against mixed race marraiges. My hope is that in the future, we'll simply view homosexual marraige in the same way.

red_jon:

Christians have usually argued for the equality of persons, as they do now, that gay people are no less than any other people.

The problem is that Christianity considers homosexuality to be a sin. They cannot accomodate sin by allowing homosexuals to marry. Part of the problem for the congregation that by marrying homosexuals, they would encourage others to sin.

And about the promiscuity thing - in our society, it seems women are usually the party to turn down/ limit sex. With no woman in the equation, of course men are going to be more promiscious. IMO anyway.

Some men are the party to limit as well. Depends on the person.

Considering there aren't any reports of gays suing to be admitted to churches where they are not wanted, I can't imagine there would be suits over marriage. After all, gays could likely find a gay-friendly church somewhere or, barring that, just go to a Justice of the Peace.

We should place a bet then Boris. I have far less confidence that religious freedom will be respected if gay people are allowed to marry.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogman

I think this is total crap. Marriage has been a legal institution for thousands of years across many cultures and religions. Faith in any particular religion has nothing to do with it.

The problem is that in all the countries I have lived in (admittedly that's only four) marriage has for longer than anyone can remember been primarily a religious service and more importantly a religious service of religions that have a problem with homosexuality. If it is different in some other countries then so be it. But it isn't here. The ritual of marriage is historically conditioned whether we like it or not.

Look, you can't take someone's religious ritual, however daft you think it is and use it for a purpose that that religious community finds abhorrent. It's deeply offensive and disrespectful of those people. What if I started holding my own Barmitzvahs and ate pork and pretended to be Hitler? Do you think that Jewish people would not be rightfully angry at this?

My own view is that civil unions are the way to go right now. It lets the religious people keep what they think is theirs - for now. My own suspicion is that 20 years of civil unions will result in gay marriages being accepted because people will have forgotten what all the trouble was about.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
If there are some exceptions, as 'most' would seem to indicate, then why should human beings not also be exceptions?

Because it seems to be against our nature. We can look at our closest relatives, primates, and see it is not instinctual there. So instinct seems to be against monogomy, especially since most humans seem to have a problem with it.

Yet you celebrate Asher's coming out thread? If you do not trust that Asher is sincere, why would you congratulate him? This makes no sense. I for one would rather trust Asher to know more about his own sexuality than you do.

Where did I say I didn't think he was sincere? People are sincerely confused about their sexuality. Teens especially. But a common path I have observed among young people is Pretend Straight--Claim Bisexual--Accept Homosexual. It's not necessarily what happened in Asher's case, but it is quite possible. I myself was in denial about being gay for a long time--that doesn't mean my orientation magically changed from straight to gay at some point.

The point was that his coming out was in no way evidence of alteration of orientation at will. In fact, I'd say it is proof of the opposite, since Asher and myself can both attest to the fact that, at first, we desperately tried to be heterosexual. It didn't work.

Slow yourself Boris. You should know that a utilitarian argument will hardly be effective against me. First off, I can argue that marriage between a man and a woman is the best environment in which to sire, and raise children. There are other environments, but this is the best.

There are so many factors here as to make that a really odd claim of certainty. Wouldn't an environment of two stable, emotionally healthy homosexual parents trump two violent, abusive and irrational heterosexual parents? I think so.

However, it doesn't matter, since the legal right to marry has no bearing on the reproductive nature of the parents. Heterosexuals don't have to wed under a promise of propogating the species, nor are infertile couples barred. Ergo, legally, the status of child-raising suitability is moot for discussing gay marriage.

Contrary to this position, you have a union of two homosexual men who will not produce children within themselves. Hardly the same thing.

It is hardly different than the numerous heterosexuals who marry and choose not to have kids. Should people be required to have kids if they are able? No, of course not.

Also, there are two purposes to marriage, to produce an environment to raise children, and for partnership between a man and a woman, such that friendship cannot provide.

The former is true, and can apply to homosexuals easily. The latter is pure invention, as the entire debate is about expanding marriage to be a partnership between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Please refrain from circular reasoning.

Everyone who cannot abide by these terms should not marry. It's as simple as that. No one is forcing people to get married.

What does forcing have to do with anything? No one ever asserted marriage should be mandatory. The question is simply what interest the state has in legally prohibiting gay marriage--I've yet to see a valid reason.

It is denounced because the APA redefined homosexuality from the class of mental disorders. Anyone who treats people wanting to leave the lifestyle, as a professional psychiatrist faces the loss of his license by the APA. Why the change? Because homosexual activists argued and lobbied for the change.

This is an oft-repeated lie, but a lie nonetheless. The notion that the APA changed its stance purely at the behest of gay activists is nonsense. I'm rather dismayed you'd resort to such a falsehood.

The APA changed its stance because psychological experts agreed, overwhelmingly, that being gay was not a disorder. That's all. Considering the change in definition came about at a time when the gay rights lobby wielded almost no power, this assertion is absurd.

This has been a really common, cheap tactic of the anti-gay crowd: If the experts disagree with you, the experts must be doing so for political reasons.

Many people are unhappy with the lifestyle, and cannot find help for this reason. Notice, I do not advocate forced treatment. That will harm the person. We do far more harm by refusing to help those who ask.

Many heterosexuals are miserable in their lifestyles. Should we advocate their conversion to homosexuality?

Even voluntary treatment is harmful, according to the mental health experts. The individual sets himself up for failure, and the failures lead to more self-loathing and despair. Most people who enter such programs really do want to change, but why do they fail?

Where's the concrete evidence that sexuality is fixed, Boris?

Until there is evidence it can be changed at will, then we must assume so. At any rate, it makes far more sense to eliminate the stigma of homosexuality to affect good mental health among gays than to advocate schlock therapy that is shown not to work time and time again. Even many ex-gay supporters acknowledge the desires never go away, they just learn to suppress them. Yeah, that's healthy.

We should place a bet then Boris. I have far less confidence that religious freedom will be respected if gay people are allowed to marry.

Now that's just downright offensive. You have no basis of asserting this, that I can see. We can look at the places where homosexual marriage has been legally approved and see no such trend. It makes no sense to believe churches would somehow be forced to allow gays. Churches aren't even forced to allow any minorities, for pete's sake!

That just sounded really bigoted.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Christians have usually argued for the equality of persons, as they do now, that gay people are no less than any other people.

The problem is that Christianity considers homosexuality to be a sin. They cannot accomodate sin by allowing homosexuals to marry. Part of the problem for the congregation that by marrying homosexuals, they would encourage others to sin.

We should place a bet then Boris. I have far less confidence that religious freedom will be respected if gay people are allowed to marry.

I have to disagree. Churches have taught that blacks are descended from Ham, Noah's son and that he was punished by God for some reason having to do with Noah being naked and drunk. (and this is the only guy God wanted to save?) Anyway, many Christians still believe today that interracial marriage is an abomination and a sin before God. Prejudice runs deeper than you'd like to think.

I'm sorry, I just don't think the state will ever come in and tell a church what they can and can't do. In the US, that line is drawn in blood.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'll start with Frogman:

Churches have taught that blacks are descended from Ham, Noah's son and that he was punished by God for some reason having to do with Noah being naked and drunk. (and this is the only guy God wanted to save?) Anyway, many Christians still believe today that interracial marriage is an abomination and a sin before God. Prejudice runs deeper than you'd like to think.

Genesis 9:20

"Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [1] to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside."

This of course begs the question, how do we know the colour of Ham's skin? If this is their only argument, then we have to chalk this up to prejudice.

You'd love my church though, Frogman.

I'm sorry, I just don't think the state will ever come in and tell a church what they can and can't do. In the US, that line is drawn in blood.

Key word:

US.

Is the situation the same in Canada? You have to realise that we just had the Mark Hall case here in Canada, where the provincial government overruled a Catholic school. Marc Hall wanted to invite his gay boyfriend to his prom, and the school refused on the grounds that they were a Catholic school. After the case went to the provincial courts, they put an injunction on the Catholic school, forcing them to admit Marc Hall and his boyfriend to the prom.

I hope that this places my concern in the proper perspective.

There's also a bill in the house of Parliament sponsored by Svend Robinson, which I will post after dinner.

[Ben Kenobi]

So instinct seems to be against monogomy, especially since most humans seem to have a problem with it.

Instinctual or simply inconvenient?

Gorillas are actually very close to humans and are monogamous.

In fact, I'd say it is proof of the opposite, since Asher and myself can both attest to the fact that, at first, we desperately tried to be heterosexual. It didn't work.

In what sense did this not work?

Wouldn't an environment of two stable, emotionally healthy homosexual parents trump two violent, abusive and irrational heterosexual parents? I think so.

Which are more likely? I'd say both of these are the extremes on their respective bell-curves. I would expect many more stable families with two-parents, a mom and a dad.

Ergo, legally, the status of child-raising suitability is moot for discussing gay marriage.

Legally, the state stays homosexuals cannot be married at all, at least in the US. You have to slog under morality, not legality to make your case.

Secondly, the state has interests in preserving marriage, again, as the most stable environment for children.

The question is simply what interest the state has in legally prohibiting gay marriage--I've yet to see a valid reason.

What would you consider valid? There is no middle ground between approval and prohibition, so the question becomes better framed as why should the state approve of homosexual marriage?

Finally, since you are changing the status quo, the burden should rest on the progressives. If the definition of marriage changes, then the society will change as well.

Should people be required to have kids if they are able? No, of course not.

No, but why get married in the first place? That to me I don't understand.

The notion that the APA changed its stance purely at the behest of gay activists is nonsense.

Purely? Where do I say that?

http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_two/files/asb.htm

Interesting link. Look at some of the arguments made by one of the people responsible for changing the definition of homosexuality as a mental disease.

Do you agree with him here, Boris?

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

From a recent APA article. There has never been a consensus among the APA as you assert.

http://www.counsel.ufl.edu/selfHelp/sexualOrientation.asp

Again, look what they admit:

Can therapy change sexual orientation?

"Close scrutiny of their reports indicates several factors that cast doubt; many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective on sexual orientation, rather than from mental health researchers;"

In other words, they can play the man, not the body. Disappointing.

Why don't they do the research themselves if they do not know?

Why do they say no, when they do not even try?

Even many ex-gay supporters acknowledge the desires never go away, they just learn to suppress them.

It's like a recovering alcoholic Boris.

Until there is evidence it can be changed at will, then we must assume so.

At will?

Most will require therapy. What about these familiar links:

http://www.exodus-international.org/testimonials_pastors.shtml

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

Many heterosexuals are miserable in their lifestyles. Should we advocate their conversion to homosexuality?

Is there a demand to do so? That's what I am saying that there is a demand for homosexuals for help, that the APA is not allowing them to do so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marc Hall case:

http://www.canoe.ca/NationalTicker/CANOE-wire.Gay-Prom-Date.html

Bill C-250: Hate crimes legislation

http://www.lifesite.net/interim/2002/aug/05whatswrong.html

Concerns over the ability of Christians to express biblical passages condemning homosexuality as sinful.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Instinctual or simply inconvenient?

Gorillas are actually very close to humans and are monogamous.

I really don't want to get into this particular argument, it's just one of those "have to peak at all the threads" things, but Bonobos are even closer to humans, and screwing everyone is a major form of social interaction for them. The good news (for females) is that Bonobos are apparently the only other species that experiences female orgasm, the bad news is that sex lasts on average 13 seconds.

Their sexual behavior has been studied quite extensively, and also includes same-sex genital to genital contact. It's a form of social "stress relief."

The point is you can get into all sorts of weird conclusions trying to sort out instinct from social custom within the higher primates. You really have to look at behaviors that occur in a broader range of primate species, particularly those with little social group development, before determining how likely a behavior is to be instinctive, rather than just a developed social custom.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


the bad news is that sex lasts on average 13 seconds.

Just like humans.

[Drake Tungsten]

I wish.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Genesis 9:20

"Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [1] to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside."

This of course begs the question, how do we know the colour of Ham's skin? If this is their only argument, then we have to chalk this up to prejudice.

You'd love my church though, Frogman.

I don't want to hijack the thread to discuss biblical issues but this is quick. It comes from Gen 9:25 where Noah cursed Ham by saying "Cursed be Canaan, the lowest of the slaves will he be to his brothers." Remember, I live in the south. Many believe slavery was Biblically justified or at least explained.

More on the subject Obiwan, I can't believe you say marriage has no value for those who choose not to have children. You ignore completely the legal issues of inheritance, insurance, benefits, medical decisions, taxes etc. in addition to the significance of the marriage on the relationship.

While religion is involved in the process, this is not a religious issue. Its a legal one and a question of legal rights. It is up to the state and not religions to decide this though certainly everyone is free to express their opinion. Regardless of majority opinion, the state still has to prove that restricting the rights of same sex couples from getting married is constitutional. If its a question of rights, its not a majority rules decision.

[SpencerH]

Gorillas are not monogamous.