Social progress

[rah]

Because of the alliances of families and the raising of children.

Gay unions can still result in the alliances of families and the raising of children, so I"m not sure if I understand your argument.

And if people choose it, while I may not agree with it, I still believe it's none of my business.

Now multiple wives to me is more of a grey area since there have been claims of compulsion. If they are truly entered by choice it would be hard for me to oppose because then I'm making it my business.

To me, a possible issue is should kids (assuming they're old enough, and just what age is that) be able block their own adoption by a gay couple.

[Jon Miller]

Saying that marriage is about relationships and not a social thing (family alliance/raising children and the business of society/others) weakens marriage as a civil institution.

Saying that homosexuals can raise children and so on in the civil institution of marriage strengths marriage as a civil institution. This presupposes that homosexuals are something that you are and not something that you do.

Note that this quite heavily depends on whether being homosexual is something that you are doing or something that you are.

In Asia and pre-Christian Europe/ME (to get out of the religion conversation) it was usual to have romantic/sexual relationships with both sexes but for pretty obvious reasons marriage was (almost) solely between a man and a woman. Maybe this is the better way to organize society and the last two decades push for gay marriage will be viewed as a strange fad.

I could see that the idea that homosexual is something you are and not something you do as arising from Christianity/etc.

JM

[rah]

Saying that homosexuals can raise children and so on in the civil institution of marriage strengths marriage as a civil institution. This presupposes that homosexuals are something that you are and not something that you do.

I agree that it strengthens but still have a problem understanding why you are or not makes any difference. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Proteus_MST]

Many nowadays (fundamentalist) christians actually seem to think that homosexual isn't what you are, but what you do.

Which is why there were (or maybe still are) Jesus camps n the USA, where it is attempted to brainwash homosexual kids into becoming heterosexuals ...
and why worldwide he are preachers who think that you can "pray the gay away"

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, that was the old position (BK).

But currently (the last year) social liberals and liberal scientists have started promoting it.

Which might mean that it doesn't have to be something that is based on the Christian opposition to homosexuals/homosexuality after all.

That is why I said that I am waiting and seeing. There hasn't been a big change, but there might be. And I really do think that it pulls the rug from gay marriage (in favor of the traditional pro-homosexuality cultures where gay marriage didn't exist).

Christians said 'why can't you stop doing homosexual activities... it must be because you are (evil)' which is where the 'are' position started.

JM
(There just would be no gay marriage as a positive thing if children belonged to an alliance of families and romantic/sexual relationships were unrelated to marriage. The whole motivation for gay marriage is that romantic/sexual relationships are intimately tied to marriage (this is mostly a western Christian thing).)

(I am Christian, which is some of the reason I am very OK to let liberal secular thinkers take the lead here.)

[rah]

The romantic angle is immaterial to me since there have been traditional marriages throughout history that weren't. To me it's more about the legal aspects. I see no reason to deny them those rights.

[Proteus_MST]

It seems to me like this also was/is the primary reason for many gays/lesbian worldwide, to fight for gay marriage.

Things like being allowed to visit the partner in hospital ... being registered as the partner regarding heritage and widows annuity and, of course, last but not least, regardiing adoptions.

[Lorizael]

JM, I think your position is essentially a very conservative one. You're operating under the principle that society has to be run in the best possible way or else it might all come crashing down. I think society is robust enough that it can survive a lot, and thus it's worth it for us to experiment with new ways of living. Does gay marriage have some calculable net positive value to society? And are the margins so slim that a little bit of evidence one way or another might take that from net positive to net negative? I don't think we have any way of determining that. Let's just see what happens when we try the gay way, especially because it serves the very obvious benefit of increasing liberty.

[Jon Miller]

I will admit that in a world with less crazy conservatives, I might be conservative rather than liberal. I do lean conservative for societal constructs which are poorly understood by sociologists/economists/etc.

I have read a lot of science fiction/etc and understand the liberal perspective. It is basically 'why not?' versus 'why?'. But in my view, people are people. We have not surpassed our animal nature.

For those who think that gay marriage is perfectly compatible with the traditional civil construct of marriage (alliance of families with the goal of future children/etc), how does it work? There shouldn't be children to adopt (other than inside a family). And if homosexual activity is something that you do rather than something you are, what is the problem with keeping such alliances based on a woman and man (at least for the future of the alliance)?

I know that once we get to full on cloning/genetic creation of children that this argument goes away.

However, I have a hard time being sure which future we are going towards. Recently I have been inclined to think that we will end up like the Solarians from Asimov's Foundation series (maybe with a primitive population which would not be considered fully 'human' by the Solarians). So I sort of prefer to consider issues like the above in the steady state framework and let the people of the future (maybe my daughter?) decide the future.

JM

[Proteus_MST]

...

For those who think that gay marriage is perfectly compatible with the traditional civil construct of marriage (alliance of families with the goal of future children/etc), how does it work? There shouldn't be children to adopt (other than inside a family). ...

There will always be children to adopt.
For one, there will always be children where both parents die for one reason or the other (accidents, violence, illnesses) and which therefore have to be sent to an orphanage.
For the other, unless you assume a strict "no sex before marriage", there will always be children born out of marriage (due to lack of contraception) where the mother doesn't want to have an abortion performed, but where both, she and the biological father, are unable to raise the kid themselves (for examle because being to young and/or poor) and which, therefore, give their kid away for adoption


In a way gay couples adopting children would perform a similar role like gay specimens in nature.
In nature, gay specimens (in several species) have been observed as increasing the procreaton-success of their genetic family, as they help raising the kids of their heterosexual relatives (and therefore increse the chances, that those kids reach an age in which they themselves can procreate and carry the families genes over).
If gay couples in human society would adopt children there (unlike in the examples in non-human animals I mentioned) would be no direct genetic relationship, of course, but nevertheless, they would help to increase the chance of children in the state to become productive members of society

[Aeson]

But why is it important? Because of the alliances of families and the raising of children.

These are completely societal issues.

Relationships between 2 consenting adults is their business. But there is no reason that should be at all related to the civil institution of marriage.

BTW, no-fault divorce is probably the worse thing for the civil construct of marriage.

JM

If you really believed raising kids and getting married are actually societal issues, and not something that should be left up to personal choices, then you would support government telling people who to marry and how many kids they should have ...

[Lorizael]

Recently I have been inclined to think that we will end up like the Solarians from Asimov's Foundation series...

I always thought Solaria was a utopia.

[Jon Miller]

There will always be children to adopt.
For one, there will always be children where both parents die for one reason or the other (accidents, violence, illnesses) and which therefore have to be sent to an orphanage.

Not if children come from an alliance of families, the children should go to aunt/uncle/cousin/etc.

JM

[Proteus_MST]

Not if children come from an alliance of families, the children should go to aunt/uncle/cousin/etc.

JM

Considering that, especially in the western world, 1 child families have been common for more than one generation, there may not be any aunts, cousins in many families ... and if the grandparents are already dead, there may not be any drect relatives anymore

[Ben Kenobi]

I still don't understand why people can be against it.

Given that you're Catholic, I'm quite surprised by that. Catholics are pretty clear about what sex and marriage are supposed to mean. Why would it be surprising for Christians to be against it? The bible is very clear that sodomy is a sin.

You're free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change what the bible teaches and why.

It's not like the law is saying they have to marry somebody of the same sex.

In Alberta they just shut down two Christian private schools because they insisted on teaching biblical principles. So yes, they might not be forced to marry someone, they are being forced to deny what they believe. Exactly what I predicted years ago.

I never would, but I don't care if others want to.

Then why can't Christians be left alone?

If some people want to consider it a sin, well that's their opinion. Nobody is saying they have to sin.

Again, why are Christians being forced to deny what they believe? Christians should be able to educate their children according to Christian principles per the 1st Amendment.

People's relationships are their business.

If it is 'their' business, why are they seeking the recognition of the state? Clearly it isn't just 'their' business. They want state recognition because they want benefits. If it was just about 'their' business there would be no need for a license, etc.

If 2 consenting adults want to have a relationship, what business is it to others, and why should they even care.

None, but that's not what homosexual marriage advocates are demanding.

It's a simple matter of some people wanting to cram their views on other people. They want to restrict the rights of other.

Hilarious. Yes, it's all about 'people wanting to cram their views on other people'. But not the people you suspect.