Questions About Gay Marriage

Thank you for clicking on my thread. I want to begin by stating that I am against hatred against any group. I believe that gays and lesbians must be embraced as not only a full part of the human family, but as people with the full right under the law to have sex and way that they choose, the same as I want for myself. I am glad that the Courts have struck down laws against homosexuality world-wide. It is no business of government to tell persons how to live in their private sphere. I am not only for separation of religion and state. I am also for the separation of religion and hate.

Having said what I said, I believe that the issue of gay marriage must be discussed in an intelligent way. Appeals to either religion or to some absolutist concept of "rights" are both childish. Real adults realize that there will always be homosexuality and lesbianism. Real adults also realize that all behaviors have social consequences, mine as well as yours. In particular, "marriage" has generally been seen as involving more than simply an exercise in civil rights. By definition, when you enter in to marriage you traditionally were seen as giving up something of your individual self to a broader relationship that also involves genes, bloodlines, and collectives.

My concerns about gay marriage are part and parcel of my broader concerns about rapid social change and its impact on the social and biological evolution of humanity. The divorce of sexuality from reproduction, begun in the heterosexual world, has led to a rapid severing of the father-child bond. The father-child bond is rare and unique in evolution. All kinds of behaviors are "natural," among them infanticide. The simple fact of a sexual behavior existing in Nature is meaningless unless we equate the "Is" with the "Ought," something that modern philosophy has been loathe to do in most ways. The severing of the parental bond could be as natural as anything else. The question is whether or not it is desirable.

The father-child bond evolved out of the vagaries of the selfish gene. Biologist Richard Dawkins has shown us that evolution exists on the gene level. Whether he is *FULLY* correct (he is definitely a reductionist), we cannot dismiss the fact that for fathers to feel bonded as fathers they must have a genetic buy-in. Separating sex from reproduction severs that buy-in. All of the socialist or anarchist utopianism in the world cannot deny the facts of evolution or they become ironically similar to the dogmatism of religious conservatives.

Can human sexuality be separated from the facts of human biology? Yes. But will this produce a society of greater human empathy or less? It is not a simple question. Banobo's have a great deal of homosexuality in their societies, and they are near evolutionary cousins to humans. They are a good example of how sex possibly *COULD* be separated from reproduction and create a more equal society similar to the hopes of socialists or anarchists who have called for the abolition of the family.

But, on closer analysis, we see that Banobo's are small societies in which members are interrelated. There is a genetic buy-in of sorts. We also see that fathers are not as involved with child-rearing as much as a vast extended matriarchy. Can this serve as a model for human society? I am skeptical. We are too warlike, too much like the regular Chimps in my opinion.

One caveat. The destructive nature of family breakdown is straight, not gay. Scapegoating gays for something that straights have done is ridiculous. That is not my purpose here. I am simply asking what I consider to be an adult set of questions. Americans often premise all conversations with the rights of adults. This is a cultural idea, not something set in the "laws of Nature, and Nature's God." I tend to think that the rights of children ought to at least be considered as relevant as the rights of adults.

In the Sixties, the idea was that by sexually freeing ourselves we would build a utopian society. Instead of utopia, the cultural liberalism of that era blended very well with the right-wing libertarianism of the eighties. And, the divorce boom has not led to a feminist egalitarian society---quite the contrary. Ask and single mother who is struggling and discriminated against. Inequality has increased, not decreased. Now, both forms of freedom-worship have ended and we have a Police State. And, there is no more strong family unit that can bond people together to oppose that. Nothing is opposing it except the blank stares of an atomized populace.

None of this is the fault of gays. Frankly, I am glad that there is still a group who believe in marriage! I also congratulate a particular gay military man Bradley Manning for at least doing something (whether I fully agree with it or not) instead of merely accepting Fascism. Do not get me wrong. Hatred of gays is a way that religions control their people, and I have none of it. What I can say, however, is that once gay marriage is accepted we cannot go back to the idea that marriage is primarily about bonding family structures and holding males accountable. We have embraced an atomistic individualism and the embrace becomes irreversible. At that point, we have accepted that what was once our evolutionary heritage is simply one lifestyle among many.

OK, those were not questions but statements. Here are the questions:

1) Can supporters of gay marriage say that the altering of traditional norms will not have social consequences that could be negative? Are all social consequences of greater tolerance positive? Even the American and French Revolutions had mixed consequences. The American Revolution gave greater freedom for whites but less freedom for Indians. The French Revolution ended Monarchy but extended other forms of tyrannical control. Nothing is ever pure good.

2) I have no question but that there are loving gay and lesbian homes. Please do not misunderstand me. Loving gay parents may even be the salvation of someone's life. However, is not the purpose of the genetic buy-in to act as a check and balance on *UN-LOVING* people? In other words, is not the purpose of male domestication to tame the brute? Compare our families to Chimps, who do not have pair bonding and you will see. Again, this is a discussion of straight males who would probably have a higher level of aggression than gay males or lesbians, but precedents have a way of extending outwards.

3) Why are civil unions (which I fully support) not enough? Why the romanticism around marriage? It is hard work. The union of marriage involves struggle and sacrifice. If there is no genetic buy-in, the does not marriage become another form of tax shelter?

4) Is it not natural for children to want a mother and father? Is this not genetic?

OK, enough. I ask that anti-gay religious people please avoid spamming my thread with nonsense. This is for intelligent, adult conversation. I wish my gay and lesbian readers the best, and thank you for reading.

Gay marriage is really the same as straight marriage just it takes two of the same sex rather than one of each and personally i'd say that there should be no difference in it (as approved by your local divorce lawyers) so that they can suffer the same as hetro couples should the relationship go wrong by having to spend 30k arguing over a £20 ornament

Gay marriage should be between the people who want to get married, and nobody else. Any societal consequences are none of anyone else's business. Anyway, this is almost a mute point, because allowing gay marriage will be the rule rather than the exception in very little time. Viva no difference?

reply to post by EarthEvolves

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
1) Can supporters of gay marriage say that the altering of traditional norms will not have social consequences that could be negative?

Of course no one can say that. But, as an active participant in altering traditional norms in my life, I can say that I have only seen positive consequences. Traditional norms CAUSE as many negative consequences as positive ones. And, I have seen many positive consequences from gay marriages and child-rearing. Gay people have to try really hard to have a child, either though adoption, surrogacy or donership. Surely you can agree that straight couples popping out more kids than they want or can handle is not a "positive consequence" of traditional norms.

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
2) I have no question but that there are loving gay and lesbian homes. Please do not misunderstand me. Loving gay parents may even be the salvation of someone's life. However, is not the purpose of the genetic buy-in to act as a check and balance on *UN-LOVING* people? In other words, is not the purpose of male domestication to tame the brute? Compare our families to Chimps, who do not have pair bonding and you will see. Again, this is a discussion of straight males who would probably have a higher level of aggression than gay males or lesbians, but precedents have a way of extending outwards.

I'm not sure I understand the question here, but I don't buy the genetic buy-in theory you have posited. Adoptive fathers (and mothers) can love and bond with their adopted children JUST as much as with their genetic ones. We aren't operating on the same instinctual level as our chimp brothers. Besides, there will still be plenty of men and women breeding in the traditional way and bonding with their genetic children. Are you suggesting that adoptive parents are somehow less able to bond ?

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
3) Why are civil unions (which I fully support) not enough? Why the romanticism around marriage? It is hard work. The union of marriage involves struggle and sacrifice. If there is no genetic buy-in, the does not marriage become another form of tax shelter?

The federal government provides over 1000 benefits and rights to married people that civil unions do not receive.

Yes marriage is hard work. I've been married for 20 years. We don't have kids. By choice. No genetic reason to stay together, yet we've worked HARD and struggled and sacrificed to keep our marriage going. Simply because it's what we want to do. If it's for a tax shelter, it's hardly worth it. I suggest that just because you don't understand that aspect of marital union, is no reason to deny it to those who want it.

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
4) Is it not natural for children to want a mother and father? Is this not genetic?

Perhaps having a male and female to raise a child is the ideal. And even natural. But as you have pointed out, just because it's natural, doesn't mean it's right or good. Would we deny single parents the joy of parenthood? If the father dies, should the mother lose her children to the state? Millions of people raised by single parents are fine and successful. And many who have had a stable mom and dad their whole lives are in prison, unhappy or unsuccessful... And, there are plenty of single parents who have opposite gender friends, family and other role models for their children. WHO raises the children is much less important than HOW they are raised.

Good post!

reply to post by EarthEvolves


The traditional family unit no longer exists. It changed decades ago, not because of homosexuality or anything biological, but environmental. Making less money and working more, eating habits, entertainment etc..

These have all contributed to the decline of our culture. To state that homosexuals could single underhandedly cause some giant riff in that process isn't very logical.

1) Can supporters of gay marriage say that the altering of traditional norms will not have social consequences that could be negative? Are all social consequences of greater tolerance positive? Even the American and French Revolutions had mixed consequences. The American Revolution gave greater freedom for whites but less freedom for Indians. The French Revolution ended Monarchy but extended other forms of tyrannical control. Nothing is ever pure good.

Can you provide a single example of a negative consequence? Not a situational specific either, but a broad and far reaching consequence of allowing gay marriages?

My country had that fight in the late 90's early 2000's. We haven't destroyed ourselves since.

2) I have no question but that there are loving gay and lesbian homes. Please do not misunderstand me. Loving gay parents may even be the salvation of someone's life. However, is not the purpose of the genetic buy-in to act as a check and balance on *UN-LOVING* people? In other words, is not the purpose of male domestication to tame the brute? Compare our families to Chimps, who do not have pair bonding and you will see. Again, this is a discussion of straight males who would probably have a higher level of aggression than gay males or lesbians, but precedents have a way of extending outwards.

I have no idea what any of that meant. If you are posturing that adoptive parents somehow love their children less due to lack of genetic connection, well, you'd have to prove that scientifically before I put any actual consideration into that line of thinking.

Furthermore, in recent years surrogates are the option of choice for gay couples wanting children, as adoption processes and agencies are still very homophobic and the laws in those places usually prohibit such things.

3) Why are civil unions (which I fully support) not enough? Why the romanticism around marriage? It is hard work. The union of marriage involves struggle and sacrifice. If there is no genetic buy-in, the does not marriage become another form of tax shelter?

That I never really understood either. BUt it is a tax shelter. There is no meaning to the word marriage overall anymore, because the government created a legal institution surrounding it. The only meaning to the word marriage is the one that YOU decide to place on it. That's a personal experience.

Your personal experience or opinion should not prevent another from having that same experience.

4) Is it not natural for children to want a mother and father? Is this not genetic?

Gender roles are important yes, but they are FAR less rigid than some would have you believe. I've been raising 4 children in a same sex relationship for over 2 decades. My children have dozens of positive female figures in their lives and I can only think of one time where I needed their help as opposed to dealing with it myself, like any normal parent would do.

Our society and our way of living changes faster than the next news cycle. One minute we scream bloody murder over children being shot by a madman in a school, yet we say nothing of the 500 thousand dead children from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Our priorities are not where they should be and worrying about gay marriage, as a road map to social decay, is simply a waste of valuable time and effort, when we could be making that changes that are really important.

~Tenth

Gay marriage will absolutely open the door for incestual marriage as their arguments are the exact same as the ones put forth by the homosexual community.

Whether you agree that is a good or bad thing is irrelevant, the fact is that once you tear down this wall the precedent will be set.

So people need to ask themselves if they are ready to support siblings marrying each other.

reply to post by Hopechest


No they are not.

There is an actual proper reason to why incest is illegal. The muddying of the gene pool in that way almost always presents health risks to the children of these couples.

The idea that the courts would entertain the idea of allowing incestuous marriages, because of a precedent set by gay marriage ( which is a benefits/rights issue) is ridiculous.

There is no actual legal challenge to make for incest. If you would be so kind as to provide one that would be great.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Hopechest

 

No they are not.

There is an actual proper reason to why incest is illegal. The muddying of the gene pool in that way almost always presents health risks to the children of these couples.

The idea that the courts would entertain the idea of allowing incestuous marriages, because of a precedent set by gay marriage ( which is a benefits/rights issue) is ridiculous.

There is no actual legal challenge to make for incest. If you would be so kind as to provide one that would be great.

~Tenth

The Supreme Court has already ruled, and I'll try and dig up the case for you, that a marriage cannot be prevented due to an unforseen event in the future. It had something to do with some parents stopping their daughter from marrying a guy who had aids I believe.

As for why they would allow it its rather simple. They would have no choice.

Incestual marriage people would say that they were adults, they love each other, its not harming anyone.....the exact same reasons that the homosexual community is using.

Exactly the same. No court could disallow an incestual marriage after gay marriage passes because it would be blatant discrimination. Its like saying blacks and whites can marry but not asians and whites.

reply to post by Hopechest


There is absolutely no reason why gays should be afforded special treatment by not being allowed to marry.

They should be able to share in the same misery, hateful divorces, child custody battles, pet custody, property disputes, in law wars that married heterosexuals couples enjoy.

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by Hopechest

 

There is absolutely no reason why gays should be afforded special treatment by not being allowed to marry.

They should be able to share in the same misery, hateful divorces, child custody battles, pet custody, property disputes, in law wars that married heterosexuals couples enjoy.

I'm not arguing that, I'm simply saying that family members who wish to marry will also demand they get the same rights also.

And how could you tell them no once you allow homosexuals to marry when they are using the exact same reasoning for thier union?

You can't.

"well they will have genetically deficient children" you say? What if they cannot have children, can you still deny them, and on what grounds?

Originally posted by Hopechest
Gay marriage will absolutely open the door for incestual marriage as their arguments are the exact same as the ones put forth by the homosexual community.

Whether you agree that is a good or bad thing is irrelevant, the fact is that once you tear down this wall the precedent will be set.

So people need to ask themselves if they are ready to support siblings marrying each other.

Are you kidding me? Do you think that gay people having children leads to large chance of birth defects? Because that is why we have incest laws. You what is disgusting is same argument you make now was made against allowing interacial marriages. Guess what nobody is started to marry siblings or animals then and they will not now. Because you do not want to look like a bigot you defelct the argument it to some silly fantasy. Thats like saying because we let people own guns that we will also have to let them own biological weapons. It is so far off the reservation it goes beyond common sense.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Gay marriage will absolutely open the door for incestual marriage as their arguments are the exact same as the ones put forth by the homosexual community.

Whether you agree that is a good or bad thing is irrelevant, the fact is that once you tear down this wall the precedent will be set.

So people need to ask themselves if they are ready to support siblings marrying each other.

I'm fine with siblings marrying each other -- as long as they are not allowed to reproduce. They must agree to sterilization.

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by Hopechest
Gay marriage will absolutely open the door for incestual marriage as their arguments are the exact same as the ones put forth by the homosexual community.

Whether you agree that is a good or bad thing is irrelevant, the fact is that once you tear down this wall the precedent will be set.

So people need to ask themselves if they are ready to support siblings marrying each other.

Are you kidding me? Do you think that gay people having children leads to large chance of birth defects? Because that is why we have incest laws. You what is disgusting is same argument you make now was made against allowing interacial marriages. Guess what nobody is started to marry siblings or animals then and they will not now. Because you do not want to look like a bigot you defelct the argument it to some silly fantasy. Thats like saying because we let people own guns that we will also have to let them own biological weapons. It is so far off the reservation it goes beyond common sense.

Like I said, what if the incestual couple cannot have children. How would you still deny them when they are using the same reasons to justify their union as gay couples do?

And do you really think there are not family members who have tried to marry, or are not sitting in prison for having an incestual relationship?

You really believe I didn't check that little fact before I started posting this issue? Do a simple search and you may....get ready for this...find current court cases contesting the rights for family members to marry.

Yea, it could never happen at all.

reply to post by Hopechest


Anyway incestual relations is a cultural affair....

It was very common in some royalty.ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

www.historyundressed.com...



transatlantica.revues.org...://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3812218?uid=3739816&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102128420507

Who knows as cultural norms evolve and mutate; in the future we might be able to marry our cell phones....as some seem to be now.

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Anyway incestual relations is a cultural affair....

It was very common in some royalty.ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

www.historyundressed.com...



transatlantica.revues.org...://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3812218?uid=3739816&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102128420507

edit on 11-4-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

Oh that is only the tip of the iceberg goes as far as cultural precedent. Heck, I'm not even in law school yet and I could argue this in front of the Court EASILY using gay marriage as the premise. As long as you remove any threat to a child, such as one of the individuals being unable to have children, there is no way you could lose.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Oh that is only the tip of the iceberg goes as far as cultural precedent. Heck, I'm not even in law school yet and I could argue this in front of the Court EASILY using gay marriage as the premise. As long as you remove any threat to a child, such as one of the individuals being unable to have children, there is no way you could lose.

And why should you lose? Two consenting adults who are committed to each other - no victims involved. What's the problem?

For the record, I'm also all for legalizing prostitution, as long as it's regulated for health reasons and other criminal activity.

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
3) Why are civil unions (which I fully support) not enough? Why the romanticism around marriage? It is hard work. The union of marriage involves struggle and sacrifice. If there is no genetic buy-in, the does not marriage become another form of tax shelter?

Pairing has a genetic underpinning. Early cultural notions of marriage had to do with economics and status, as modern marriage still maintains. We have to separate ritual(collective), right(universal) and desire (individual). Marriage is a ritual and civil unions are a ritual. I think any and all religious institutions have the right to define aspects of membership as they see fit. Marriage in any modern sense is religious by nature, so I don't feel like the term "gay marriage" should be accepted by various denominations, society or the gay community. This isn't really a case of "separate but equal". A civil union is not marriage. Just the same, the State has the obligation at this point in time to allow civil unions on the principle of equality, as the government acknowledges the same unions in straight couples, whether or not that couple had a religious ceremony to enter into religious marriage.

Religious marriage is a ritual function of the cultural unit; Civil unions are a ritual function of the State. Where they overlap should be seen as a function of inclusion - thereby allowing the religious marriage to be transferred to the State's ritual. As a given religion does not include gay marriage as a concept, there need be no such function for gay civil unions vis-à-vis straight civil unions. I guess I'll see from the responses I get whether I clarified my stance well enough or not.

Edit: I should add that I liked the tone and substance of your opinions and only skipped on the other questions because I don't have as established a take on those, so I need to read/think more about them before I give an answer.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Gay marriage will absolutely open the door for incestual marriage as their arguments are the exact same as the ones put forth by the homosexual community.

Whether you agree that is a good or bad thing is irrelevant, the fact is that once you tear down this wall the precedent will be set.

So people need to ask themselves if they are ready to support siblings marrying each other.

This is exactly the type of rhetoric I was hoping to avoid here...

I ask that the forum focus on the four question I posed.

"Adoptive fathers (and mothers) can love and bond with their adopted children JUST as much as with their genetic ones. We aren't operating on the same instinctual level as our chimp brothers. Besides, there will still be plenty of men and women breeding in the traditional way and bonding with their genetic children. Are you suggesting that adoptive parents are somehow less able to bond ?"

It could be that adoption is a way of cheating Nature. I tend to think that parental relationships that are not biological are less than ideal because the parenting gene falls away after generations of that becoming the norm.

I could also be wrong but I would rather that the question be addressed than explained away for the sake of political correctness.

reply to post by EarthEvolves


I would like to answer you by saying this.......Many years ago when "people" took prayer out of the schools, they decided there should be a separation between church and state. However the fight against homosexuals has largely been based on religion. No homosexual chose to be born that way. Ask hetrosexual parents why they continue to give birth to gay and lesbian children.

The thing gays and homosexuals want is equal rights under the law. If some ones life partner dies, the surviving partner would like the right to be "next of kin". These people want to be able to file a joint tax return and have the normal legal benefits that straight couples have.


Gay people fight and die for their country, they pay taxes, they fight crime, they are professionals and deserve respect as productive human beings.

Race, religion, sexuality, hair color, body type, etc etc have no place in deciding equality under the law.


There will always be father child bonding but perhaps gay men deserve that right as well.

Gay marriages can be done by a justice of the peace. Churches can decide for themselves what the Christian thing to do is.


People need to worry about serious issues like war, disease, famine etc and quit worrying about who the queen next door is or isn't married too.