equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[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]

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:

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Diemen]

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.

Oh come on, AEON, we're smarter than that and so are you. We all know there is a biological difference. Shocking as it may seem, none of us were trying to say that there is no biological difference between a penis and a vagina, or different combinations thereof. That was never in question. Both you and I know that what you chose to respond to was not in any way the real question that Irvine was posing to you. Hence the conclusion that you're dodging the real question, which has been asked numerous times this thread, and which you've yet to directly answer.

 

[phillyfan26]

Can I request that AEON respond to the rest of the questions under the assumption that marriage will continue to be recognized by the government? I'm getting so sick of the "Well, personally, I think NO ONE should marry" dodge. No. No. That's not going to happen, so just stop it.

 

[nathan1977]

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

I'm not sure what causation has to do with the conversation at hand, but I read an interview with Terrance Dean a few years ago and found this quote fascinating:

I had not had a desire or thought of being with another man until I was molested by the male next-door neighbor. An incident helped spark, I would say, or created an opening for me to start questioning or start experimenting. ~ Terrance Dean, author, when asked whether he believes homosexuality is a choice.
Guess Who's Gay in Hip-Hop - TIME

To be fair, he says he doesn't think it's a choice, but his own experience negates a belief that it was innate in him; he may be still processing his own sexual identity, but I find it telling that he points to this incident as the formative one in his sexual journey.

I don't quote Terrance to perpetuate a stereotype that abuse is a/the primary cause of homosexuality, as I don't think that's true. I only quote him to illustrate the fact that there may be an abundance of reasons/causes for homosexuality, and in the absence of a demonstrated gay gene, such causes may be biological, chemical, sociological, etc. If one believes in the spectrum of sexuality, then there are those who are going to be at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of sexual expression, and then there will be those who are in flux.

But I still don't know what it has to do with this conversation...

 

[BVS]

That's all he's ever done is dodge, he's very transparent. He may be more polite than others at times, but he's still as transparent.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not sure what causation has to do with the conversation at hand, but I read an interview with Terrance Dean a few years ago and found this quote fascinating:

I had not had a desire or thought of being with another man until I was molested by the male next-door neighbor. An incident helped spark, I would say, or created an opening for me to start questioning or start experimenting. ~ Terrance Dean, author, when asked whether he believes homosexuality is a choice.
Guess Who's Gay in Hip-Hop - TIME

To be fair, he says he doesn't think it's a choice, but his own experience negates a belief that it was innate in him; he may be still processing his own sexual identity, but I find it telling that he points to this incident as the formative one in his sexual journey.

I don't quote Terrance to perpetuate a stereotype that abuse is a/the primary cause of homosexuality, as I don't think that's true. I only quote him to illustrate the fact that there may be an abundance of reasons/causes for homosexuality, and in the absence of a demonstrated gay gene, such causes may be biological, chemical, sociological, etc. If one believes in the spectrum of sexuality, then there are those who are going to be at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of sexual expression, and then there will be those who are in flux.

But I still don't know what it has to do with this conversation...

gay kids are far more likely to be sexually abused.

i understand the broader point here, that sexuality is a complex thing, but you also realize the extremely dangerous ground you're treading here -- sexual abuse turns you gay?

i'm going to take a moment and digest before i pursue this further, if at all.

 

[BVS]

I'm not sure what causation has to do with the conversation at hand, but I read an interview with Terrance Dean a few years ago and found this quote fascinating:

I had not had a desire or thought of being with another man until I was molested by the male next-door neighbor. An incident helped spark, I would say, or created an opening for me to start questioning or start experimenting. ~ Terrance Dean, author, when asked whether he believes homosexuality is a choice.
Guess Who's Gay in Hip-Hop - TIME

To be fair, he says he doesn't think it's a choice, but his own experience negates a belief that it was innate in him; he may be still processing his own sexual identity, but I find it telling that he points to this incident as the formative one in his sexual journey.

I don't quote Terrance to perpetuate a stereotype that abuse is a/the primary cause of homosexuality, as I don't think that's true. I only quote him to illustrate the fact that there may be an abundance of reasons/causes for homosexuality, and in the absence of a demonstrated gay gene, such causes may be biological, chemical, sociological, etc. If one believes in the spectrum of sexuality, then there are those who are going to be at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of sexual expression, and then there will be those who are in flux.

But I still don't know what it has to do with this conversation...

I think it's fair to say abuse will more times than not affect one's sexuality be it man or woman(boy or girl), some act out, some close off, etc...

But to say it has anything to do with the majority of normal homosexuality is stupid.

 

[deep]

Is it not odd that a Church employee can perform a legal binding marriage but not dissolve a marriage?

Aeon is right the government should not do marriages.

The government should issue the legal binding documents that provide all the rights and responsibilities of a two person union. And when they want to dissolve that union and the benefits that go with it - they go back to the government to have that done.

If the couple wants to go to their church and have a reception and ceremony that has no legal binding effects on anyone, but is just a 'spiritual' or 'holy' or 'what ever name that group wants to put on it', celebration then fine.


Gays and their supporters can not tell people what to think and believe in their hearts. That is what religion is for, and government must keep it hands off of religion.

Washington State did it right, they put Unions on the ballot and won.

We should be advocating for unions so gays can have equal protection.

All this whining about marriage is a non-starter and sure loser.

 

[Irvine511]

I
Gays and their supporters can not tell people what to think and believe in their hearts. That is what religion is for, and government must keep it hands off of religion.

Washington State did it right, they put Unions on the ballot and won.

We should be advocating for unions so gays can have equal protection.

All this whining about marriage is a non-starter and sure loser.

so, separate but equal, then?

 

[BVS]

But government does do marriages, and many gay couples are religious and want to be married, not unioned.

 

[nathan1977]

gay kids are far more likely to be sexually abused.

i understand the broader point here, that sexuality is a complex thing, but you also realize the extremely dangerous ground you're treading here -- sexual abuse turns you gay?

I understand that people might want to infer that, particularly the ignorant ones, but I thought I was pretty clear about NOT making that point. My point was simply that yes, sexuality is complex and dynamic, and in the absence of genetic evidence, no one can be completely certain why things are the way they are, particularly when there isn't a red pill or blue pill.

And regardless, not sure about the connection between the question you raised ("why are there gay people?") and the point of this thread. Gay people are here, and are looking for (and deserve) certain rights. We have to figure out what that means in the larger social context.

 

[financeguy]

gay kids are far more likely to be sexually abused.

What???

 

[Irvine511]

I understand that people might want to infer that, particularly the ignorant ones, but I thought I was pretty clear about NOT making that point. My point was simply that yes, sexuality is complex and dynamic, and in the absence of genetic evidence, no one can be completely certain why things are the way they are, particularly when there isn't a red pill or blue pill.

there's fairly significant genetic evidence, though there's not an outright "gay gene" which some demand as the only conclusive proof that being gay is anything but an active choice. i appreciate that you're not one of <> those people, but there is ample scientific evidence, and the most important point of all is that being gay is involuntary. even if, in this specific case, being abused "opened up the door" (paraphrased) to experimentation, that doesn't mean that anyone has any more control over their homosexual attraction as would a heterosexual over their opposite-sex attraction. i'm not so sure i find Dean a reliable narrator in any way, considering in one article i googled he says that his mother passed along the AIDS virus to his brother, and in another he says that his brother contracted AIDS after being raped in a group home.

all that aside, speaking for myself, i certainly was not sexually abused.

but, yes, i certainly agree that sexuality is a complex thing. there are many heterosexuals who have moments of same-sex attraction, but clearly identify as heterosexual. i would argue, then, that we might learn more not by comparing gay to straight, but by comparing (and contrasting) male to female.

but then, where does this take us in a broader political context? the only political point the exploration of abuse-affecting-sexuality might score is to loosen the notion that sexual orientation is unchosen. it does tie into the exasperating and horrifying myth propagated by anti-gay groups that older homosexual men prey upon young boys and "recruit" or "change" them from naturally heterosexual into homosexuals. it's insidious, and it makes a mockery of the damage done by sexual abuse.

And regardless, not sure about the connection between the question you raised ("why are there gay people?") and the point of this thread. Gay people are here, and are looking for (and deserve) certain rights. We have to figure out what that means in the larger social context.

i think the question "what are gay people for" is a good question to ask of those who continue to insist upon a single, natural sexual orientation for all people (straight) and that the only function of sexuality is reproduction. i find that terribly reductionist, and i think most people in adult sexual relationships know that reproduction is one of the least important aspects of their sex lives.

 

[Irvine511]

What???

what kind of kids do pedophiles tend to target?

 

[deep]

so, separate but equal, then?

it is not really separate

the separate but equal, included 'jim crow' laws, segregated schools, etc

the gays in Washington State are not segregated

they have equal protection

liberal minded Churches do 'Marriage Ceremonies" for gays now with no legal benefits -
I think a legal 'union' by a government agency has more value for 'equal protection'.

 

[financeguy]

what kind of kids do pedophiles tend to target?

Pedophiles target kids full stop.

 

[phillyfan26]

All this talk of marriage being done only by churches is easy to do when you're a churchgoer.

 

[phillyfan26]

I think a legal 'union' by a government agency has more value for 'equal protection'.

A legal union called marriage. That's what it is.

 

[BoMac]

it is not really separate

the separate but equal, included 'jim crow' laws, segregated schools, etc

the gays in Washington State are not segregated

they have equal protection

liberal minded Churches do 'Marriage Ceremonies" for gays now with no legal benefits -
I think a legal 'union' by a government agency has more value for 'equal protection'.

It is not equal as long as I am able to get married and Irvine is able to get a 'union' or a 'marriage ceremony' with no legal benefits.

Separate, but equal.

Equality will be achieved once Irvine has the exact same rights as I do.

 

[deep]

But government does do marriages, and many gay couples are religious and want to be married, not unioned.

gay catholics, gay muslims, gay mormons, gay southern baptists are all religious people

they got no shot, zero - of being married within their chosen religion

why not get unioned and have 'equal protection' under the laws of the land


again you can not 'legislate' what religion puts into peoples minds and hearts


being a religious person that believes in sin, you are part of the problem.

 

[Irvine511]

Pedophiles target kids full stop.

you know what?

this stuff makes me so sick to my stomach that i'm not going to continue.

do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

as someone who has worked with very young children (2-3 years old), who has taught swimming lessons and coached for years, who loves children, who may well want to have children, please forgive me for wanting to take a baseball bat to the head of *anyone* who would ever harm a child, gay or straight, and for anyone to imply -- not that you have, not at all -- that there's anything other than an incidental link between homosexuality and child abuse.

not much will set me off more than this particular topic, so i better finish this post before the PTSD totally kicks in and i write something i wish i hadn't.