Homosexual Marriage; Why not?

[Firethorn]

2) History shows that civilizations that deviate from chastity outside of marriage and fidelity inside marriage universally collapse.  And that these are two reasons not to have homosexual "marriage."

History has shown that over time the collapse of civilizations approaches unity, no matter what their views on chastity and fidelity.  Besides, I believe that our current divorce and single mother rate is far more a threat to our nation than gay marriage or civil unions could be.  Single mothers outnumber gays, and have far more effect on their children.

To back it up, the national unmarried mother rate is 32%.  Finding what percentage of the population is gay is more difficult(IE the whole 'Bi' thing), but varies between 1-6%

To put it blunty, I believe that having children raised by a loving, dedicated gay couple to be better than for them to be raised by a single, drug addicted, new boyfriend every month mother.  

Gays are born to hetero couples every day, yet they're still gay.  I think that most gay couples would be far more understanding of a hetero child than many of their hetero parents.  Matter of fact, it happens today, especially with lesbian couples.  All one has to do is find a 'donor' male and some non-marital sex.  Not difficult at all around most college campuses.  The genetic father doesn't have to know a thing.

edit - I found BillBlank's line quite insightful.

J.D.Unwin eh? Not come across him yet. Off to the library I go. But, seeing as the ancient greeks, the romans, the egyptians, the english navy and upper classes were merrily buggering each other and assorted livestock for hundreds of years and at the same time were running very succesful civilisations I would consider his findings flawed. I mean c'mon, half (no I don't have exact figures, yes that is a guess, but try reading some and you'll see what I mean) of the poetry and epic tales from greece featured homosexuality, god's as animals seducing people or waxed lyrical about young men's firm, rounded buttocks.

Indeed, the Egyptions, Greeks, Romans, etc made it far longer than a single generation, thus making your guy's findings suspect.

[Perd Hapley]

Gays are born

The myth of the gay gene rides again.

[Oleg Volk]

If you consider being gay a conscious choice, then why would anyone choose to be a persecuted minority?

[cordex]

If you consider being gay a conscious choice, then why would anyone choose to be a persecuted minority?

I'm not certain whether or not homosexuality is a choice, but people have been known to convert to Judaism, a group which has been known to be a persecuted minority for most of recorded history.  I chose to own firearms as a hobby despite an ever-increasing public dislike of shooters.

Moreover, in today's society it has become fashionable to be persecuted.  Persecution, or perceived persecution is often used as a substitute for validity in political arguments.

[Perd Hapley]

If you consider being gay a conscious choice, then why would anyone choose to be a persecuted minority?

On the surface, your objection seems reasonable.  However, in the absence of evidence that it is inherited, it is reasonable to believe that it is learned/chosen behavior.  Also, we find that people frequently choose things that make their lives more difficult.  First of all, before we compare homosexuality to other unpopular activities, let me make clear that I am making a comparison in one aspect; I am not saying that homosexuality is as bad as these activities, or damaging to others in the same way.  

There are parts of the world where converting to Christianity is almost suicidal.  Yet there are still converts.  In China, joining the Falun Gong or a church not approved by the government makes one liable to imprisonment, torture, or worse.  Criminals are a persecuted minority.  People become addicted to gambling, even though it ought to be obvious they are flushing their money down the drain.  Alcoholics choose to continue drinking, even when their lives and families are falling apart.  Alcohol is an interesting comparison.  We have identified genetic factors that contribute to alcoholism, but no one argues that genetic determination makes alcoholism normal or acceptable.  And no one denies that alcoholics choose to begin drinking.

To answer your question more directly, though, many who have looked into this matter believe that homosexuality is a disorder brought about when children do not learn to have normal relationships with members of the same sex.  If I recall correctly, the main mechanism here is the situation of sons who don't receive normal affection from their fathers or from male substitutes (step-fathers, friends of the family, teachers).  I am not a psychologist or specialist in this area; I am only suggesting a theory that I have found plausible.

[m1911owner]

If you consider being gay a conscious choice, then why would anyone choose to be a persecuted minority?

I was chatting with a psychologist whose main office is in San Francisco, and the subject of gays came up.  He said that when he counsels gays and lesbians, it nearly always eventually comes out that they were sexually abused.

That's one person's perspective on the question.  Though, given where his office is located, I suspect he's had a lot of experience counseling gays and lesbians.

[Firethorn]

The myth of the gay gene rides again.

I'm not saying that it's genetic.    I haven't heard of any studies showing a tendency for homosexuality to run in families, thus it's unlikely to be purely genetic(though genes play a role in everything).  Consider that there are many enviromental factors while even in the womb.  Then there's a good amount of time until sexual maturity is reached.  Maybe I should have said 'matured' instead?

Still, my personal theory is that whether it's enviromental or genetic, it's not 'chosen' by them, just like I didn't exactly choose to be attracted to the opposite sex.  At some point I just started finding girls fascinating, etc...

There's plenty of room in biology for it to be a combination of genetics, enviromental factors, and just plain random chance.  Of course, we have no clue about this, and think about what it does to people to have their views treated like a disease?  How did you feel when you found about the study linking gun handling to testosterone production?

Finally, it wasn't long ago that a study found brain differences between hetero and homosexual women.

[Perd Hapley]

The myth of the gay gene rides again.

I'm not saying that it's genetic.

I didn't figure you meant it that way, but that is how you phrased it.  In any case, it doesn't invalidate your point, I'm just surprised how many people treat the "born gay" idea as dogma.


 

Still, my personal theory is that whether it's enviromental or genetic, it's not 'chosen' by them, just like I didn't exactly choose to be attracted to the opposite sex.  At some point I just started finding girls fascinating, etc...

Well, all species are hardwired to reproduce, so that's to be expected.  Doesn't mean that homosexuality is not chosen; if anything, it demonstrates that there must be some intentionality involved.  Naturally, that doesn't mean there aren't strong urges involved.

Of course, we have no clue about this, and think about what it does to people to have their views treated like a disease?  How did you feel when you found about the study linking gun handling to testosterone production?

I didn't hear about that study.  I don't want to go out of my way to hurt people's feelings, but feelings are often hurt in debates, no matter how polite.  The truth isn't changed by emotions.

Finally, it wasn't long ago that a study found brain differences between hetero and homosexual women.

I heard about that kind of research in men many years ago.  As I remember it, we don't know whether the brain changes the sexuality or if the sexuality affects the brain.

[cordex]

How did you feel when you found about the study linking gun handling to testosterone production?

I shrugged.
And laughed when I read Tam's blog entry on the subject.

[Firethorn]

Well, all species are hardwired to reproduce, so that's to be expected.  Doesn't mean that homosexuality is not chosen; if anything, it demonstrates that there must be some intentionality involved.  Naturally, that doesn't mean there aren't strong urges involved.

This I disagree with.  While I think that sexual attraction is more a range(strongly biased to hetero usually) than a polarity, I don't think that it's a true choice for many people.

I didn't hear about that study.  I don't want to go out of my way to hurt people's feelings, but feelings are often hurt in debates, no matter how polite.  The truth isn't changed by emotions.

Simple enough, they found that lesbian's scent centers respond differently to male pheromes than straight women's.

Now, there is some arguement about the whole 'sexual trauma' thing flipping them into homosexual, but again, we don't really know if the abuse is a cause or consequence.

[Perd Hapley]

No, I meant I didn't hear about the study of guns and testosterone.

[Perd Hapley]

This I disagree with.  While I think that sexual attraction is more a range(strongly biased to hetero usually) than a polarity, I don't think that it's a true choice for many people.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm not saying that ten-year-olds sit in their lonely bedrooms and think, "Hmmm, I think I'll get it on with other dudes."  All I'm really saying is that we all have thoughts or urges and can choose to dwell on them and/or act them out.  We don't actually have to.  

I should think there are a lot of choices that must be conscious, though, the more one acts out one's homosexuality.

[Firethorn]

All I'm really saying is that we all have thoughts or urges and can choose to dwell on them and/or act them out.  We don't actually have to.  

I should think there are a lot of choices that must be conscious, though, the more one acts out one's homosexuality.

Ok, you just want a policy like our military.  'You can join if you're gay, you just can't act upon it'.

It appears that we both agree that a person doesn't get to choose his or her sexuality, but does get to choose which sex they go out with.  Simple enough.

I'm saying that humans are sexual beings, and as long as they can find someone they can have a good relationship with, good for them.  A truly gay person will NOT be able to have a healthy sexual relationship with somebody of the opposite sex.  The feelings just won't be there.  So why even make them try?  Any 'harm' to society would logically come from them already taking themselves out of the genepool, wouldn't it?

[Perd Hapley]

It appears that we both agree that a person doesn't get to choose his or her sexuality, but does get to choose which sex they go out with.  Simple enough.

I'm saying that humans are sexual beings, and as long as they can find someone they can have a good relationship with, good for them.  A truly gay person will NOT be able to have a healthy sexual relationship with somebody of the opposite sex.  The feelings just won't be there.  So why even make them try?  Any 'harm' to society would logically come from them already taking themselves out of the genepool, wouldn't it?

No Firethorn.  If you want my view, I will explain, but not because I am expecting to persuade anyone.

A "truly gay person" is such only because they give in to unnatural desires that have come about due to unusual conditions that have harmed them psychologically.  In other words, no one is "truly gay" in the sense that homosexuality is an inherent part of them; we begin as heterosexuals and must be turned in the other direction by external pressures.  The answer to this condition is not to try to find happiness with a same-sex partner, but to cure the problem of homosexuality.  A homosexual "will NOT be able to have a healthy sexual relationship" with anyone until they deal with and do away with their homosexuality.  In the same way, it would be difficult for someone with an addiction to pornography to have a healthy relationship, or someone with a serious alcohol problem.  But from what I have heard from Christian "Exodus" types (who work with and often were themselves homosexuals) it isn't the goal to "make them try" to have a romantic/sexual relationship with the opposite sex but rather to help them have healthy, non-homosexual relationships with the same sex so they can be normal again, sexually speaking.

  Any 'harm' to society would logically come from them already taking themselves out of the genepool, wouldn't it?

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

[Guest]

So homosexuality in animals other than humans is also pyschological?

[m1911owner]

So, what are you saying?--That humans are no better than animals?

[m1911owner]

I see that I haven't replied to some of the comments & questions that were directed at me.  I will attempt to respond to those I see scanning back in the thread.

No, my argument is that the Taliban thought it was government's job to enforce religious standards.

1.) My God also condemns the use of pork as food. Would you be comfortable with that as law?

The law in most places in the U.S. already outlaws dog and cat as food, so I don't see that pork would be much of a change from current legal practice.  So, while I occasionally like a nice Hawiian pizza, I suppose I could live with that.  (Take away my steaks, though, and there'd be a problem...)

2.) Every civilization collapses eventually. Can't blame them all on gays.

What Unwin observed is not that the civilizations eventually collapsed; he observed that they were well into collapse in the generation following embracing sexual hedonism.  And this was universal among the cililizations he studied--100% that embraced sexual hedonism quickly collapsed after that change in mores.  And the civilization he studied were all of them for which he had access to information--89 different civilizations.

[m1911owner]

I await solid statistical evidence that there is any significant variation, in the negative direction, between the personal achievement and success of homosexual individuals or societies where it is accepted vs. heterosexuals. Show me some solid numbers.

As I understand Unwin's researches, 100% of the civilizations that embraced sexual hedonism were well into collapse in the generation following that change.  Unwin studied all the civilizations for which records were extant, 89 current and historical civilizations.  I'd call that a pretty solid statistical trend.  

But, seeing as the ancient greeks, the romans, the egyptians, the english navy and upper classes were merrily buggering each other and assorted livestock for hundreds of years and at the same time were running very succesful civilisations I would consider his findings flawed. I mean c'mon, half (no I don't have exact figures, yes that is a guess, but try reading some and you'll see what I mean) of the poetry and epic tales from greece featured homosexuality, god's as animals seducing people or waxed lyrical about young men's firm, rounded buttocks.

I don't have Unwin's book in front of me at the moment, so I'm going to suppose that while that sort of thing may have been present to some degree among the theatrical literati, it wasn't the norm in the general population.  Your point, though, is well-taken, and I will at some point dig into this and see what, if anything, Unwin had to say about it.

I would say that homosexuality is neither right or wrong, merely a state of being and in no way a choice if the existence of a genetic marker for homosexuality should be proven to exist. If that is the case then it's hardwired so wouldn't that make it part of the "PLAN"?

One could make the same argument about pedophilia--that it might be "hardwired"; it has certainly proven to be very persistent in those involved.  Yet few would argue that we should embrace pedophilia as a norm in our society.  I know that the counterargument to my point is that "it's between two consenting adults, and no one else gets hurt."  But that's not true.  It takes two to tango, and homosexuals seek out those that they can seduce into homosexuality.

For example, in my extended family there are two lesbians.  One of them was seduced by her college roommate (assigned at random by the university); the other was seduced by a counseler at Girl Scout camp.  These are two people who are close to me who have been greatly hurt by the actions of homosexuals.  (And don't even get me started with the Catholic priest situation.)

Furthermore, to state that you base your opinions on the belief that the bible is the literal word of god requires some clarification on your part. ...  First off, which particular bible are you talking about? It's one of the most translated and edited works in the history of humanity. I'm not sure there's even evidence that a hard copy existed of the majority of the scriptures before 300ad. The majority existed as verbal history passed from generation to generation before that point. It's been revised, retranslated, mucked about with and had whole sections dumped in the trash by various king's and popes through the ages, what their motives were when they were guiding that process I wouldn't like to say.

I don't recall saying that the Bible is the literal word of God, because I don't believe that.  Some parts of it yes, and some parts no.  And exactly as you say, the text of the Bible as undergone considerable corruption over the millenia.  However, I don't believe that it has been corrupted to the point of unrecognizabilty.

If I have time, I'll address this further in a separate thread; this might take a day or two to get around to.  Fundamentally, I believe the Bible to be largely true because I believe the Book of Mormon to be true, and it quotes many parts of Jewish scriptures as they existed in about 600 B.C.  While there is some variation from the current biblical text, the variations are minor, except for those things that are now missing entirely.

Oh, and there are existing copies of parts of all the books of the Old Testament save one in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  These documents date from the first and second centuries B.C.

[Stand_watie]

No, my argument is that the Taliban thought it was government's job to enforce religious standards. 1.) My God also condemns the use of pork as food. Would you be comfortable with that as law?

The law in most places in the U.S. already outlaws dog and cat as food, so I don't see that pork would be much of a change from current legal practice.  So, while I occasionally like a nice Hawiian pizza, I suppose I could live with that.  (Take away my steaks, though, and there'd be a problem...)

I'm not sure I understand this response. Are you saying that you wouldn't mind the banning of pork, but that you would mind the banning of beef, and using a faulty law (banning eating cats and dogs) as a logical springboard? If so what is your problem with banning beef? Just because you like to eat it more than you like to eat pork? I can't say others dietary preferences (religiously inspired or not) make a very persuasive argument to me, regarding establishment of law.

Or were you just joking off Barbara's question?

[cosine]

Just to throw some more fuel on the fire...

"Bush promoting ban on gay marriage"

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush will promote a constitutional ban on gay marriage on the eve of a Senate vote next week, weighing in on an issue that could rally his wavering conservative base in an election year."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060602/ts_nm/rights_gay_bush_dc

[m1911owner]

I'm not sure I understand this response.

I'm saying that I can take pork or leave it, so I wouldn't mind terribly if it were banned.  (I'm not saying that it should be banned, just responding to her question of whether I wound mind if it were banned by saying that it would affect me some, but not a lot, so I wouldn't mind too much.)  I like beef, so I would mind if beef were banned--i.e., I do have limits in this area.  To answer what I took as the subtext to Barbara's question, which was get me to balk at the idea of government banning pork because her religion doesn't allow it, my response was that the government already bans certain foods, so banning pork wouldn't exactly be breaking new ground.


Edited to add: The deeper question here is what part religious codes should or shouldn't play in the law of the land.  To go back the the Declaration of Independence, the founding principal of our country is this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among with are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men."

The basic principal of our government, then, is inextricably tied to religion, that there is a Creator who has endowed us with rights that are to be protected by government.

Religious codes have some elements that need to be part of the law of the land.  For example: Thou shalt not commit murder; thou shalt not steal.  There are other elements that pertain only to the observance of a particular religion, and are not properly part of the law of the land as elucidated in the Declaration of Independence; not eating pork is an example of that.

My position is that homosexuality is part of the first group.  It is a cancer that affects and in rather short order destroys entire societies, and it is therefore within the purview of governments to regulate and ban homosexual behaviors.

[Stand_watie]

I'm not sure I understand this response.

I'm saying that I can take pork or leave it, so I wouldn't mind terribly if it were banned.  (I'm not saying that it should be banned, just responding to her question of whether I wound mind if it were banned by saying that it would affect me some, but not a lot, so I wouldn't mind too much.)  I like beef, so I would mind if beef were banned--i.e., I do have limits in this area.  To answer what I took as the subtext to Barbara's question, which was get me to balk at the idea of government banning pork because her religion doesn't allow it, my response was that the government already bans certain foods, so banning pork wouldn't exactly be breaking new ground.

So, then you do object on principal to the government banning pork, you simply wouldn't be terribly affected by the ban and you're pointing out that the government already bans the consumption of some foods?

...Religious codes have some elements that need to be part of the law of the land.  For example: Thou shalt not commit murder; thou shalt not steal.  There are other elements that pertain only to the observance of a particular religion, and are not properly part of the law of the land as elucidated in the Declaration of Independence; not eating pork is an example of that. My position is that homosexuality is part of the first group.  It is a cancer that affects and in rather short order destroys entire societies, and it is therefore within the purview of governments to regulate and ban homosexual behaviors.

Thanks for your candor. Do you have criminal sanctions in mind that you think would be appropriate for homosexual behavior? If so would you apply these to sodomy between man/wife? Sex during menses?

[m1911owner]

Do you have criminal sanctions in mind that you think would be appropriate for homosexual behavior?

There have been criminal sanctions in place for most of the history of this country that appear to have worked reasonably well.  I assume they consist of some combination of fines and/or prison time.

If so would you apply these to sodomy between man/wife? Sex during menses?

To reiterate what I've already stated several times, what I support is: Chastity outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage.  That's been the standard for centuries, until the most recent two or three decades.  Within a marriage, it's up to the couple themselves to determine what is appropriate for them.

There have long been legal sanctions in place for adultry, premarital sex, and cohabitation.

In post 129 Firethorn discussed the facts that divorce and unwed mothers are a huge problem.  I'm not singling out homosexuality as "the root of all evil"; it is indeed only a part of the much larger problem.

[Stand_watie]

Do you have criminal sanctions in mind that you think would be appropriate for homosexual behavior?

There have been criminal sanctions in place for most of the history of this country that appear to have worked reasonably well.  I assume they consist of some combination of fines and/or prison time.

If so would you apply these to sodomy between man/wife? Sex during menses?

To reiterate what I've already stated several times, what I support is: Chastity outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage.  That's been the standard for centuries, until the most recent two or three decades.  Within a marriage, it's up to the couple themselves to determine what is appropriate for them.

There have long been legal sanctions in place for adultry, premarital sex, and cohabitation.

As well as legal sanctions for "it's up to the couple themselves to determine what is appropriate for them", all have been which have been recently been nullified by the supreme court, and almost all of which have been ignored by the legal authorities for the past century.  My question for you is if you support active criminal sanctions against adultery, premarital sex, co-habitation, and "deviant" husband-wife relations such as oral sex and anal sex as proscribed by American and English common law precedent?

[Stand_watie]

In post 129 Firethorn discussed the facts that divorce and unwed mothers are a huge problem.  I'm not singling out homosexuality as "the root of all evil"; it is indeed only a part of the much larger problem.

Indeed. I myself have been a much greater victim of adultery than of homosexuality, and I'd venture to say it is a much larger sin both in the eyes of God, as written, both in frequency and in context,  in the Bible, and in the ill-consequence to society than is homosexual behavior.

Would you think that we should penalize adulterers with a felony or a misdemeanor charge?