Well there seem to be a few strawmen rearing their ugly heads (only to lose them of course) but I’ll assume this is not malicious. The wonderment expressed by some only fills me with wonderment. For people who have been subject to prejudice you certainly seem to expect other people to share your exact views. Does anyone else see irony here?
The reason why I posted was first to correct what I saw as two ideas being confounded and second to present the notion that it is possible to disagree with the idea of homosexual marriage on rational grounds and not because some desert-dwelling looney in a hair shirt ate one too many locusts and went into a rant three thousand years ago. There now I’ve offended everybody.
Tolerance means forbearance, indulgence and patience not equivalence and not endorsement. You do not need to agree with someone to tolerate them, indeed the opposite is implied. It should be free of UNDUE severity in the judgment of others but not free of judgment.
Marriage as a special contract to promote social good gives me the willies. You take a step down a very dangerous path when you start legislating social good. Marriage as a special contract where the state stands in proxy of one of the interested parties who cannot protect his own interests is a good idea.
The strawmen:
I do not mean perversion as statistical anomaly. As an organism it is by definition the primary aim to get your genes in the next generation. Any behavior or characteristic which flatly contravenes this imperative is a perversion. You could make an argument that homosexuality helps the overall population of a group or the relatives of a homosexual but I’ve not seen it done even close to convincingly. A homosexual couple cannot have children, that is they cannot have their own children, though they could have someone else’s. When we start cloning people things will be different.
I am not seeking to impose my views on people. I am trying to get you to see that maybe, just maybe you just might not be so completely and convincingly right that only a troglodydic bigot would even think of disagreeing with you.
All of which would be much more effective if this argument wasn’t way too familiar to those of us fighting for the right to marry, indicating that you haven’t even read a little of the literature that’s available regarding this ongoing debate. What you’re seeing is not wonderment; it’s the weary realization that there’s another poster here that thinks these arguments are valid, or even original.
So, the standard questions:
Why allow infertile couples to marry?
What about gay people who have children from previous heterosexual relations: why deny those children the protections that come from married parents?
What’s wrong with gay people adopting?
If there’s nothing wrong with gay people adopting, why shouldn’t their children have the benefits of the legal protections afforded to married spouses?
I’m not particularly hot on the idea of the government getting involved in marriage either, but the fact is that they are. The problem is that they’re doing so in a discriminatory fashion. We’re trying to correct that.
I have considered and seen all these questions before too. I have even discussed this with homosexuals and even had some agree with me.
The marriage laws are messed up but the real question is the one you are ignoring. Should a healthy activity be treated the same as an unhealthy one from a public policy point of view. Should we be obliged to treat perversions the same as healthy characteristics.
If you want answers to your questions I’ll be happy to give them but they’re largely beside the point. These clarifications are somewhat beside the point.
I’m pleased to see that you seem to agree that what we are talking about is equivalence not tolerance. Some progress anyway.
—Marriage is not so much recognized by the state as endorsed by it. What you’re asking for is an equivalent endorsement.—
What we are asking for is the same legal rights as everyone else for homosexual couples who fulfill every meaningful criteria for starting households and raising families, and should thus have access to the same legal rights and contract abilities as other households.
Whether anyone “approves” of such partnerships is utterly beside the point.
—The reason why I posted was first to correct what I saw as two ideas being confounded and second to present the notion that it is possible to disagree with the idea of homosexual marriage on rational grounds—
Which rational grounds? Merely the fact that some people think an activity or orientation is “perverse” is not rational grounds for anything: it’s just a subjective opinion.
—I don’t think people should be obliged by law to endorse homosexuality.—
I don’t think people should be required by law to endorse ANYTHING. Who is asking anyone to “endorse” homosexuality? The government is not a person: it is, in part, the means by which we allow certain legal contracts to be made and enforced. We allow Nazis to marry and have little Nazi babies: but as much as we dislike that, we don’t block their marriage or right to raise their kids as they see fit.
The idea that the government is a big daddy who knows best and must speak for us is abhorrent, and dareIsayit: perverse.
On what basis are you condemning homosexual activity as unhealthy? Why do you call it a perversion? The APA has had it off their list of psychological disorders for several decades now; do you have a source that’s more authoritative?
Granting positive special status is an implied endorsement. Being forced by law to grant the privileges of such status is to be forced to endorse it. We are forced to endorse lots of notions we don’t agree with all the time, maybe that’s why you don’t notice any more.
The rational grounds:
The life’s essential function is to produce life - Induction and definition
Characteristics which prohibit this are perverse - deduction and definition
While it is possible using technology to avoid the effects of a perverse characteristic does this make it no longer perverse. A good question. Is the effect the only thing that matters from a policy point of view? Another good question. But as I said my purpose is merely to show it’s possible to disagree and not be a monster. Understanding this is essential to the question posed by this post because there are quite a few people like me and we tend to be people of influence.
RE. The APA. Referring to authority is not an argument. That is how theologians argue.
There are all my opinions about the way things ought to be and I don’t see why they would be interesting in the context but I’ve been asked so here goes.
Why allow infertile couples to marry?
No one should be allowed to have a marriage contract until they have children
What about gay people who have children from previous heterosexual relations: why deny those children the protections that come from married parents?
The only ‘protections’ I would allow them is the parents duty to support them and to be considered one ‘person’ with them until they are adults they would still have this
What’s wrong with gay people adopting?
Nothing
If there’s nothing wrong with gay people adopting, why shouldn’t their children have the benefits of the legal protections afforded to married spouses?
They already do. They could each adopt the child..
[/quote] Originally posted by Uncle Toby**
As an organism it is by definition the primary aim to get your genes in the next generation. Any behavior or characteristic which flatly contravenes this imperative is a perversion.**
[/quote]
Looks like the infertiles and the childfree are getting lumped into the ‘perverted’ category, too :rolleyes:
I’m with Esprix on the whole personal relationships thing. I think the same could be said for rascism. What I’m really astounded by, is that it’s even an issue. Maybe in another generation things will look better.
I thought I made it clear that I regard unhealthy as a description of the whole life cycle. If you don’t reproduce you are unhealthy. This follows from the definition and thus needs no cite…
–So post-menopausal women can’t get remarried? Or people who believe that you shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage?
No I said granted a marriage contract. Please read the post thoroughly.
—Looks like the infertiles and the childfree are getting lumped into the ‘perverted’ category, too
Infertiles are obviously not healthy. To decide to be childfree without a compelling reason is perverse.
To say people are perverted is a bit nonsensical, actions are perverted aspects are perverted. It’s like saying people are backwards.
—I’m curious as to what YOU have decided is a sufficiently compelling reason. Please share.
Really this it is very kind of you to be so interested in my musings but shouldn’t this be in a thread titled ‘How Uncle Toby would make everything perfect if he were King’?
Compelling reasons not to have children.
You would die.
Your child would die.
Your child would make other people related to you die or make their lives so difficult as to be counter productive of life.
Wow, it sure is nice to have Uncle Toby around. I really appreciate his presence here.
He’s a sterling example of the complete ludicrousness that underlies the anti-homosexuality mentality that’s prevalent in the U.S. today.
His simplistic arguments, based on circular logic and pretension, are as good as it gets when it comes to arguing for continuing to deny gay people equal treatment under the law. There are no good reasons to deny gay couples the right to marry. All of them boil down to either “It’s icky” or “God said it’s icky.” And while some of them may be couched in more sophisticated rhetoric than Uncle Toby is able to muster, they all sound just as absurd to the people who don’t share in that brand of bigotry.
So, thanks again, Uncle Toby. Please continue to tell us how you think on this issue. Loud and long. Because it’s people like you who make the folks on the fence examine their beliefs, wondering with horror whether they sound as inane as you do on this subject.