Same -Sex Marriages--- Any other opinions?

[MaPoSquid]

I'm glad you're a Republican supporter, QM. Please tell your friends.

Just wait one dang-blasted, cotton-pickin' minute. I NEVER said I was a Republican supporter! Don't insult me like that.

Sheesh. Doesn't *anyone* pay attention to smilies any more??

BTW, you sound like my father. He is a staunch Republican and thinks that every thing that they say is correct and everything the Democrats say (or, rather, non-Republicans say) is lies. Please don't tell me your really think the Republicans/conservatives never lie and never "stoop low" in pushing their platform/agenda.

Oh please! As a good anarchist I am opposed to all of the parties. I've just been voting Republican so we don't get nuked.

P.S. My above comment about believing whatever mommy & daddy say was not a slam against Republicans -- i.e., saying that they can't think for themselves. It was a slam against me, at the time, because I didn't think for myself. Rather, I just accepted what my parents told me as "gospel." Both Republicans & Democrats, liberals & conservatives alike fall into this trap, believing whatever someone tells them, just because that person is their parent, an "expert," etc... without thinking for themselves.

Yeah, yeah, I got that. I call it the "parrot effect". One fine 4th of July, I was at a friend's place enjoying a picnic when some aunt of his showed up with her oppressed hubbie and tween-age daughter in tow. After an hour or two of her pontificating away about various topics, she suddenly announced to everyone about how proud she was of her daughter, who at the age of seven (7) years old had explained why she was in favor of legalized abortion.

Wow, she'd raised a parrot. Way to go, ma. Polly wanna abortion?

(Just as an FYI, I'd feel the same if the child of seven had announced an antiabortion position. How the hell can the mom be proud of having programmed her daughter? Oh well, I guess she wanted a xerox of herself.)

[rousseau]

...but frankly, there is no low to which the liberals won't stoop.

It would be more accurate to say that there is no low to which politicos of any stripe will stoop in the United States. Indeed, one could present a convincing case that conservatives in the US are more voluminous mud-slingers than liberals.

[QuietMountain]

I'm glad you're a Republican supporter, QM. Please tell your friends.

Just wait one dang-blasted, cotton-pickin' minute. I NEVER said I was a Republican supporter! Don't insult me like that.

Sheesh. Doesn't *anyone* pay attention to smilies any more??

If I was really upset at you Mapo, I would have used language stronger than "dang-blasted, cotton-pickin'"... I guess my choice of the "evil" smiley was not appropriate, without a corresponding "wink" or something to offset it. My apologies.

BTW, you sound like my father.

Oh please! As a good anarchist I am opposed to all of the parties. I've just been voting Republican so we don't get nuked.

And, and "Oh please!" to you, too!!! (I wish we still had the tongue smiley.)

P.S. My above comment about believing whatever mommy & daddy say was not a slam against Republicans -- i.e., saying that they can't think for themselves.

Yeah, yeah, I got that. I call it the "parrot effect".

Yeah, I'm glad you got it. But, I wasn't writing it just for you. I was sure, and still am, despite the explanation, that someone will think I'm slamming Republicans as non-thinking idiots. Some are of course (in my opinon Dubya is one), but so are some of the Democrats, independents, etc... etc...

[Mother Theresa]

As a good anarchist I am opposed to all of the parties. I've just been voting Republican so we don't get nuked.

Yea, anarchy, there's a good solution -- the strong taking from the weak. Not sure what that has to do with same-sex marriages though.

Still haven't heard any reasons why they should be illegal either (since Coldfront left us).

[rousseau]

Thanks for the links, RegularJoe. A fundamental premise of the "First Things" essay, and indeed, the anti-gay marriage camp as a whole, is that same-sex marriage "...would radically change the customs, laws, and moral expectations embedded in millennia of human experience." This is easily shot down, as a multitude of customs have changed radically over time, some of them now almost universally seen as untenable, such as human sacrifice and slavery, and arguing for preventing change to customs per se is weak, if not incoherent. Furthermore, there's the whiff of temper tantrum about it--Things should stay the same!

Sure, the evidence suggests strongly that a stable, healthy society is one where the majority of children are raised by fathers and mothers together, and that too much deviation from this standard, either from divorce or hippy-dippy Platonic communes or the like, is demonstrably detrimental. The jury is still out on whether a society with a large percentage of same-sex couples raising children would not be detrimental, as we don't have enough evidence to do research on it, though I would say that it surely could be detrimental, as children in large numbers are robbed of immediate role models of one of the sexes (just as in single-parent families). This is not taking into account other factors such as the stability of the parental relationship, of course.

But the answer to that is that there is no danger that America is going to "go gay" in a large way. Even those on the far right are beginning to accept that it is not a choice, but part of one's chemical/physiological makeup affecting a small percentage of the people out there. The hard fact of evolutionary psychology is that the vast majority of people are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and are disgusted by the idea of sexual relations with someone of the same sex. It would have to be this way, else we wouldn't be here!

Having said that, even though same-sex couples raising children will be a small percentage of the people as a whole, there's a chance they would congregate in certain communities and thereby make up a larger percentage of the local populace. There's no hard evidence to do research on that as yet so we don't know what kind of society that might produce, but my unhappy suspicion is that, very generally speaking, the negatives on the score card could potentially outweight the positives in regard to how those children are socialized.

Another standard complaint was uttered just now by Jerry Falwell on CNN. To wit: if we allow gays to marry, then what about men and boys, as per NAMBLA? That's easily shot down as well: marriage is to be prescribed as a public union between consenting adults.

Humans and dogs? Consenting human adults.

A brother and sister? Brother and brother? Father/mother and son/daughter? This is where it gets icky for some. If there is no coherent argument against gay marriage (and I don't believe there is), then it follows that there is no coherent argument against incestuous marriage (again, the vast majority of people are programmed by evolution to find incest repellent, so there's no danger that society will go "incestuous" in a large way). Naturally there would be laws concerning procreation to go with it. As creepy as it is to me, any proponent of same-sex marriage logically has to accept incestuous marriage as well, there's no way around it. The logic and argument concerning post-enlightenment free will are sound in this regard, but it is a stumbling-block for social conservatives, who will raise the spectre at every turn.

Ditto with polygamy. No argument against it makes sense if you allow same-sex marriage. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, though I would expect there would be some type of law in place to ensure that the polygamist has the economic wherewithal to support more than one husband or wife. Still, social conservatives are raising this spectre as well, and proponents of gay marriage are going to get tripped up by their own logic if they try to argue that two gays should be able to get married, but three gays should not. I've already seen a couple of advocates side-step this very question in televised debates.

That's enough for now.

[QuietMountain]

A fundamental premise of the "First Things" essay, and indeed, the anti-gay marriage camp as a whole, is that same-sex marriage "...would radically change the customs, laws, and moral expectations embedded in millennia of human experience." This is easily shot down, as a multitude of customs have changed radically over time, some of them now almost universally seen as untenable, such as human sacrifice and slavery, and arguing for preventing change to customs per se is weak, if not incoherent.

Amen & well said... culture, by its very nature is a changeable entity. If it does not change, evovle, adapt (whatever word you plan to use), it becomes stagnant and will eventually die out. As you mentioned, there are many customs, laws, and moral expectations that are drastically different than they were even 100 years ago -- woman's suffrage, segregation/civil rights, to name two you didn't.

Sure, the evidence suggests strongly that a stable, healthy society is one where the majority of children are raised by fathers and mothers together...

I will allow that two-parent-opposite-sex (TOSP) households may be better. However, that does not mean that a two-parent-same-sex household (TPSS) is detrimental. "Better" is not "best," nor does it, by its meaning imply that same-sex households are bad. It is a comparative word. For example, if my bf is shorter than me, that doesn't make him short. It just makes him less tall than me. (By the way, I'm 198cm/6'6" and he's 187cm/6'. Anyone think he is short? Especially for a Taiwanese?!?!?)

The jury is still out on whether a society with a large percentage of same-sex couples raising children would not be detrimental... though I would say that it surely could be detrimental, as children in large numbers are robbed of immediate role models of one of the sexes... This is not taking into account other factors such as the stability of the parental relationship, of course.

Yes, a TPSS household would not provide a role model for an opposite-sex (to the parents) child. But, as you mentioned, neither do single-parent homes. Very few people, today, would say that single parents can not successfulyl raise children. In fact, some women are now choosing to have children without getting married or having a father involved, other than the sperm donor. Single-parent houses are no longer the exception, though I don't know that they are the norm, either. My point is, how do these single-parents deal with providing role models for opposite-sex children? Why could a TPSS household not provide role models in similar ways.

Plus, wouldn't a two parent household, whether opposite- or same-sex, be better for the child, overall, than a single-parent one? I would think there would be more support & more stability. Talking of that, I definitely think you have to take into account the stability of the relationship. There are many TPOS households where the relationship between the parents is horrible and/or ends in divorce. Wouldn't a stable home, even a TPSS household be better for the child?

But the answer to that is that there is no danger that America is going to "go gay" in a large way. Even those on the far right are beginning to accept that it is not a choice, but part of one's chemical/physiological makeup affecting a small percentage of the people out there.

I lived in an conservative, Christian, opposite-sex parented, stable relationship home for 25 years. I am still a gay man!

If being part of a certain "environment" influence your sexuality, than why am I gay. And, to extend that idea, why are there homosexuals at all? For most of history... until the last decade?... homosexuals (individuals or couples) raising children was unheard of.

Therefore, the overwhelming majority of those of us who are gay grew up in "straight" households. So, if environment plays a role in sexual orientation choice, why were we not "influenced" to be straight, instead of gay? Especially considering the fact that, even today when gays & lesbians are more visible, the whole of society is basically heterosexual-oriented (and the majority of people out there are actually straight). Where did this "gay influence" come from that caused us all to be straight?

Having said that, even though same-sex couples raising children will be a small percentage of the people as a whole, there's a chance they would congregate in certain communities and thereby make up a larger percentage of the local populace.

The reason that many homosexuals congregate in certain cities or areas of cities is because it is a place they can go and feel comfortable. Out in the "general society" they can face a lot of prejudice. Therefore, I think that, if society could accepted those same-sex families as just as valid as opposite-sex families, there would be no need for "same-sex family communities."

Another standard complaint was uttered just now by Jerry Falwell on CNN. To wit: if we allow gays to marry, then what about men and boys, as per NAMBLA? That's easily shot down as well: marriage is to be prescribed as a public union between consenting adults.

Humans and dogs? Consenting human adults.

You covered this one fine... I won't even comment further.

A brother and sister? Brother and brother? Father/mother and son/daughter? This is where it gets icky for some. If there is no coherent argument against gay marriage (and I don't believe there is), then it follows that there is no coherent argument against incestuous marriage

Um... I don't have any research to back this up, but I would think that incestuous marriages already take place from time to time. At the very least we know that there are incestuous relationships out there. Hey, just watch Jerry Springer. Seriously... I don't believe that allowing same-sex marriage would encourage incest. Incest has existed for a long time and probably always will. As for having to accept incestuous marriages, if you accept same-sex marriages... I'd have to say you are probably right. There is no way to defend/oppose one without defending/opposing another.

There probably is no logical, nor moral/ethical, prohibition against incest or incestuous marriages. Well, with the exception of the the "ick" factor, which is based, I think, in the biological prohibition that close members of the same genetic family procreating is not a pretty thing, causing genetic glitches and such. Even so, I doubt that the percentage of people who engage in incest and would be interested in marriage is very large. If it was, I think you would have seen more political actionism on this by now.

Ditto with polygamy. No argument against it makes sense if you allow same-sex marriage.... proponents of gay marriage are going to get tripped up by their own logic if they try to argue that two gays should be able to get married, but three gays should not. I've already seen a couple of advocates side-step this very question in televised debates.

Again, I'm not sure there are ethical/moral prohibitions against this. It was certainly a part of Biblical history. And, even today, there are many societies/cultures that still allow it. Though, why you would want more than one partner, is beyond me. One is enough! But... that is another thread.

As for 3 gay men getting married to each other... that would never happen. Too much drama! TOO MUCH DRAMA!! Sheesh, you don't know gay men, do you!?!?! :mrgreen:

[RegularJoe]

First of all, I want to apologize to those of you who repsonded to my post. I didn't receive an email notification of the responses so I assumed the topic had died a quiet death.
As for arguments against gay marraige, I can think of many and porcelainprincess has brought up some that should be addressed, as quietmountain has done.

Amen & well said... culture, by its very nature is a changeable entity. If it does not change, evovle, adapt (whatever word you plan to use), it becomes stagnant and will eventually die out.

This is not sufficient. Change is not always good even though we have become addicted to change itself. Are you willing to question whether this change will be detrimental to society?

I will allow that two-parent-opposite-sex (TOSP) households may be better. However, that does not mean that a two-parent-same-sex household (TPSS) is detrimental.

The real question here is what is "best" or "ideal." I would argue that the best arrangement for children is a family made up of their natural mother and natural father. Appeals to other arrangements are false because they do not represent the ideal. Everyone here was made by the coupling of a man and a woman. This is the natural way of things. When we don't uphold the ideal and shoot instead for something less, then we get something less. This is detrimental for society.
Using flawed single-parent families as a defense is no defense at all because that arrangement is also not the ideal and shouldn't be promoted.

If being part of a certain "environment" influence your sexuality, than why am I gay. And, to extend that idea, why are there homosexuals at all?

The latest research that I have read shows that homosexuality is not genetically determined. No gay gene has been found. Homosexuality, like all sexuality is likely a result of biochemistry, a combination of nature and nuture. People are predisposed towards a sexual orientation by pre-existing body chemistry. That doesn't mean that that biochemistry is destiny, especially in people that might be more in the middle. In those cases, environemental influences could determine which sexual orientation they adopt. The gay culture itself acknowledges this when it says people are "confused." Notice how often the answer to that confusion offered by certain groups is simply to become gay. Hmm...

Another standard complaint was uttered just now by Jerry Falwell on CNN. To wit: if we allow gays to marry, then what about men and boys, as per NAMBLA? That's easily shot down as well: marriage is to be prescribed as a public union between consenting adults.

Humans and dogs? Consenting human adults.

And what is the age of consent? If marriage law is based on no higher morality or no historical precedent, then why can't it be changed to allow man/boy couplings? Why can't the age of consent be lowered? If you wish to argue against this, please do so by referring to a higher morality or principle that the law is based on.

As quietmountain and porcelainprincess have already correctly noted, if gay marriage is allowed, nothing will stop incestous marriages or multiple partner marriages. Once the overriding moral principles and historical precedent are abandoned then marriage law will mean anything people want it to mean. This will destroy society as we know it.

[Poagao]

Once the overriding moral principles and historical precedent are abandoned then marriage law will mean anything people want it to mean. This will destroy society as we know it.

And this is a bad thing?

[Closet Queen]

Are you willing to question whether this change will be detrimental to society?

Yes. Are you willing to consider that the concepts of

[RegularJoe]

You talk of ideal as if it were some tenet cast in stone personally handed down to you. Your ideal is religiously, morally and culturally bound - something that I reject absolutely. Do not equate having children with family. The whole notion of family has evolved with society. Clinging on to