The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Nick Park wrote: »

I'll send my email on to you as a PM.

If your study was limited to one particular geographical area (part of one of the most religious countries in the world) but didn't address the same issue as it occurs in overtly non-religious countries, do you see the dangers in using that study to make generalisations about opposition to same sex marriage in general?

No study can cover every possible instance of what one is interested in. I chose the area I looked at for specific reasons. First, there had been a move, by the proponents of proportion 8, away from religious, moralistic justifications. Secondly, some of the wording used my the judges in the proposition 8, and other same-sex marriage cases, was very Rawlsian in nature. As this was a jurisprudence dissertation, and specifically a disertation about public reason, it was appropriate to limit the scope of the work as I did.

This was a relatively short undergrad dissertation. It was focused on a fairly narrow area, as is normal for work of this nature. Whilst it may not address e issues in China, it did look at the 'secular' objections give. In the proposition 8 cases, many of which are repeated here, as well as addressing some of the general criticisms of Rawls. This was a jurisprudence dissertation that happened to encompass same sex marriage.

MrP

[Deleted User]

robp wrote: »

I really object to this deliberate obfuscation. Just because this is debating thread does give you the right to bad manners but anyway

It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human biology and thus governed by natural law.

It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
The legal and tax benefits of Marriage status exist at the expense of single people but gay couples cannot fill the unsaid responsibility of marriage which is building families.

Turns a what is unethical into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false.

First of all, sexual behaviour and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white;or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with changeable behaviour. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order.

Thank you for the answers

robp wrote: »

I really object to this deliberate obfuscation. Just because this is debating thread does give you the right to bad manners but anyway

It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human biology and thus governed by natural law.

It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
The legal and tax benefits of Marriage status exist at the expense of single people but gay couples cannot fill the unsaid responsibility of marriage which is building families.

Turns a what is unethical into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false.

First of all, sexual behaviour and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white;or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with changeable behaviour. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order.

Thank you for your answer.
This might be hard for you to believe but it had never occurred to me that the 'natural law' argument could come from anything but religious predisposition against homosexuality.

This argument seems very vulnerable to a demonstration that sexuality is determined in large part by genetic expression. If not 'hard wired' into us from our genes, then its the 'software' which is running in terms of genetic expression.

As the research paper here demonstrates, Sexual orientation does appear to be (a) as much a part of us as any other characteristic you mentioned above and (b) beyond our conscious control

I might have misunderstood your point so correct me if I'm wrong

robp wrote: »

You are creating a double standard here by implying restriction on polygamous marriage is the standard of our time while objections to same sex legal unions are are based on religious concerns. The reality is their are secular and religious objections to both.

Sorry, I was talking in a religious context. The secular argument is even harder for me to understand, I say more later in response to one particular post, skim reading now.

robp wrote: »

I really object to this deliberate obfuscation. Just because this is debating thread does give you the right to bad manners but anyway

It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human biology and thus governed by natural law.
No it dose not. Unless you limit natural law quite a bit.
It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
The legal and tax benefits of Marriage status exist at the expense of single people but gay couples cannot fill the unsaid responsibility of marriage which is building families.
Again, procreation is not the states intention in supporting marriage, it the fact that pair bonding and support of that adds to the benefit of society. Regulating marriage is about property and succession. Historically this has been the preserve of hetro couples but not anymore, on this basis alone regulation of same sex marriage is necessary never mind the added social benefits
Turns a what is unethical into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false.
Unethical? how in a secular context?
First of all, sexual behaviour and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white;or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
What requirements of nature? other than for procreation nature has no requirements.
Inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with changeable behaviour. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
Ahem, Sexual orientation is not changeable so I have no idea what your on about.
It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order.

Well yes it dose impose an acceptance on all society to, well accept it. Hard cheese! They could swallow living in sin and a load of other things, they'll get over it.

Nick Park wrote: »

I think this is inaccurate on several levels.

1. Homosexual relationships are certainly not the 'last taboo for Christianity as far as sex is concerned'. Incest would be a much greater taboo. I have yet to hear any sensible secular argument as to why, for example, a brother and sister should not be allowed to get married.

2. Most Christians that I know have no wish to see any laws restricting sexual activity between non-familial consenting adults being part of the law of the land (maybe because I live in Ireland rather than Uganda, thank God!). In this respect their views on same sex partnerships would be the same as toward non-monogamous relationships - that they should not be subject to any legal restraint but do not actually constitute marriage and should not be legally recognised as such).

(Disclaimer - to avoid getting dragged into an argument I don't even believe in, I should state that my own personal views are different from that of most Christians I know, in that I do not believe the State should place any barriers in the way of same sex marriage. My own view is that the State should not legislate marriage at all.)

Ahh fair enough, I was more thinking of situations where secular and religious differences happen. Their is no conflict between secular and religious views on
say incest or pedophilia. Their may well be one on polygamy coming up if Islam continues to flourish.
As to your second point, I agree all consenting relationships should be outside the limits of the law but the difference here is should the hetro couple want the legal recognition they are entitled to it, homosexual couples are not.

Interisting view on marriage and the state, the problem is it reduces human relationships to contracts and the state to nothing more than an enforcer of contracts. Bit too Ann Ryand for me.

Nick Park

tommy2bad wrote: »

Interisting view on marriage and the state, the problem is it reduces human relationships to contracts and the state to nothing more than an enforcer of contracts. Bit too Ann Ryand for me.

Atlas shrugged and said, "Am I bothered?"

tommy2bad wrote: »

Interisting view on marriage and the state, the problem is it reduces human relationships to contracts and the state to nothing more than an enforcer of contracts. Bit too Ann Ryand for me.

I think you have it backwards on this point. Human relationships are unique, exciting and dynamic phenomenons. Your relationship is whatever you and your partner agree that it is. The marriage part is you, as a couple, declaring that relationship to the state and the state agreeing to recognise the fact that you are in a relationship and agreeing to bestow certain rights on you. The relationship is not changed or reduced by the marriage contract at all. Instead it is a contract with the state to recognise your relationship.

Looking at it that way means the state needs a bloody good reason to decide not to recognise a relationship, e.g. one or both parties not capable of giving consent. Personal distaste or finding it 'icky' just doesn't cut it anymore. Rightly so

robp wrote: »

I really object to this deliberate obfuscation. Just because this is debating thread does give you the right to bad manners but anyway

Not Sure I see the bs manners, but thanks for the thorough answer.

robp wrote:

It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship betweven human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human biology and thus governed by natural law.

Can you please define what you see as natural law? I presume, as we are talking about secular reasoning against same-sex marriage you are not going to attempt to use a religiously influenced definition of natural law. I know, for example, that the catholic church favours a particular idea of natural law that, funnily enough, had a very restrictive view of sex and relationships. Clearly you are not thinking of this as we are talking about secular reasons. Perhaps you could provide more details about your natural law argument...

robp wrote:

It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
The legal and tax benefits of Marriage status exist at the expense of single people but gay couples cannot fill the unsaid responsibility of marriage which is building families.

I think this paragraph should have ended with, in your opinion. Clearly this is implied in everything we type, but you are making a fairly strong statement here, and you are doing so without evidence. I expect there be an appeal to common sense, but the fact of the matter is same sex couples can and do build families. Thy can have children from previous heterosexual relationships, adopt, use IVF with donor sperm or eggs or use surrogates. This is a fact.

In addition to this, study after study shows that children raised in same sex families do, at least, as well as children in opposite sex families.

robp wrote:

Turns a what is unethical into a Civil Right

can you provide a secular reason for this statement? Oh appear to be saying that same-sex marriage is unethical. Are you sure you aren't mixing unethical with immoral?

robp wrote:

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false.

First of all, sexual behaviour and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white;or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with changeable behaviour. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

Just to confirm, are ku trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice that gay people make?

robp wrote:

It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order.

Hmmm, where does this natural order come from? Who defines what natural order is and what is an attack on it?

MrP

NuMarvel

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Thank you for your answer.
This might be hard for you to believe but it had never occurred to me that the 'natural law' argument could come from anything but religious predisposition against homosexuality.

You can continue to believe that, because all robp has done is provide an edited version of the TFP's 10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must Be Opposed.

The TFP, or American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, is in their own words "an organization of lay Catholic Americans concerned about the moral crisis shaking the remnants of Christian civilization. Its earliest origins date back to January 1971, when the first TFP members started to group around the publication Crusade for a Christian Civilization."

Corkfeen

This is gonna be fun but rather easy...

robp wrote: »

I really object to this deliberate obfuscation. Just because this is debating thread does give you the right to bad manners but anyway

It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human biology and thus governed by natural law.

Marriage is a social contract that served many purposes throughout including allegiances. Homosexuality is present in nature so therefore does not violate natural law but even the concept natural law is idiotic. For example,we fly across the the globe. Use vaccinations and medicines. None of these things are morally wrong because they're unnatural. Still not unnatural though.

It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
The legal and tax benefits of Marriage status exist at the expense of single people but gay couples cannot fill the unsaid responsibility of marriage which is building families.

Firstly, they are perfectly capable of raising families. Also,should all infertile people be prevented from marriage? How about people who are simply too old to bare children?

Turns a what is unethical into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false.

First of all, sexual behaviour and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white;or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with changeable behaviour. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

Being attracted to the same sex is inherently unchangeable. Both parties are capable of falling in love, raising a family and contributing to society. Nothing insurmountable there. Your nature argument,once again fails.

It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order.

No natural order is being attacked. No damage is being done to society because I'm 100% certain you can't provide evidence. More tolerant societies are less violent,bigoted and just generally nicer people. Nobody is telling you to have sex with a person of the same sex. You simply live and let live. According to your baseline, It should be illegal.

So, your secular arguments aren't secular all. Your claims of immorality through an attack on nature is bull****. Your argument is based on a mixture of bigotry and biblical verses. It is not backed up by anything you claim it is. Now, do you want to provide an actual secular argument?

Corkfeen;
You are a little off on what natural law is. First off it's not a uniquely christian idea, it goes all the way back to the Greeks, probably came into Christianity from them along with a lot of other stuff.
It's not about whats natural in the sense of occurring in nature. It about the natural function of a thing. For example the natural end of eyes is to see so tossing sand in ppls eyes is a bad thing though it happens naturally in wind. Wearing glasses is a good thing though they are 'unnatural' because they further the natural end of eyes.
The problem is when we restrict things to a single end, eyes are for seeing sex is for procreation, eating is for nourishment and so on. We end up perverting the other functions of things, eyes are not just for seeing they are aesthetic they are expressive, we might see mascara as evil if we just use the single end rule but when we count the other functions, mascara becomes a good thing, it enhances the aesthetic value and increases the expressiveness of eyes.
Chewing gum provides no nourishment so this natural law would make it an evil, however we also eat for pleasure so chewing gum provides that good.
Sex might be primarily for reproduction but it also serves other important functions. Rejecting these functions is imnsho as wrong as perverting its primitive natural end.
Natural law is a philosophical position more than a religious one and like all law requires balancing rights. Catholic natural law gives primacy to the primitive end over all others. Unnatural if you ask me.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Corkfeen;
You are a little off on what natural law is. First off it's not a uniquely christian idea, it goes all the way back to the Greeks, probably came into Christianity from them along with a lot of other stuff.
It's not about whats natural in the sense of occurring in nature. It about the natural function of a thing. For example the natural end of eyes is to see so tossing sand in ppls eyes is a bad thing though it happens naturally in wind. Wearing glasses is a good thing though they are 'unnatural' because they further the natural end of eyes.
The problem is when we restrict things to a single end, eyes are for seeing sex is for procreation, eating is for nourishment and so on. We end up perverting the other functions of things, eyes are not just for seeing they are aesthetic they are expressive, we might see mascara as evil if we just use the single end rule but when we count the other functions, mascara becomes a good thing, it enhances the aesthetic value and increases the expressiveness of eyes.
Chewing gum provides no nourishment so this natural law would make it an evil, however we also eat for pleasure so chewing gum provides that good.
Sex might be primarily for reproduction but it also serves other important functions. Rejecting these functions is imnsho as wrong as perverting its primitive natural end.
Natural law is a philosophical position more than a religious one and like all law requires balancing rights. Catholic natural law gives primacy to the primitive end over all others. Unnatural if you ask me.

And this is why I asked ropb to provide clarification on what he considers natural law to be. Whilst there are strands of natural law that could be called secular, I beleive that today most people or groups that would appeal to natural law would be religious in nature and would be referencing a decidedly religious flavour of natur law, like the catholic church, for example.

robp alluded to secular argument against same-sex marriage. The reason he has given are either non-secular in nature, require further clarification or have ready been debunked in the courts or by shear weight of research.

Still waiting for those valid secular reasons for denying same-sex couples marriage equality.

MrP

NuMarvel wrote: »

You can continue to believe that, because all robp has done is provide an edited version of the TFP's 10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must Be Opposed.

The TFP, or American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, is in their own words "an organization of lay Catholic Americans concerned about the moral crisis shaking the remnants of Christian civilization. Its earliest origins date back to January 1971, when the first TFP members started to group around the publication Crusade for a Christian Civilization."

You're dead right. Some bits are a copy and paste job from that exact page. Considering that reason 10 is "10. It Offends God. This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it."

This does support the contention I held that opposition to SSM is rooted in religious predisposition against homosexuality.

Also Robp this kind of looks like blatent dishonesty on your part to take religious arguments and pretend they are secular. I'm not sure if you know this but you don't get a prize for "winning" an argument on Boards. Why not just be honest? Sad

In fairness to robp these are the arguments used by secularists (is that a word?) against SSM, to my mind it boils down to 'we are repulsed by homosexuals and think they should be discriminated against' but again trying to be fair, they are deeply held beliefs no matter how un founded in fact, reason or data they are. Emotion plays a part in everyone's thinking, the argument comes after to justify the 'gut feeling'.

tommy2bad wrote: »

In fairness to robp these are the arguments used by secularists (is that a word?) against SSM, to my mind it boils down to 'we are repulsed by homosexuals and think they should be discriminated against' but again trying to be fair, they are deeply held beliefs no matter how un founded in fact, reason or data they are. Emotion plays a part in everyone's thinking, the argument comes after to justify the 'gut feeling'.

That an argument is used by secularists does not mean it is a secular argument. We were talking about secular arguments and robp said he had secular arguments.

Further, your post demonstrates why we need secular, or reasons rooted in reason or politics. It is not appropriate to expect a class of persons to sit idly by and allow another class of person to discriminate against them based on a gut feeling or because their particular religion, or other irrational belief dictates it.

It is difficult to get people to accept a restriction that is based on a justification that those people do not accept. This is just so blindingly obvious I can' understand why people can't understand it. As a though experiment, imagine that the next election, by some freak occurance, saw a government elected that held extreme islamic views. The first legislation they enacted meant that girls had to be covered completely and could not stay in education past the age of 12. Both of these restrictions are based on their genuinely held religious beliefs, but those beleifs are not shared by the vast majority of women that will be affected. Does that fact that it is genuinely held hold any water here? Ca. Those that want to restrict same sex marriage based on their religious beliefs, genuinely held or otherwise, see why they may not be the best foundation for justification for discrimination?

MrP

@Mr P,
I suspect they do see how week their argument is, hence the desire to disguise these 'reasons' as rational.
I was just pointing out that they hold the belief first and rationalize after.
I doubt showing them the flaw in their reasoning will change even one mind, in the end the best we can hope for is they accept the decision and wander off muttering ' I'm entitled to my opinion'.

hinault

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Thank you for your answer.
This might be hard for you to believe but it had never occurred to me that the 'natural law' argument could come from anything but religious predisposition against homosexuality.

This argument seems very vulnerable to a demonstration that sexuality is determined in large part by genetic expression. If not 'hard wired' into us from our genes, then its the 'software' which is running in terms of genetic expression.

As the research paper here demonstrates, Sexual orientation does appear to be (a) as much a part of us as any other characteristic you mentioned above and (b) beyond our conscious control

I might have misunderstood your point so correct me if I'm wrong

Where is the gene that is responsible for homosexuality?

hinault wrote: »

Where is the gene that is responsible for homosexuality?

Like many things, homosexuality is unlikely to be the result of the action of a single gene.

MrP

hinault wrote: »

Where is the gene that is responsible for homosexuality?

Yeah like MrP said its not one gene for each characteristic To be fair the phrasing of the question probably implies that you don't really know a lot about how genes work on one hand and how genes are expressed on the other. I had to do an assignment for college and learned that epigenetics are a fascinating field that we are just getting to grips with.

It's about how genes can be 'switched on or off' so the basic genetic material is the same but which genes are expressed and what factors cause particular genes to be expressed.

If a man starts smoking before 11 years old and stops before having children, his Sons (not daughters) are more likely to be obese.

Mice who are exposed to chemicals such as hydrocarbons and pesticides have offspring who have much higher rates of certain illnesses such as diabetes. The really interesting thing is that the effects can last for up to 10 generations.

If you care to read the research paper I linked to in the post you quoted, you will see how sexual orientation is influenced by release of sex hormones in utero. So you are conceived, your mother releases slightly more androgen and testosterone than she did and you would quite likely have different sexual orientation to the one you have now.

That is the point which was relevant to the post I was responding to.

Hope this helps

hinault

MrPudding wrote: »

Like many things, homosexuality is unlikely to be the result of the action of a single gene.

MrP

The lack of genetic evidence to explain homosexuality was my point.

If there was sufficient genetic data to attribute homosexuality to, then a case could be perhaps be made.

hinault wrote: »

The lack of genetic evidence to explain homosexuality was my point.

If there was sufficient genetic data to attribute homosexuality to, then a case could be perhaps be made.

Your misunderstanding about what genetic evidence looks like is MrP's point. Asking for the gene that is responsible for homosexuality is a Strawman. However if you want to learn a little bit more about the topic, feel free.

I caution you though, if you learn about how genes and genetic expression actually work, you won't be able to honestly ask questions like 'where is the gene responsible for X?'.

JimiTime

Houston Mayor wants Sermons sent for approval, and Pastors threatened with legal action if they don't perform Same Sex ceremonies. Its all on the way.

http://www.examiner.com/article/idaho-ministers-face-arrest-jail-for-refusing-to-perform-same-sex-weddings

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

Houston Mayor wants Sermons sent for approval, and Pastors threatened with legal action if they don't perform Same Sex ceremonies. Its all on the way.

http://www.examiner.com/article/idaho-ministers-face-arrest-jail-for-refusing-to-perform-same-sex-weddings

If you want to register as a business then thems the rules .You left that bit out.

just go back to being a pastor and problem solved .