equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by martha

If this is belittling, can I have some more?

i don't feel belittled at all ... quite the opposite ...

[martha]

heh heh...

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and we get all these contortions from you two, and very little substance -- you still have not answered the question about what it is that straights can do that gays cannot

You’ve admitted a difference between men and women, at least at the biological level. You identified a male is a male by virtue of having a penis, and a female is a female by virtue of having a vagina. Since you have identified biological differences between a male and a female – you have at the same time identified a biological difference between couples comprised of male/ female vs. male/male vs. female/female. At this point, there is not assumption of “best” or “better” – just different (at least biologically). So, the question of “what is the difference” is at least partially answered.

Terms like “best” and “better” in this case, are at their core – value judgments. When discussing these “couples” as heterosexual vs. homosexual – part of the discussion is trying to determine which has more “value” to society, or if it is even possible that one could have more value than the other couple. Furthermore, if one is demonstrated to have more value – should society encourage that one, while discouraging the other?

I agree that it would be impossible for heterosexual couples to have more value to society if there is no actual difference between them and homosexual couples. Yet, there is a difference, a biological difference - as pointed out above. And this is not an insignificant difference (like hair color, eye color, skin color), in strictly biological terms, as it turns out that natural reproduction can be the result of the male/female union – and not the other unions. So, if everything else is the same between the heterosexual couples and homosexual couples – the one key biological difference is that continuation of the species is naturally possible through one union, and not the other. So, before modern science made it possible for non-heterosexual partners to conceive and bear children – heterosexuality was the only possible way for the species to survive. Before modern science, it seems logical that heterosexuality had more “biological value” to human beings by means of the ability to continue life. Will you concede this point?

[phillyfan26]

But even then, before modern science, were couples required to have children to marry?

I think you know the answer.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

But even then, before modern science, were couples required to have children to marry?

I think you know the answer.

I was simply addressing the question "what is different" between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples on a purely biological level - and whether or not heterosexual unions had more biological value than homosexual unions to the species before modern science.

[BoMac]

Originally Posted by AEON

Yet, there is a difference, a biological difference - as pointed out above. And this is not an insignificant difference (like hair color, eye color, skin color), in strictly biological terms, as it turns out that natural reproduction can be the result of the male/female union – and not the other unions. So, if everything else is the same between the heterosexual couples and homosexual couples – the one key biological difference is that continuation of the species is naturally possible through one union, and not the other. So, before modern science made it possible for non-heterosexual partners to conceive and bear children – heterosexuality was the only possible way for the species to survive. Before modern science, it seems logical that heterosexuality had more “biological value” to human beings by means of the ability to continue life. Will you concede this point?

I have read you use the reproductive argument in the last little while, the "continuation of the species", if you will.

How will allowing gay marriage for 5% of the population affect that, exactly?

The only thing I can think of, is that you think that homosexuality is a choice rather than genetic, and that by allowing gay marriage it will do two things: encourage other adults to become homosexual; and encourage children who come from same gender relationships to think homosexuality is "normal" and encourage them to engage in the homosexual "lifestyle".

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Y When discussing these “couples” as heterosexual vs. homosexual – part of the discussion is trying to determine which has more “value” to society, or if it is even possible that one could have more value than the other couple. Furthermore, if one is demonstrated to have more value – should society encourage that one, while discouraging the other?

I agree that it would be impossible for heterosexual couples to have more value to society if there is no actual difference between them and homosexual couples. Yet, there is a difference, a biological difference - as pointed out above. And this is not an insignificant difference (like hair color, eye color, skin color), in strictly biological terms, as it turns out that natural reproduction can be the result of the male/female union – and not the other unions.

so now you're predicating marriage upon having offspring that is 50% each of the partners?

so all those adopted kids don't count? those couples who choose to remain childless? those couples who marry much later in life beyond their years of fertility?

gay people can have children that are biologically related to one partner, why is that child not entitled to have his parents married?

and in a world where we're often bemoaning the amount of children who need to be adopted, isn't there a huge "value" in protecting a couple who potentially could adopt these excess children? isn't there a "value" in providing stability for gay people who, and i haven't even brought this up yet, might actually benefit tremendously from having structure, meaning, and purpose to their romantic lives the way that straight people have structure, meaning, and purpose and a goal?

So, before modern science made it possible for non-heterosexual partners to conceive and bear children – heterosexuality was the only possible way for the species to survive. Before modern science, it seems logical that heterosexuality had more “biological value” to human beings by means of the ability to continue life. Will you concede this point?

i think i've stated this point before, and i think the most important point is that we understand marriage to be a far more complex thing than a baby making factor. in fact, AEON, you've outlined a good argument for polygamy if we're going to assign "value" to the ability of people to continue life. one man can impregnate many women at once, so we're all better off as a species if one man keeps his 5 wives pregnant. further, we better do away with age-of-consent laws, because a woman only has a limited time to produce children, and risk of birth defects go up once she turns 35. so better get her breeding the day after she has her first period so that we can maximize her reproductive potential.

i think we'd both agree that this is all absurd, and that people are more complex than their ability to reproduce, and that's why marriage is far more complex.

i think that the idea behind marriage is absolutely tied to reproduction, but more as a way of making a man stay and provide for a woman with a child. it has more to do with civilizing heterosexual men than it's about sanctifying the actual heterosexual union that produces a child.

as our understanding of marriage has evolved, so should the institution evolve.

i'll point back to that Thomas Jefferson quote i posted last sunday:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by AEON

Furthermore, if one is demonstrated to have more value – should society encourage that one, while discouraging the other?

I think that sentence speaks to the apparent view that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are a choice. For, if both weren't a choice, society, or the government, could never encourage or discourage either one. Except for, maybe, making homosexuals hide their true identity and agree into heterosexual relationships. Which, very sadly, is the case in reality all too often.

[Diemen]

If we're to follow the "continuation of th species" logic, then infertile couples should also not be allowed to marry, since they cannot biologically reproduce.

Nevermind the fact that your argument contains it's own rebuttal (modern science), ignores reality (child rearing is not a requirement of marriage and there are many more things in marriage that are beneficial to society than merely procreation) and again dodges the real question.

[AEON]

How will allowing gay marriage for 5% of the population affect that, exactly?

The only thing I can think of, is that you think that homosexuality is a choice rather than genetic, and that by allowing gay marriage it will do two things: encourage other adults to become homosexual; and encourage children who come from same gender relationships to think homosexuality is "normal" and encourage them to engage in the homosexual "lifestyle".

Actually, I wasn't addressing gay marriage directly in this above post – only addressing the question of “difference” and raising the possibility that this difference had more biological value before modern science since it was critical to the survival of the species.

[Irvine511]

dp.

[Irvine511]

i do think that AEON is correct -- marriage was about having children, not so much as a celebration of the sacredness of the heterosexual act (that was grafted onto it by religion in order to use notions of God to scare people), but to keep men from impregnating lots of women.

not much holds a society back more than having a surfeit of children that cannot be provided for.

[BoMac]

Originally Posted by AEON

Actually, I wasn't addressing gay marriage directly in this above post – only addressing the question of “difference” and raising the possibility that this difference had more biological value before modern science since it was critical to the survival of the species.

See below:

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

I think that sentence speaks to the apparent view that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are a choice. For, if both weren't a choice, society, or the government, could never encourage or discourage either one. Except for, maybe, making homosexuals hide their true identity and agree into heterosexual relationships. Which, very sadly, is the case in reality all too often.

Originally Posted by Diemen

If we're to follow the "continuation of th species" logic, then infertile couples should also not be allowed to marry, since they cannot biologically reproduce.

Nevermind the fact that your argument contains it's own rebuttal (modern science), ignores reality (child rearing is not a requirement of marriage and there are many more things in marriage that are beneficial to society than merely procreation) and again dodges the real question.

Can you answer these questions for me, AEON: do you think that homosexuality is a choice?

And, if so, do you think that by allowing gay marriage, it would encourage others, such as myself, to say 'hey, gays can marry now! Why don't I find myself a nice man to settle down with?'"

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

and again dodges the real question.

Again, the only question I was addressing above was that of difference. I used Irvine's accepted definition of a male and female to demonstrate that there is at least a biological difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. For some reason, it seems difficult for all of us to get past this point before continuing the discussion.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by BoMac

See below:





Can you answer these questions for me, AEON: do you think that homosexuality is a choice?

I would like to reserve this question for later, because it is a good one and I think it deserves more attention than I can give it right now.

And, if so, do you think that by allowing gay marriage, it would encourage others, such as myself, to say 'hey, gays can marry now! Why don't I find myself a nice man to settle down with?'"

Ultimately, as you may or may not know - I have come to the conclusion that the state should have nothing to do with marriage.

[BoMac]

Originally Posted by AEON

Ultimately, as you may or may not know - I have come to the conclusion that the state should have nothing to do with marriage.

You did not answer the question.

Please answer the question.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

I would like to reserve this question for later, because it is a good one and I think it deserves more attention than I can give it right now.

couldn't you just ask a gay person as to whether or not they chose to be gay?

[WCF]

We are a modern society. The "continuation of the species" argument really doesn't apply anymore. We have advanced medicine, technology, laws, governments, etc. We no longer follow those basic rules regarding reproduction and survival. It's not like we're not barbarians on the verge of extinction or anything like that.

Therefore, our focus is now more on rights and equality, rather than "survival of the species," because, face it, our survival as a race by reproduction really isn't much of a relevant issue anymore. In fact, it's probably the opposite now that we're stuck with overpopulation. Anyways, even if it were to be somewhat of an issue, gay marriage is not something that is too huge on scale. Even if our "survival as a species" was threatened by reproduction rates, the gay population wouldn't make much of a difference. And as someone before pointed out, gay couples may be beneficial in that sense by adopting and raising children (and no, the idea that that is somehow detrimental to the children is only an assumption).

[Irvine511]

AEON/INDY/whoever -- why do you think there are gay people?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

Ultimately, as you may or may not know - I have come to the conclusion that the state should have nothing to do with marriage.

Which allows more choice for churches to marry who they want, which honestly negates any real meaning or importance you ever gave to any previous arguments you had against. For now you're basically saying well if I can't be the only ones to reap such benefits then no one can. Plus you open a whole new set up legal headaches for couples and families.