Proponents of same sex marriage often defend it on the grounds that people have a right to marry who they want (provided of course that the desire is reciprocated). Opponents frequently reply that this same reason is equally effective a justification for polygyny and incest. This usually makes the former very angry. "Shut up," they explain. What they don't do is the one thing they most need to do. If you want to demonstrate that same sex marriage ought to be legal, you need to show why incest should to be illegal.
Unfortunately, gay marriage advocates are almost always liberals, and liberals aren't usually comfortable at defending traditional sexual morality.
A welcome exception is William Saletan's recent piece in Slate.
Incest is for hicks. That's the stereotype among educated liberals: Homosexuality is urbane, polygamy is for Mormons, and incest is for hayseeds. So when David Epstein, a Columbia University political scientist, was charged last week with third-degree incest for allegedly shagging his adult daughter, the blogosphere erupted.
That first sentence presents a very powerful insight. Sexual morality begins with more or less vague impressions of what is noble and what is ugly, and almost always involves a distinction between our kind of people and people who aren't our kind. Consider the case of the Duke University Lacrosse players who were very nearly railroaded on a false rape charge. Many if not most Duke professors instinctively lined up against the athletes and that had a lot to do with their assumptions about what kind of people (male) athletes are. There is a reason for this. The moral sense is rooted in the evolved human capacity for forming partnerships and that in turn requires a capacity for discriminating between reliable and unreliable people.
Fortunately, our moral repugnance at rape is sound and very easy to defend. What about incest? Saletan begins with the most common argument for criminalizing incest.
The old answer was genetics. Germany's high court relied on that argument two years ago when it upheld the conviction of Patrick Stuebing for sex with his sister. Of the four children the couple produced, three had physical or mental disabilities. In general, studies show a significantly higher rate of birth defects in offspring of incestuous couples. The reason is simple: Every family has genetic flaws, and if you reproduce within your family, you're more likely to get two copies of the flaw—thereby producing the defective trait—instead of acquiring a new, protective allele from another family.
There's more to it than that. Inbreeding reduces genetic diversity, which makes any population of animals more vulnerable to pathogens. The genetic argument explains why animal societies (including our own) are typically matrilineal or patrilineal. Either the females or the males are exchanged between groups.
However, Saletan points out that this only means that incestuously inclined couples shouldn't procreate. It doesn't prove that they shouldn't have sexual relations. I think that the genetic argument is good enough. How would we allow the one while policing the other? I think there are pretty good reasons for not allowing first cousins to marry.
Saletan recognizes that the genetic grounds for prohibiting incest are not the most important grounds.
The conservative view is that all sexual deviance—homosexuality, polyamory, adultery, bestiality, incest—violates the natural order. Families depend on moral structure: Mom, Dad, kids. When you confound that structure—when Dad sleeps with a man, Dad sleeps with another woman, or Mom sleeps with Grandpa—the family falls apart. Kids need clear roles and relationships. Without this, they get disoriented. Mess with the family, and you mess up the kids.
That's the basis on which the Ohio Supreme Court upheld [the incest conviction of Paul Lowe, a former sheriff's deputy, for what the court called "consensual sex with his 22-year-old stepdaughter."]: "A sexual relationship between a parent and child or a stepparent and stepchild is especially destructive to the family unit." This destructive effect, the court reasoned, occurs even if the sex is adult and consensual, since "parents do not cease being parents … when their minor child reaches the age of majority."
Incest is wrong because it quite literally perverts the familial relationship. The family is the most basic institution in all human societies. If you don't believe me, ask Aristotle or Aristophanes. Its essential function is the nurturing of offspring by their parents and the honoring of parents by their offspring. It works by subordinating the self interest of each member of the family to the welfare of the family as a whole. Incest destroys that.
There are very good reasons for our moral repugnance at incest and for expressing that repugnance with the force of law. Having made that argument, Saletan is now in a strong position to defend same sex marriage.
When a young man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed. Homosexuality is largely immutable, as the chronic failure of "ex-gay" ministries attests. So if you forbid sex between these two men, neither of them is likely to form a happy, faithful heterosexual family. The best way to help them form a stable family is to encourage them to marry each other.
Incest spectacularly flunks this test. By definition, it occurs within an already existing family. So it offers no benefit in terms of family formation. On the contrary, it injects a notoriously incendiary dynamic—sexual tension—into the mix.
Conservatives may be skeptical about this defense of same sex marriage. I think Saletan is right, but either way conservatives should recognize that he has confirmed their general view of sexual morality and the family. Liberals would be wise to follow suit. If you really want to defend same sex marriage, you have to defend marriage. You can't do the latter without defending the traditional family. Saletan's essay is an exemplary piece of moral reasoning.
This commentary and Saletan's article are really just deliberations on incest, not Same-Sex Marriage.
I see what you are trying to get at, but please don’t say that Liberals need to “put up or shut up” (and, by the way, I love how the political term “liberal” has somehow lately been defined as “ANYONE who is NOT a Republican”).
I happen to be a “moderate voting”, college educated, US citizen. But, when I discuss Same-Sex Marriage with any party and they begin to compare “bestiality”, “polygamy”, or “incest” (or worse, start throwing Bible quotes). Well, then I IMMEDIATELY end the conversation, because I know that person is not thinking logically. However—according to you—that makes me a liberal.
Posted by: Dan_Doe | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 04:18 AM
It seems that you are trying to prove, in a very long-winded commentary, the opinion that “kids need a Mom and Dad in order to be normal.” Jeeze, if that’s all… then just say it. However, this would be a completely false statement, considering hundreds of studies (none of which you mention) show that kids raised in same-sex parental homes are just as normal as, and sometimes more successful than, their “traditional” family counterparts.
You also make no mention of the fact that bestiality, polygamy, and incest are completely illegal in every state of this country and in almost every nation worldwide. Homosexuality is completely legal in every state of this country, and illegal in only a handful of (mostly 3rd world) nations.
“Liberals” (as you call them) do not accept your “traditional family” theory because it is just another way to twist non-scientific theories as “scientific fact” for the conservative defense in court. Much like conservatives used a very similar argument to deter interracial marriages, the right for women to vote, and even slavery emancipation. If you don’t believe me, read the court cases. These “liberals” however, proved in case after case in state after state, that Same-Sex Marriage is—IN FACT—a safe, healthy, loving, and supportive environment to raise children. Just as “liberals” had proven that no harm will come to society if women were allowed to vote, if school were to be de-segregated, if interracial marriage were to become legal, and if contraception were to become legal to unwed adults.
Conservatives, on the other hand (in each of these cases), spread lies and fear of Armageddon. That, if same-sex marriage were to become legal… then bestiality, incest, and polygamy would run rampant in the streets. This, of course, works in their favor when these conservative groups put same-sex marriage on the ballot. Using fear at the ballot box (just to promote your own selective—and in most cases religious/dogma based—moral code) is not only an Un-Christian maneuver, it completely goes against the “morals” of our country’s Constitution.
Same-Sex Marriage is simply two consenting, non-related, legal-age adults joining in a legally binding CIVIL contract of matrimony. And hopefully, someday when the dust settles on this issue, conservatives will see that the world did not end just because the government allowed a few US citizens to maintain their civil/human rights.
Posted by: Dan_Doe | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 04:20 AM
Scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[5][6][7] According to scientific literature reviews published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals and statements of mainstream professional associations, there is no evidence to the contrary.[8][9][10][7][11] The methodologies used in the major studies of same-sex parenting meet the standards for research in the field of developmental psychology and psychology generally and produces reliable conclusions.[12] In September 2010, Florida Third District Court of Appeal emphasized the finding of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida in In re: Gill case: "Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting
Male and female parents can be equally competent; the absence of male or female parents in the home does not impair development.
The social science literature overwhelmingly rejects the notion that there is an optimal gender mix of parents or that children and adolescents with same-sex parents suffer any developmental disadvantages compared with those with two oppositesex parents.
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf
Posted by: Petr Tomeš | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 05:15 AM
There can be a natural argument made against incest, naturally. It is inbreeding. However homosexuality, in spite of also being against the laws of God, is wrong from a secular sense too because it is non-sustainable. Gays have to look for surrogates or adoption or anything and everything except the natural process which shows how unnatural it really is.
Secondly, your secular argument does nothing to show why we shouldn't legalize polygamy under the same standing that liberals demand gay marriage. You have consenting adults who want to get married but liberals don't want to lend voice to it because it's opposed by a large majority of citizens. That's really their only argument against it and they know it and don't want to admit it. If you support gay marriage, you really have no reason to oppose polygamy and that's one of the many reasons liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth on the subject.
Posted by: SAO | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 05:46 AM
Long-winded? No, Dr. Blanchard is making his point with sufficient detail to withstand rebuttal. Some issues require more discussion than a blockquote and two bullet points.
Posted by: caheidelberger | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 07:50 AM
What if I propose a moral scheme for condemning certain sexual relations based on power rather than family? Arguably, the offense in incest lies as much in a parent abusing the inherent power of parenthood as in perverting traditional family structure. Rape offends because it is a violent assertion of physical power. Teacher-student liaisons offend because they too likely abuse power. Workplace relationships between boss and underling -- same problem. (Possibly related: anyone care to comment on SDSU's basketball coach marrying a former assistant?) Prostitution and polygamy are frought with power issues that make participants in such relationships unequal partners. We might even be able to use the power concept to outlaw bestiality.
Remember, it's not that I'm against family. I have one and rather like it. Traditional family is a good value worth defending, but it only applies for those people who choose to be in one. Making traditional family a core value either tells happily single people that they are letting society down or excuses people who choose not to create traditional families to boff all the chickens they want.
But power relationships and autonomy apply to everyone. If we're seeking a moral framework upon which to build just laws, perhaps a first principle of "Intimate relationships must be based on equal autonomy" covers more bases than "Intimate relationships must be based on traditional family."
Posted by: caheidelberger | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 09:28 AM
I have enough money and can make scientific research say whatever I want. Understand? I didn't think so.
Posted by: George Soros | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 11:18 AM
I'm reminded of an episode of The West Wing in which Jed Bartlet is meeting with a group supporting a constitutional amendment to protect the flag against desecration. Bartlet eventually becomes frustrated and asks whether there is an epidemic of flag-burning he is not aware of.
This brings up a problem of conservatives trying to ascribe motives to liberal actions or inaction. Our, or at least my comfort level with "defending traditional sexual morality" has nothing to do with any arguments I might pose regarding incest, polygamy and same sex marriage. What does matter is the three are distinct and different from each other. And so far as I know, there is no epidemic demand for legalizing incest and polygamy--although some conservatives have disputed the validity of genetic problems related to incest in an effort to pass the strictest of anti-choice laws.
But back to your original assertion that one must show why incest should be illegal to defend making same-sex marriage legal; no I don't. I only need show same-sex marriage is not destructive. Incest has nothing to do with it. Your argument is tantamount to saying one must show heroin should be illegal in order to show alcohol should be legal.
Posted by: A.I. | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 12:30 PM
Gay marriage is neither legal nor illegal. It is simply not recognized by some states and the federal government. Nobody can be arrested, or legally punished, for participating in a gay marriage. This is why it is not illegal. Sodomy laws were annihilated from the United States in 2003 by a super majority of the SCOTUS. The case was Lawrence v. Texas. The professional, anti-gay bigots howled.
Looking forward to the annihilation of proposition 8 in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger federal court challenge. Furthermore, looking forward to the book keeping exposure of anti-gay religious corporations that have facilitated the passage of anti-gay marriage measures. This next bit may be wishful thinking, but I would like to see it's leaders, who earn a living off of anti-gay dollars, thrown in prison, for life, for crimes against humanity.
R.I.P. bigots. Your days are numbered!
Posted by: FlexSF | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 02:24 PM
MARRIAGE SHOULD BE SACRED FOR ALL AMERICANS.
ALL of America’s best experts on family, mental health and children agree that America would benefit if same-sex couples could have civil marriage.
The National Library of Medicine scientific research publications all confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individual’s ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
Sexual orientation is similar to left-handedness: biological, unchangeable, innocent. We used to think left-handed was evil (Latin for left is “sinister”), and force lefties to use only their right hand, even though they never really changed. Research reveals variable hormonal levels in pregnancy permanently affect a child’s neural circuitry for sexual orientation and gender identity: a little more testosterone in fetal girls’ brains from an adrenal condition can cause <50% to be lesbian, 10% to be transgender. Sharing the womb with a boy co-twin (amniotic fluid has some of his testosterone) causes <15% of girl co-twins to be lesbian. These girls also have the bone structure and physical coordination of boys, so they are good in sports, thus the stereotype.
Less testosterone for boys' brains from mother's blocking antibody from having many older brothers causes <15% of boys to be gay. These boys can have the physiology/verbal skills like girls, and excel in language and visual arts, thus the stereotype. All innocent.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
The American Anthropological Association confirms that keeping marriage for heterosexuals only is detrimental to our culture and heritage, and not essential for the preservation of our societal order.
America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality. There is no further reason to discriminate, except ignorance or bigotry. SO WHY WOULD ANYONE FIGHT THIS??????
Think of what you would want for yourself or your your family. Why would anyone take a stand that goes against the policies of America's child, family and mental health experts?
Think of what you would want for yourself or your family.
Posted by: Kate O'Hanlan, MD | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 03:53 PM
References for each of the above:
Please visit these sites.
American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_statements/sexual_orientation_gender_identity_and_civil_rights
American Psychiatric Association
http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200502.pdf
American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/gay-marriage.pdf
American Academy of Pediatrics
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349
National Association of Social Workers
http://www.socialworkers.org/diversity/lgb/062804.asp
American Anthropological Association
http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-Family.cfm
Child Welfare League of America
http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm
North American Council on Adoptable Children
http://www.nacac.org/policy/lgbtq.html
American Psychoanalytic Association
http://www.apsa.org/ABOUTAPSAA/POSITIONSTATEMENTS/MARRIAGERESOLUTION/tabid/470/Default.aspx
Posted by: Kate O'Hanlan, MD | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 03:54 PM
The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.
Posted by: shadow_man | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 04:20 PM
This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.
"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "
Posted by: shadow_man | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 04:20 PM
The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:
"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx
Posted by: shadow_man | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 04:20 PM
Finally, let's prove to the writer of this article why the slippery slope argument fails.
Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he'll choose his sister, and if he's gay, he'll choose his brother. See the distinguishment? Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful, whereas homosexuality is 2 loving consenting adults that is not wrong or harmful. Incest, also has been shown to lead to genetic defects, so that is also out of the question. Incest also is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. I have never seen a person exclusively attracted to their brothers/sisters etc. Polygamy also is a choice. No one can choose who they would or will be attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in more than one relationship with more than one person at the same time. Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced. Those 4 fetishes can be seen to be harmful and wrong, whereas gay marriage is neither harmful nor wrong.
To those of you trying to bring up irrelevant issues, like polygamy, i will show you why the slippery slope fails. First, if you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage. Go advocate for them if that's your concern, prove they are not wrong and prove they are not harmful. We have already proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful. But those two things are irrelevant to gay marriage. And gay marriage does not lead to polygamy nor any other type of fetish.
Gay marriage has been legal in MA for 6 years now, and i don't see anyone pushing for polygamy there. The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that's quickly becoming obsolete.
Posted by: shadow_man | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 04:23 PM
I really do not care what two people want to do in the privacy of their homes as long as it is not something that causes harm to another person. I do object to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is something that occurs between one man and one woman. This does not mean I object to same-sex civil or even religious unions. I believe there is room for both types of "contracts".
When marriage is defined as I have, then there is no doubt as to what a marriage is. When someone defines down marriage to include same-sex unions, then something that today seems repugnant can years down the road be considered acceptable. 50 years ago, very few people would ever have said same-sex marriage was acceptable. If incestuous relationships are today considered repugnant, what happens if in 50 years there are enough and people become more "open-minded" to the point where incest is considered different, but acceptable? I submit we need a definition of what marriage is. Then if someone wants to participate in a different style of committed relationship, we can give it a name, but marriage continues to be what it is.
Posted by: duggersd | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 07:19 PM
Most of the comments on this thread are political statements that have little to do with any point I argued. Several of the comments seem to suggest that I wrote in opposition to gay marriage or gay adoption. In fact, William Salten's essay strengthens the case for gay marriage, something I stressed and endorsed. I am in favor of legally sanctioned same sex marriage.
A.I.: If the arguments in favor of legalized alcohol appear to prove that heroin should also be legalized (something many libertarians believe) then someone who wants alcohol to remain legal will have to think twice. He can either adopt the libertarian position or demonstrate a distinction. Otherwise he looks like a damn fool.
If arguments in favor of SSM frequently work just as well to defend polyamory and incest, those who make the former are in the same situation. Saletan recognizes this and successfully demonstrates the distinction. I note that while arguing with you is frequently challenging (something I relish), agreeing with you appears to be damn near impossible.
Posted by: KB | Sunday, January 02, 2011 at 11:34 PM
Alone among the current posts, Cory Heidelberger's piece adds something to the debate. Doctors enter romantic and/or sexual relations with patients clearly violate professional ethics and in some cases, I assume,violate the law. The same goes for relations between teachers and students. The restriction is based on the idea that even consensual relations confuse and subvert the professional relationship. That is robustly analogous to the arguments against incest that Saletan cites. It also reinforces his point. SSM does not involve any such dysfunction.
Cory: you are more comfortable with arguments based on power relations than those based on the traditional family. I think that is a mistake. The marital and familial relationships are much more fundamental than the doctor/patient, teacher/student, or lawyer/client partnerships. I am quite comfortable allowing professional organizations and legislatures to define the latter than I am with allowing the same to tell me how to raise my children. On the other hand, I think that the state should protect children against abuse and I think that laws against incest are entirely proper for reasons discussed above.
Given the importance of marriage and the family, the traditional family is an indispensable guide. It is rooted in biology and thousands of years of history. The intensity of the very argument we are having demonstrates its importance. After all, the demand for legal SSM isn't really about shared health care benefits, is it? It's precisely about allowing same sex unions to be recognized as traditional families.
I happen to agree with Saletan that traditional family can be defended against demands for legalized incest or polygyny or polyandry. I see no sufficient reason not to extend that institution to cover same sex couples.
Posted by: KB | Monday, January 03, 2011 at 12:01 AM
@duggersd
You begin by explaining that you "really do not care what two people want to do in the privacy of their homes as long as it is not something that causes harm to another person," and then in the very next sentence you conclude that you "do object to same-sex marriage."
I implore you to think really carefully about your thoughts and feelings on this issue. Both sentences juxtaposed together don't quite look sensible.
You've already established that you don't think homosexuality is harmful, as well as brought forward the idea that private activity (the orderly pursuit of liberty, autonomy and happiness for all) is an important value for you. So tell me then why, gay people- who are not harmful, that want to make a personal choice to get married, are suddenly so objectionable in trying to arrange their love and their contractual affairs equally?
"This does not mean I object to same-sex civil or even religious unions. I believe there is room for both types of "contracts"."
I see where you're coming from. But ask yourself, would dual "contracts" for mixed race marriages be fair? Should Gay people have to grow up in a world where they're only a shallow second best? Practically speaking also, civil unions don't always offer the same trusty legal protections and obligations straight people take for granted with marriage. The force of civil unions tend to become bleak if couples move across state lines or whole countries.
I see civil unions on one hand existing as a mechanism to exclude and distract a certain class of people from a right they should have. On the other hand they're like a "pat on the back" to supporters of civil unions; people who think they're supporting equal rights because to not support equal rights would be bigoted. What they don't realize is they're only sugarcoating the inequality with the offer of a "contract" for love that is neither universally recognizable, legally enforceable or even guaranteed to have permanence. It would be difficult but not impossible to repeal civil union laws. Try to repeal marriage altogether? Not gonna happen.
"When someone defines down marriage to include same-sex unions, then something that today seems repugnant can years down the road be considered acceptable."
I don't understand... your reasoning here. You've basically already said that you think opening up marriage to couples of the same sex somehow downgrades the institution. Like there is something wrong with homosexuality that is going to poison the institution as a whole. Is this what you believe? Because I thought you said it was harmless.
Your idea that advocating positive change now can lead to negative change later is therefore disingenuous in the context of your own argument. In a broader context though I would ask whether people truly believe it is encouragable to exclude a certain class of people from something just because something bad might happen in the future? If we lived in a world where people were afraid to make changes of any kind of social cost because the future isn't certain...well... we'd still be in the dark ages lets be honest.
"If incestuous relationships are today considered repugnant, what happens if in 50 years there are enough and people become more "open-minded" to the point where incest is considered different, but acceptable?"
I don't see how creating civil unions, and putting up roadblocks to same sex marriage now will impact an issue that may or may not be dealt with in the future. People wrestled with the same kind of feelings when the concept of interracial marriage was a radical thing and at the time only "open-minded" people supported it, but those fears didn't stop progress, only stalled it which in my opinion only caused more harm during the civil rights movement.
I will say this though. To exclude a person who loves only the same sex from marrying any person on the planet of the same sex is what makes it unfair. To exclude a (for example) heterosexual male from marrying his sister is nowhere near as unfair and arbitrary. That heterosexual male still has the capacity to fall in love with any other female in the world. The two issues are therefore not similar because one deals with a fundamental sexual orientation being excluded, and the other is excluding a choice a person makes to sleep with someone in their own family, while keeping the option of love and commitment open.
@duggersd, you seem like the type of person who believes in fairness but at the same time is clouded by how you were taught to feel about homosexual people "they should be less than", and the middle ground you have come up with is a far from equal legal arrangement. I know how that feels because I felt like that in the past, but eventually I had to decide. Should homosexual people be treated equally as actual people, or are they such a threat to humanity and other people's marriages and/or distant futures that they deserve to accept a second best almost-human like recognition of their love (or none at all?)
Posted by: Morgan Terrill | Monday, January 03, 2011 at 03:42 AM
Once again, i will bump this post to show why that slippery slope argument fails. Also, past history shows that separate is not equal. There is no reason to distinguish between gay marriages and straight marriages, especially when gay marriage has 0 effect on straight marriages. The problem is, you are trying to tie in irrelevant things. Those other things you mentioned are fetishes, whereas homosexuality is a sexuality. Let me distinguish this for you. Even a person into incest. If he is straight, he will prefer his sister, or if he is gay, he will prefer his brother. See the difference?
Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he'll choose his sister, and if he's gay, he'll choose his brother. See the distinguishment? Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful, whereas homosexuality is 2 loving consenting adults that is not wrong or harmful. Incest, also has been shown to lead to genetic defects, so that is also out of the question. Incest also is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. I have never seen a person exclusively attracted to their brothers/sisters etc. Polygamy also is a choice. No one can choose who they would or will be attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in more than one relationship with more than one person at the same time. Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced. Those 4 fetishes can be seen to be harmful and wrong, whereas gay marriage is neither harmful nor wrong.
To those of you trying to bring up irrelevant issues, like polygamy, i will show you why the slippery slope fails. First, if you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage. Go advocate for them if that's your concern, prove they are not wrong and prove they are not harmful. We have already proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful. But those two things are irrelevant to gay marriage. And gay marriage does not lead to polygamy nor any other type of fetish.
Gay marriage has been legal in MA for 6 years now, and i don't see anyone pushing for polygamy there. The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that's quickly becoming obsolete.
Posted by: shadow_man | Monday, January 03, 2011 at 06:44 AM
What is comes down to is, and i have yet to see an anti-gay person provide an answer that i couldn't easily refute:
Prove that homosexuality is wrong.
Prove that gay marriage is wrong.
When you examine all the possibilities, it becomes very clear, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, nor is there anything wrong with gay marriage. Double plus. What seals the lid on the coffin for anti-gay arguments, is the fact that gay marriage doesn't even affect straight marriages in any way. As the old saying goes, three strikes and you're out.
Posted by: shadow_man | Monday, January 03, 2011 at 06:46 AM
Morgan, I have no feelings one way or the other about homosexuals. I advocate the term marriage meaning something. The term "marriage" represents an institution in this country that has stood the test of time. Now you want to change what marriage is? 50 years ago, the very idea of being homosexual was considered repugnant. Today it is much more accepted although not completely. Today incest is considered repugnant. Perhaps in 50 years we will be more enlightened and willing to accept incest as just as morally acceptable as homosexuality and heterosexuality.
You make the argument "To exclude a person who loves only the same sex from marrying any person on the planet of the same sex is what makes it unfair. To exclude a (for example) heterosexual male from marrying his sister is nowhere near as unfair and arbitrary." Just who are you to tell me that I cannot marry my sister, or my brother or my mother (by the way I am getting a big eww for these examples) for that matter? Are you telling me I am not able to marry the person of my choosing? And just because there are other people available to me, that makes it less unfair? Sorry, I do not buy your argument. If "marriage" means whateverthehellyouwantittomean, then there should be no reasons to stop someone from marrying the person/persons of his or her own choice.
Why is it that homosexuals are so interested in joining the "marriage" club? If a civil union is available to same-sex individuals with all of the rights of married couples, why is that unacceptable? What is it about the term "marriage" that so draws the same-sex crowd?
Posted by: duggersd | Monday, January 03, 2011 at 08:29 AM
Ken, I am comfortable with arguments based on traditional family as a core value. I agree that the value of traditional family serves as sufficient reason to outlaw incest, polygamy, and other practices that, in the context of family relationships, do harm to that important social institution. I simply hesitate to make traditional family the central value in every discussion of sexual liberty. The issue of power (are participants in the relationship fully and equally capable of giving autonomous consent) appears to offer a more generalizable principle upon which we may determine which relationships are acceptable and which relationships ought to be discouraged if not forbidden, whether by law, organizational policy, or social stigma.
Example: If I want to ban single men from hiring single women to have sex with them, I have to stretch to argue that anyone's traditional family structure is being directly harmed. I can make a more direct argument that the man is using power (here, money) for sexual gain that he would not otherwise enjoy. (Yes, the hooker consents... but there is a distinct difference in the consent a wife makes to love her husband and the consent a hooker makes to accept payment to open herself to any man's advances.) Similar reasoning holds for date rape and sheep-boffing.
Again, I like traditional family. But enshrining traditional family as the core value in this debate unnecessarily excludes folks who choose not to engage in monogamous, family-rearing relationships. We can win much more agreement on many more sexual issues by working from respectful use of power (perhaps better phrased as respect for personal autonomy?) as our core principle.
Posted by: caheidelberger | Monday, January 03, 2011 at 09:00 AM
Maybe it's Bob Newland's look at the social contract concept from another perspective. Free will comes with baggage.
KB's examination seems more like another example of a prurient, even naughty anthropomorphization of behaviors that otherwise exist periodically in all animal populations as adaptations to changes in the environment.
The curse of humanity may be that the body of law has evolved as the sociological alternative to a stoning in the public square for the offense of stepping off some sacred path as consenting adults.
But then, i've always been in love with my first cousin.
Guess i thought that's what lawyers do.
Posted by: larry kurtz | Monday, January 03, 2011 at 11:06 AM
Dan Doe,
"show that kids raised in same-sex parental homes are just as normal as, and sometimes more successful than, their “traditional” family counterparts."
If it is normal, then how did humans evolve?
Posted by: Jimi | Monday, January 03, 2011 at 05:46 PM
Shadow,
Your getting caught up in the rhetoric. You seem to believe that anyone who is cautious of Gay Marriage is somehow anti-gay. It just isn't the case!
The arguement isn't about preventing homosexuality, the arguement is about the consequence of subsidization of Gay Marrige, and the subsidization of a family structure that deviates from established societal norms. Everyone understands that the only reason we have to have this arguement in this country is because of adoption, the raising of childern who will be subjected to a lifestyle that deviates from the already established cultural norms. Once we have begun the process of changing that, there will be consequences...some good....some bad.
To believe that promotion of Homosexual Marriage by subsidization of a centralized government does not come without some consequences [some good...some bad], is naive and shows a lack of historical perspective. There are aware Americans out there that are not prepared to jump in head first, and who definetly are not anti-gay.
Me.....I could care less either way.
Posted by: Jimi | Monday, January 03, 2011 at 06:21 PM
Jimi:
The problem is, the anti-gay side can never provide evidence of how gay marriage "destroys the institution of marriage" :)
And the institution of marriage has changed various times in human history. So what if we redefine marriage? We redefined marriage when we abolished polygamy. We redefined marriage when we allowed divorce. We redefined marriage when we stopped giving dowries. We redefined marriage when we stopped viewing wives as the physical property of husbands. We redefined marriage when we allowed interracial couples to get married. At one time, the traditional view of marriage was a white man and white woman, black man and black woman, etc.
We constantly redefine and tweak our laws to better fit an ever-changing society. If we didn't need to redefine, the first congress would have been the last. They would have set the laws forever and that would have been good enough.
Posted by: shadow_man | Tuesday, January 04, 2011 at 05:41 AM
"If it is normal, then how did humans evolve?"
Lol, i think you might want to read this scientific article, which shows how homosexuality benefits the species on a Darwin level.
The most recent, sexually antagonistic selection,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm,
demonstrates the empirical model of what is known about the occurrence of homosexuality along family lines and postulates that it serves to give a reproductive advantage to female members of the family.
Posted by: shadow_man | Tuesday, January 04, 2011 at 05:43 AM
I will bump this post to show why that slippery slope argument fails. Also, past history shows that separate is not equal. There is no reason to distinguish between gay marriages and straight marriages, especially when gay marriage has 0 effect on straight marriages. The problem is, you are trying to tie in irrelevant things. Those other things you mentioned are fetishes, whereas homosexuality is a sexuality. Let me distinguish this for you. Even a person into incest. If he is straight, he will prefer his sister, or if he is gay, he will prefer his brother. See the difference?
Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he'll choose his sister, and if he's gay, he'll choose his brother. See the distinguishment? Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful, whereas homosexuality is 2 loving consenting adults that is not wrong or harmful. Incest, also has been shown to lead to genetic defects, so that is also out of the question. Incest also is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. I have never seen a person exclusively attracted to their brothers/sisters etc. Polygamy also is a choice. No one can choose who they would or will be attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in more than one relationship with more than one person at the same time. Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced. Those 4 fetishes can be seen to be harmful and wrong, whereas gay marriage is neither harmful nor wrong.
To those of you trying to bring up irrelevant issues, like polygamy, i will show you why the slippery slope fails. First, if you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage. Go advocate for them if that's your concern, prove they are not wrong and prove they are not harmful. We have already proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful. But those two things are irrelevant to gay marriage. And gay marriage does not lead to polygamy nor any other type of fetish.
Gay marriage has been legal in MA for 6 years now, and i don't see anyone pushing for polygamy there. The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that's quickly becoming obsolete.
Posted by: shadow_man | Tuesday, January 04, 2011 at 05:45 AM
Bump
The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:
"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx
Posted by: shadow_man | Tuesday, January 04, 2011 at 05:45 AM
Bump
This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.
"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "
Posted by: shadow_man | Tuesday, January 04, 2011 at 05:45 AM
Bump
The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.
Posted by: shadow_man | Tuesday, January 04, 2011 at 05:45 AM
Bump
The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.
Posted by: shadow_man | Tuesday, January 04, 2011 at 05:45 AM
For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."
Posted by: shadow_man | Tuesday, January 04, 2011 at 05:46 AM
Bump
To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.
http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html
Posted by: shadow_man | Tuesday, January 04, 2011 at 05:46 AM
Cory: We may be struggling here to find something to disagree about. Where the issue is the rights of individuals within some kind of partnership (a family or a doctor/patient relationship), the power and autonomy are obviously important factors. Even then, power doesn't seem to me to be the most important consideration. Yes, a doctor has a degree of authority that can be abused. This is especially important among psychologists and psychiatrists. More important is the whether the doctor is serving his patients needs. The professional relationship is a servile relationship: the professional should serve the interests of this client. We need to understand the function of the service to know make a judgment.
Likewise, to know whether incest or homosexuality are destructive of the family, we need to know what families are for. You can't decide which alternative forms of the family ought to be encouraged and applauded, and which should be discouraged or banned, without recognizing that the family has a natural function. That is the issue that Saletan parses in his piece. He concludes that SSM qualifies for the one and strengthens his argument by showing that incest (certainly an alternative form of family!) qualifies as the other.
Posted by: KB | Tuesday, January 04, 2011 at 11:37 PM
KB and Saletan mix a group of sexual immoralities and their affect on families and genetic to arrive at a bankshot argument that then attempts to validate homosexual marriage. They mix natural order, moral structure and family structure when these are separate and can exist without each other.
You could be a orphan and still live a moral life without a family structure. You could have been raised within a family structure yet destroy the family through unnatural or immoral acts.
The issue is homosexuality, is it natural as Shadow Man demands or is it unnatural and immoral.
Is homosexuality acceptable because it occurs between consenting adults, the term adult being a societal evaluation of maturity which varies from 12 to 18 years of age. This argument relies on the consent, which then provides the morality needed to make the act normal, the act in question being anything which is supported by consent between adults whether the same sex or multiples of consenting individuals.
While natural moral law holds that homosexuality is unnatural based on the physical fact that only the male/female sexual act is in fact natural. Only the male/female act produces offspring and through the age of human history only this relationship has provided the family structure.
The only justification for the normalcy of homosexuality is a change is societal mood, a mere 30 minute sitcom is all that was required to change homosexuality from a unnatural immoral act to a cute little “Will and Grace” moment. When will the societal mood change again I do not know but it will. We are human after all.
Posted by: sdspringy | Wednesday, January 05, 2011 at 05:25 AM
sdspringy: You pose two unique arguments against homosexuality that anti-gays tend to use a lot, both of which can be debunked easily. One is about the age of consent, something completely irrelevant :) That already shows a lack any argument against it. The second is "natural morality" The thing is, for something to be immoral, it has to be wrong. But anti-gays still have not provided a reason why gay marriage is wrong or why homosexuality is wrong. They can bring up family, but that doesn't work because procreation is not a requirement of marriage, and many gay couples do not adopt. Also, the morality argument falls, because morals change rapidly. It used to be immoral for a black and white person to get married, it used to be immoral for a black guy to sit in front of the bus, it used to be immoral for a woman to ask for equal rights. A simple look at history proves why the morality argument falls easily.
Posted by: shadow_man | Wednesday, January 05, 2011 at 06:27 AM
Shadow your argument for morality is based on consent. Consenting adults, in public or private, is all that is required to pass the morality test. That is a utilitarian form of determining morality, mutual consent. It better not be debunked otherwise you have no basis to argue for the morality of homosexuality.
If others chose to follow a natural moral law, which many do, then homosexuality fails the moral test. The reason for homosexuality failure to pass a natural moral law test is obvious even though you don't agree. Homosexuals cannot produce offspring, only the male/female paring meets this requirement. For this reason under natural moral law homosexuality, SSM, all fail.
You state that morals change rapidly. I don't think they do. Morality remains constant. Slavery was wrong, racial discrimination was wrong, the fact that it took years of human learning to catch up to the morality does not imply that morality changed but that the people did.
Posted by: sdspringy | Wednesday, January 05, 2011 at 06:33 PM
sds, you would be laughed out of my community where heterosexuals are euphemistically referred to as “breeders.” Just because humans have the ability to reproduce like minks doesn’t mean we should. Isolating your little selves in South Dakota is a good idea for you. Stay there.
Sometimes, i wonder if Ken isn't trying to come out and i'm not letting him.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Posted by: larry kurtz | Wednesday, January 05, 2011 at 07:52 PM
Since the initial discussion centered on the determination of morality and thus how that was used to evaluate current sexual morals your post falls tragically short.
Your community must be rather closed minded, relying on sarcasm, ridicule and name calling. Sounds like Minnesota or a university campus. How far off am I?
Posted by: sdspringy | Wednesday, January 05, 2011 at 11:02 PM
sdspringy: Lol, once again consent isn't the issue. Homosexuals can consent, unless you are talking about underage sex, which is an issue irrelevant to sexual orientation.
The procreation argument lacks as it still doesnt prove that homosexuality is wrong. The only purpose of life isnt to procreate, and there are many other ways individuals can be useful and beneficial to humanity. And the only purpose of sex isn't to procreate. Sex is also an expression of love, intimate bonding, and pleasure between two consentual partners. If sex was only to continue life, why is there so much pleasure? There is no ill meaning of sex by itself, its a natural instinct. There is no proof that sex must absolutely equal creation of life. That being said, some heterosexuals cannot have kids. Majority of heterosexuals practice safe sex, use condoms, perform anal and oral sex, masturbate, and perform other sexual acts that aren't vaginal intercourse that dont have the intention of procreating. Almost everyone does those things. By your logic that means heterosexuals are wrong as well. Also, the notion that homosexuals can't have kids is false, as artificial insemination, IVF, and surrogacy and other methods can easily lead to a child. Oh, and they can adopt too.
Finally, you imply that something not "natural" isn't good. Do you use a computer, drive a car, or ever flown an airplane? I know for a fact you do the first one :) Those also aren't "natural, as humans are meant to communicate by mouth, humans are meant to travel by foot, and humans are not meant to fly. It's easy to see why this argument falls easily.
You got any other arguments against homosexuality i can prove wrong?
Posted by: shadow_man | Thursday, January 06, 2011 at 06:01 AM
"Morality remains constant. Slavery was wrong, racial discrimination was wrong"
Lol, slavery was right 200 years ago, and racial discrimination was right just 40 years ago. Right and wrong change over time. Just recently we seen a lot of changes regarding race, woman, etc, and now gays and lesbians. If morality remained constant, then everyone would still think slavery is right. But we don't. Well, at least most of us dont ;)
Posted by: shadow_man | Thursday, January 06, 2011 at 06:03 AM
Ken, I agree that we're working awfully hard to disagree on an issue where we 95% agree. But I still think there's a problem in the value hierarchy you establish.
I note that Aristotle's founded the family on, as you say, "genuine partnership based on reasoned agreement." That line suggests Aristotle agrees with me that power or autonomy is central to determining whether an intimate relationship is acceptable. An intimate relationship does not become unacceptable simply because it does not produce children to complete the "traditional family" picture. An intimate relationship does become unacceptable (or at least warrants counseling and repair) if the partners do not act in genuine partnership and reasoned agreement. Again, the power principle answers more questions and provides broader guidance than the traditional family principle.
On sheep: indeed, eating them is a greater assertion of power than boffing them. I hadn't thought of that. Hmm... maybe the difference is that intimate relationships assume respect and partnership, whereas the food chain does not? Sex in this case is recreation, while eating is survival? My advocacy of power and consent as the core principle in determining proper sexual relations does not mean I would advocate that same principle in determining how we eat or how we raise our kids. Restraining your kid from running out in the street, without offering a discourse on the dangers of traffic and the cost of medical care, is fine. Now pass the mutton....
But I do think the power issue is enough to address incest, certainly between parent and child. Even when we become adults, our parents still hold powerful sway over our psychology (ask Luke Skywalker). I suspect even the most rational parents (let alone the ones considering having sex with their kids) have a hard time seeing their children as anything other than their offspring, their subordinates in the family structure, their little babies. That's a hard thesis to test (do we have case studies on incestuous relationships and the rationalizations involved?), but the parent-child power dynamic, established from the cradle, imprinted on the child's first memories, seem inescapable and thus render a healthy incestuous relationship so extremely unlikely as to justify legal proscription.
Brothers and sisters get weirder. I might have to stretch too hard to make the power argument here. I could content myself with accepting family as the primary argument in this case... and indeed, rather than reasoning with siblings considering incest, I'd rather just say, "Gross! You're family! Knock it off!" But that one case where family seems the easier argument doesn't outweigh the numerous others -- childless couples, homosexuals, polygamy, bestiality, prostitution -- where power works as well as or better than family as a reason for limits.
Posted by: caheidelberger | Thursday, January 06, 2011 at 08:59 AM
ShadowMan: please don't post long political statements here, let alone repost or "bump" them. It makes it less likely that anyone will read what you write and obscures other posts.
As to your last comment, just because some people used to think that slavery was right doesn't mean it was right then or now. A lot of people used to think that the sun revolved around the earth.
Posted by: KB | Saturday, January 08, 2011 at 02:41 AM
KB: Lol, you mean you want me to keep quiet so the truths don't come out :) That's won't happen my friend ^_^ As for your second statement, you prove my point. Sure slavery isn't right, but during that time period the vast majority of people felt it was. That's called morality, and proof of how it changes.
Posted by: shadow_man | Saturday, January 08, 2011 at 09:37 AM
Shadow,
"Sure slavery isn't right, but during that time period the vast majority of people felt it was."
That's factually incorrect. The Founders spent alot of time addressing that issue, and there were more in the north who disagreed with it, that in the south who agreed with it.
Also, you seem to be saying " If you don't agree with me, then you aren't working in the realm of fact or truth." You are totally off base in that thinking. If the majority of Americans demanded "Homosexual Marriage" then it would already be so...there are reason they aren't being convinced...and it has nothing to do with hate, fear or understanding of the facts. You should be more understanding if you expect others to be more understanding of your position.
Posted by: Jimi | Monday, January 10, 2011 at 12:58 PM
"That's factually incorrect. The Founders spent alot of time addressing that issue, and there were more in the north who disagreed with it, that in the south who agreed with it."
Lol, if they didn't agree with it, they wouldn't have allowed it. And that's not speaking just for the United States. Slavery was widely accepted for thousands of years, including in the Bible ^_^
"there are reason they aren't being convinced...and it has nothing to do with hate, fear or understanding of the facts."
They said the same thing when interracial marriage was banned =)
Posted by: shadow_man | Tuesday, January 11, 2011 at 04:35 AM
Shadow,
The Constitution did not mention slavery, and certainly did not condone it. It was a major topic of discussion, and to move forward it was agreed upon that it would be abolished no later than twenty years out. In fact, we ended fighting a Civil War over it. But it was a nice try at re-writting history!
http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2011/01/10/the_constitution_did_not_condone_slavery/page/1
"They said the same thing when interracial marriage was banned"
This is why I know that you are speaking strictly from emotion. THIS IS A FALSE COMPARISON. I assuming you must be homosexual. You can not compare morality between Race and Sex. Any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.
Opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. It does not mean that society and the norms that traditionally exist can not change over time, it just means that for your position to expect to gain Moral Superiority over the masses is unreasonable, and the burden is on your position, not on the position of the masses who abide by the traditional Judeo-Christian and Humanist Secular Moral Systems.
Posted by: Jimi | Tuesday, January 11, 2011 at 01:15 PM
Lol, ahhhh, trying to put more words into my mouth :) Where did i say that the Constitution condoned slavery? Fact of the matter is, for the majority of human kind (not just the united states alone), slavery was accepted by most people, including passage in the Bible if you want to go there ^_^
"This is why I know that you are speaking strictly from emotion."
There's no need for emotion when i know down the road gay marriage will inevitably be legalized :) I'm merely showing the facts, and the fact that there is no valid argument against both homosexuality and gay marriage. You also do not have to assume, i will tell you straight out that i am homosexual, and very proud of who i am =)
You are right that you cannot compare morality between race and sex, but you can definitely compare it between race and sexual orientation. Sex and sexual orientation are two different things. You don't have to have sex to be straight or gay. A good example of this is by asking the question: Someone who masturbates to gay porn, but is still a virgin. Are they asexual, or are they homosexual/bi-sexual? You do not have control over whom you are sexually attracted to. This is also the reason why a lot of "nice guys" finish last. They assume a woman wants those "nice guys", but in truth, woman are physically attracted to a real man, one who they can't easily walk all over, even if they deny it.
Lol, also, where did i say i expect "moral superiority"? I said if something is to be immoral, you have to prove it's wrong. Yet, you still have not managed to prove homosexuality wrong. Otherwise, it's not immoral, even if the majority of views feel that way. Just as similar as the majority were against the integration of blacks into white schools, the majority were heavily against interracial marriage, etc. The majority isn't always right.
Posted by: shadow_man | Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM
Shadow,
"you still have not managed to prove homosexuality wrong."
Thats not my goal....as I stated above I don't care either way...it's none of my buisness.....I am just stating that I beleive I know why Gay Marriage does not exist in mass today, and probably will not for many more years.
"The majority isn't always right."
See that's the problem... "Right" according to whom? This is a Republic, and the majority of the people don't want to go that direction...maybe they will someday...but that goes back to who has the Moral Superiority. You think your position does, but they think their position has it too, and at this point the Homosexual Lobby would have to force the population into this, and that's not Democracy. So there lies the problem!
Posted by: Jimi | Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 04:14 PM
Jimi: Lol, if proving homosexuality wrong is not your goal, then your morality argument will fall flat on it's face every time. We weren't arguing about when gay marriage will be legalized. Full marriage equality nationally in the U.S. will be legalized i estimated in about 10-20 years, when the younger generation starts taking over the voting block. Though various states already have it legal. ^_^
You also mistake a democracy for a democratic republic :) When Loving V Virginia was legalized, over 70% of the general population was against it. In fact, it wasn't until 1991 when a majority of the population agreed with interracial marriage, 20+ years after it was legalized. Which again shows why morality is a bad argument. On a brighter note for us, homosexuality is already accepted by the majority now, and gay marriage has far more acceptance than interracial marriage did in the 1960's, so it looks like we don't have much longer to wait :)
The thing is, my position has so much validity because there is not argument that has been able to debunk it. Which is why i said to prove homosexuality wrong. If you are able to do that, then you have a case to deny gay marriage. Otherwise, there is no reason to do so =)
Posted by: shadow_man | Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 05:18 AM
Bump
To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.
http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html
Posted by: shadow_man | Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 08:02 AM
For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."
Posted by: shadow_man | Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 08:02 AM
Bump
The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.
Posted by: shadow_man | Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 08:02 AM
Bump
The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.
Posted by: shadow_man | Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 08:02 AM
Bump
This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.
"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "
Posted by: shadow_man | Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 08:03 AM
Bump
The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:
"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx
Posted by: shadow_man | Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 08:03 AM
I will bump this post to show why that slippery slope argument fails. Also, past history shows that separate is not equal. There is no reason to distinguish between gay marriages and straight marriages, especially when gay marriage has 0 effect on straight marriages. The problem is, you are trying to tie in irrelevant things. Those other things you mentioned are fetishes, whereas homosexuality is a sexuality. Let me distinguish this for you. Even a person into incest. If he is straight, he will prefer his sister, or if he is gay, he will prefer his brother. See the difference?
Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he'll choose his sister, and if he's gay, he'll choose his brother. See the distinguishment? Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful, whereas homosexuality is 2 loving consenting adults that is not wrong or harmful. Incest, also has been shown to lead to genetic defects, so that is also out of the question. Incest also is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. I have never seen a person exclusively attracted to their brothers/sisters etc. Polygamy also is a choice. No one can choose who they would or will be attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in more than one relationship with more than one person at the same time. Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced. Those 4 fetishes can be seen to be harmful and wrong, whereas gay marriage is neither harmful nor wrong.
To those of you trying to bring up irrelevant issues, like polygamy, i will show you why the slippery slope fails. First, if you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage. Go advocate for them if that's your concern, prove they are not wrong and prove they are not harmful. We have already proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful. But those two things are irrelevant to gay marriage. And gay marriage does not lead to polygamy nor any other type of fetish.
Gay marriage has been legal in MA for 6 years now, and i don't see anyone pushing for polygamy there. The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that's quickly becoming obsolete.
Posted by: shadow_man | Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 08:03 AM
not having sex beorfe marriage i guess sorta protects you from a lot of things like gttinghurt by jackass's that totally don't respect u, or even in the more biological sense of not catching STI's.. cheers for this it was interesting.. i'm frantically tryin to write my essay (due tomorro!) on sex, religion and gender and i'm just focussing on sex beorfe marriage and the Song of Songs in the Bible.. thanks again hope i finish this silly thing in time!
Posted by: Betsy | Sunday, July 29, 2012 at 09:49 AM
EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET MARRIED!!!! I am bisexual (pansexual to be more acrtuace) and I really want to be able to get married! I didn't choose my sexuality I was born this way. Love is love and when I fall in love I WILL get married!
Posted by: Alicee | Sunday, July 29, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Each write a letter exnaiiplng about the way you feel about things.Marriage is never easy it's a matter of talking and compromising.Sometimes when your young though, it's difficult to discuss things without it turning into a heated arguement because your both shouting at each other.By writing it down and you both sitting quietly on your own reading what the other person has to say about the situation, you will find that what is written sinks in and you will think about it more carefully than if these things were said face to face. You can also be totally honest without embarrassment.It works, believe me do try it.
Posted by: Sarika | Sunday, July 29, 2012 at 11:36 AM
My biased oponiin is based on the truth of the Bible, not mine or others oponiins! I think it's terrible that gays are so hated! I don't hate the gay people, I just hate their stance on relationships! I don't fully understand it, and maybe never will, but one thing I know, and will stick to, is that it is wrong! I don't think anyone should ever reject someone who is gay, but I also don't think they should just accept it as ok! I want to show the kind of love Christ would show!
Posted by: Isabelle | Sunday, July 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM
You don't have a say on what is right and what's wrong. Bitch, please, the bible was wrtietn by humans. Think, when have humans been fully honest? Don't give me the crap Jesus was,' because like it or not, you have no evidence he exists. Likewise, how many times did God/Jesus emphasize the word love'? COUNTLESS times. I highly doubt God would ever come between of two men or two women, thus, making it OKAY to be gay.
Posted by: Wendel | Sunday, July 29, 2012 at 01:55 PM
I am both Christian and gay I am still young and didn't have anyone to ask for help. Almost ended my life with my own hand, but deep idisne my heart, I could still feel Jesus' love. I did a lot of researches to find the answers to my questions, and the answer I got is that homosexuality is not an abomination. Abomination could also be translated as against the tradition . Did you also know that it is an abomination to eat shrimps?
Posted by: Megan | Sunday, July 29, 2012 at 03:01 PM
I'm in high school and stitnarg next year I will have to start looking at colleges. I know I want to find a college just for creative writing. I love writing stories of all sorts, and I know of a couple colleges that specialize in creative writing. But where would you recommend? Remember, I'm talking about creative writing, not journalism. Any suggestions?.
Posted by: Elizabeth | Monday, July 30, 2012 at 01:12 AM
I have never had to resort to this but to anewsr your question of when would it be good to do that Answer- Anytime you feel as though the lines of communication have closed between the two of you. Which can happen often, but anything worth keeping is worth working at. Being happy afterwards is just a perk of the success of the actual counseling.~good luck
Posted by: Dody | Monday, July 30, 2012 at 01:38 AM
like how if an old lady had a different oionipn you would think shes wrong while others would think shes a genius. And it would annoy you if the top rated comment went something like I like that a million Liberal atheists and democrat types are outsmarted by an old lady in the space of one minute
Posted by: Canelayoyo | Monday, July 30, 2012 at 01:55 AM