|
Post by gillianren on Jun 22, 2007 4:18:07 GMT -4
homosexuals can learn this from the absence of the father role or mother role, even if they are present. Abscent fathers created homosexuals, according to a psychology course I took. Freud believed that, as I recall. However, all actual study on the subject has shown that he's wrong. Heck, I was hanging out with a couple of friends today, neither of whom grew up around their fathers. Neither are gay. I'm not. Neither are any number of my friends raised in single-parent households--and quite a few people I know raised by both parents are. What, falling in love with a woman? I could totally do that. I should also note that my mother was raised by a mother and a father and is way more butch than I am. (She's probably straighter than I am, but her aunt, my great-aunt, was raised primarily by her grandmother, my great-great grandmother, and my great-aunt was a lesbian.) People don't fit into neat little categories. Not all gay people are raised by domineering women; not all people raised by domineering women are gay. (Heck, my friend Brandon was raised by a domineering single mother, and he's not gay!) No "environmental" cause for homosexuality has ever been shown to be an actual cause. That includes parenting. Well, let's see. My younger sister is a sociopath. She probably stole in the neighborhood of $1000 from me over the years I was in junior high and high school. Plus, of course, many posessions that I found and retrieved. She stole my mother's wedding ring (which my mother hasn't worn in a very long time) once. She used to steal the last birthday present our dad ever gave my sister on a regular basis. She's the only one of us like that. My mother isn't like that. So where did my little sister get that behaviour? My mother isn't bipolar, either. It may run in her family; if you look, you can see possible evidence. But that behaviour pattern is also inborn, as is my older sister's bisexuality. As is my brown hair, my younger sister's dyslexia, the fact that all three of us are above-average in height and at least two of us are above-average in intelligence. None of that is due to our mother's behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jun 22, 2007 4:23:54 GMT -4
get back to previous posts. the parents should know how to act. alcoholic fathers, very tender or very bullying mothers...all can be factors.
again, get back to the last posts I updated.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 22, 2007 11:47:49 GMT -4
Wow, this discussion has gotten contentious. I voted that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. This is a change from the position I held years ago. At that time my position was not really thought out but just reflective of the general opinion in conservative Texas.
I changed my mind when I started to apply my general political principles to my thinking on the issue. That being, that one should not be restricted by law from doing as one pleases, unless the government had a very strong demonstrable over riding interest in restricting behavior. The general feeling of the citizens does not qualify as an overriding interest. Something like the requirement in science that the proponent of a theory is the one required to prove it not rely on others to disprove. Under that idea, gays should not be discriminated against unless the government can first put forward the case.
So does the government have a case? In my observation of the debate most of the opposition is socially based. That is people don’t like homosexuality and think that in some way their heterosexual position will be undermined if homosexuals are treated equally. The “sanctity of marriage” arguments seem to reflect the fear that they will have to see homosexuals as equals. This busy body mentality that says we need to control or restrict others actions so we can feel right about ourselves.
The real solution to this mentality is to recognize that others marriages (moral or immoral, in the holders view) have no effect on the morality or sanctity of our own marriage. Sanctity is defined by our own actions and what we hold as sacred. The community need not agree us. So I can act in a way that sanctifies my marriage regardless of who else is married to whom or who cheats on their spouse. In fact one can hold a marriage as sacred even of the other spouse is cheating.
What the government permits or disallows should never be the ultimate source of our moral and ethical standards. Christians should be especially aware of this as it is embedded in the New Testament, whereas there is little about using the police powers of the state to force conformity of behavior.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 22, 2007 14:49:46 GMT -4
I'm glad I stepped away for a day, because things only got uglier after I left.
I thought earlier that Phantom Wolf took the best position here - not voting on the poll, not supporting or denigrating either side, and acknowledging that everyone has an opinion of what's good and what's not. But he still got flamed - worse than I did even.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 22, 2007 15:03:34 GMT -4
...one should not be restricted by law from doing as one pleases, unless the government had a very strong demonstrable over riding interest in restricting behavior. The general feeling of the citizens does not qualify as an overriding interest. Thank you, echnaton. You have expressed how I feel much better than I ever could, and in such a way as there is little left to be said.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 22, 2007 15:03:43 GMT -4
I changed my mind when I started to apply my general political principles to my thinking on the issue. That being, that one should not be restricted by law from doing as one pleases, unless the government had a very strong demonstrable over riding interest in restricting behavior. The general feeling of the citizens does not qualify as an overriding interest. So how do you feel on marriages involving minors, incest, or polygamy or polyandry? I agree that this is generally true on an individual level. I'm not sure it's true on a societal level. One would theorize that having other marriages fail is not going to affect your own, but would anyone argue that soceity's general acceptance and publicizng of failed marriages today has not contributed to more failed marriages than would exist if society still had the attitudes it had in, say, the 1890s, where failure of a marriage was a shameful thing and not spoken of in polite society? Whether you agree with that attitude or not, don't you think it makes a difference? When marriage can mean anything then it really means nothing. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 22, 2007 15:40:55 GMT -4
...one should not be restricted by law from doing as one pleases, unless the government had a very strong demonstrable over riding interest in restricting behavior. The general feeling of the citizens does not qualify as an overriding interest. Thank you, echnaton. You have expressed how I feel much better than I ever could, and in such a way as there is little left to be said. Thanks. I always try to look at political ideas as to what can be prohibited and why, not what should be allowed. It clears away the cobwebs. I changed my mind when I started to apply my general political principles to my thinking on the issue. That being, that one should not be restricted by law from doing as one pleases, unless the government had a very strong demonstrable over riding interest in restricting behavior. The general feeling of the citizens does not qualify as an overriding interest. So how do you feel on marriages involving minors, incest, or polygamy or polyandry? Short on time so I'll only address this now. The government has an interest in prohibiting actions between people where one party can not consent. Where the line is drawn is not always clear, but even if somewhat arbitrary, there must be a line. Though one could make an argument for pure libertarianism, our constitution is not based on that principle. Prohibitions when a person can not consent is well accepted law, but of course raises the question of who can consent. Minors are generally not capable of understanding the ramifications of their actions in consenting to sex with a parent. They are at a similar disadvantage when sexual pressures are applied by any adult and any adult knows this and can use it to advantage. The state has an interest n protecting minors in such events. My understanding of polygamy as practiced by the LDS break away groups today is that young women, girls really, are forced into arranged marriages before the age of consent. Prohibiting adults from polygamy/ polyandry is not as clear because consent is possible. Adult polygamy may be a casualty of the law that needs to be addressed, if a proper argument could be put forward. The politics of that would be pretty tough, even in Utah. But certainly several people could make the similar contractual arrangement among themselves that gays must make now to have a legal relationship without the states stamp of approval. Unlike homosexual relationships, there is no law prohibiting a group from living in one house and having various sexual heterosexual relationships.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 22, 2007 15:51:09 GMT -4
Jason, is must be hard to defend your religious beliefs here all the time. I don't know if it is frustrating for you or if you enjoy it. I do find it frustrating at times, but there are moments of enjoyment. I do often enjoy a lively debate, probably more than is strictly healthy. I am certainly well aware that I am a member of a tiny religious minority (only 12 million members) that has been persecuted since its founding for its peculiar claims and ideas. Fortunately being tarred and feathered is rarely a literal experience anymore. I would say that my Church has some puppets, but does what it can to discourage puppetry. Free agency is something highly prized in the LDS church, and we are often told that we should make our own determination as to the truth of the Church's doctrines rather than taking them strictly on faith. Whether I'm actually open minded or not seems to be in dispute, but I didn't expect my views to be popular, no. I see mostly what I expected. The most surprising thing was that weird body-swapping marriage question, something I hadn't thought of before.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 22, 2007 16:07:15 GMT -4
My understanding of polygamy as practiced by the LDS break away groups today is that young women, girls really, are forced into arranged marriages before the age of consent. There have been successful prosecutions of so-called "Fundamental" LDS break-away groups for underage relationships. In fact the FLDS leader is currently undergoing trial for having arranged an underage marriage (tried as an accessory to rape). I'm not aware of any recent prosecutions for strictly adult polygamous marriages. Especially in Utah, where the state constitution specifically prohibits polygamy and the LDS church has been excommunicating polygamists since the 1890s. As far as I am aware there are no real laws against homosexuals doing this either. There may still be some anti-sodomy laws on the books of various states, I suppose. The law (and the debate here) is against formal legal recognition of this relationship as a marriage.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 22, 2007 16:46:52 GMT -4
Actually, I don't have as much of a problem with divorce as a lot of people seem to. Certainly having the option is healthier than not. Staying together for the kids damages the kids more in the long run than a divorce would, for starters. For another, having the option of leaving an abusive relationship is a definite good. And, finally, why should you stay with someone you just don't have anything in common with anymore? Isn't it better to part amicably before things get bad? Especially if you have kids together?
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 22, 2007 17:39:07 GMT -4
I think the fact that lionking shares Jason's views should be an indication to Jason that something is not quite right.
All in all, Jason, your view only works in the real world if people all conform to the definitions you gave them. They clearly do not. Gender roles are obsolete. Your view is too simple, especially for something as complicated as interpersonal relationships. You admitted as much but yet you still believe such a simple view is valid. I don't understand that.
And as for the hypothetical question about the brain swapping: whether it is divorced from reality or not is unimportant. It never was supposed to be a realistic question. The importance was your stance on mind and body and marriage. I thank you for finally answering it, despite all your hemming and hawwing.
Thank you echnaton for saying so well what homosexual couples deserve and why. The government cannot prohibit homosexual marriage from a moral stance or a religious stance, as that is unconstitutional. Jason, what reason could you give for prohibiting such marriages without a moral or religious undertone? Your claim that child-rearing and inheritance is enough still seems dubious to me since you haven't answered how that same reason doesn't disclude straight couples who can't produce children from marriage.
Unless you can provide a solid non-moral non-religious reason, you have no choice but concede that according to the structure of our government, two consenting unmarried gay adults should have the right to marry.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 22, 2007 17:57:45 GMT -4
I think the fact that lionking shares Jason's views should be an indication to Jason that something is not quite right. Even a broken clock shows the right time twice a day. Some gender roles or stereotypes from the past may certainly be obsolete, but anyone who says men and women are exactly the same apart from the plumbing is a fool. It surprised me. I thought it a silly question when I first read it so I gave my first answer on that basis, but I gave it some serious thought afterwards. None. The condition is too broad. I don't think there are many laws that don't have a moral or religious undertone. The very idea that "all men are created equal" is based on a religious/moral "undertone."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 23, 2007 4:23:24 GMT -4
echnaton, I'd have to say that you are probably the closest to my own views on this, other than I think that it really is the wrong question being asked. I belive that the Gay Movement is so busy looking at wanting Marriage as their solution that they have missed the core of the situation which is that they want the same rights as if they were married. To methis should be the issue. I belive that all couples in a long term commited relationship should have the same rights regardless of if they have had a ceromony and signed a bit of paper. The fact that in many countries non-wed couples (or more if they happen to that way inclined) don't get the same rights as married couples just totally stinks to me. If people love each other and want to be commited to each other in a relationship, then they should get the protection of the law. Pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jun 23, 2007 7:05:02 GMT -4
I think that is up to homosexuals to decide. Since I am not a homosexual, why would I care?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 23, 2007 7:58:21 GMT -4
Even a broken clock shows the right time twice a day. Not since the advent of the digital clock, it doesn't--or anyway, there's no guarantee of it.
|
|