Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[Retro Rob]

I don't fully know the answer to this (since I'm not gay), but let me hazard a guess: what we find sexually invigorating doesn't generally involve children unless someone is a pedophile. I don't have children yet, although I imagine I will at some point in the future, but when I see a naked lady, my immediate thought is not "I want to put a baby in that." The desire to be a parent and the desire to achieve orgasm have basically nothing to do with each other except that one sometimes leads to the other.

So are you suggesting that homosexuality only exists for sexual pleasure?

I figured that humans want to pass their genes on, homosexuals can't do that, so they pass other things on (likes, dislikes, hisorty, morals, etc) but that innate desire for kids never leave, so they adopt.

But... if the innate desire for the opposite sex leaves (or doesn't exists), so should the desire to have a family.

 

[zsdersw]

So are you suggesting that homosexuality only exists for sexual pleasure?

No.

I figured that humans want to pass their genes on, homosexuals can't do that, so they pass other things on (likes, dislikes, hisorty, morals, etc) but that innate desire for kids never leave, so they adopt.

But... if the innate desire for the opposite sex leaves (or doesn't exists), so should the desire to have a family.

You're mistakenly assuming sexual desire and the desire to procreate are inseparable.

 

[nehalem256]

And yet we let heterosexual couples marry who cannot or will not procreate. We have not made procreation a requirement for heterosexual marriage, so using it as an argument against gay marriage doesn't make sense.

All homosexuals couples are obviously incapable of procreation. This was addressed in the court case I linked.

What does this even mean? How does this point relate to gay marriage at all? How does the government currently discourage people who are unable to raise children from procreating?

Unfortunately the government no longer discourages people who are unable to raise children from procreating.

Marriage is a societal method of encouraging people to be in situations in which they will best be able to raise children they create.

Would allowing gay marriage suddenly see an increase in birth rates for people who have no business raising children? And who determines who is capable of raising children at the government level?

Saying that marriage is nothing other than a legal contract that can be broken at anytime for any reason is destructive to marriage. SSM stems from this belief and perpetuates it.

Because I don't judge value by whether they're equal or not.

I don't even know what to say to that.

You keep saying that as if it is the only important thing. It isn't.

I keep saying it because it is something is very important and it distinguishes homosexual relationships from heterosexual relationships.

 

[Retro Rob]

In short, because desires are complicated and often contradictory. Human beings are complicated and often contradictory.

Those who reduce the choices and the options to black-and-white, yes-or-no, 1 or 0, and other binary states will forever be frustrated by how few fit into their categories and compartments.

Well that could suggest that someone may not be gay, even if they think they are.

This goes to the "confusion" part I like to talk about because a young person can be "in the closet" thinking he's gay, but find out later on that he was never really attracted to men, for example.

It may have been just a phase, or some small hiccup in his young man-hood.

However, its the pro-homosexual people who like to suggest you're either born gay, or you're not.

No in-betweens.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

No.



You're mistakenly assuming sexual desire and the desire to procreate are inseparable.

The concept of humans and the survival of man is what dictates the laugh-ability of homosexuality.

By all means, enjoy it. But trying to prove it's not a choice - and trying to dictate that it is ever intended or realistic is just hilarious. Hell, the general rule that homosexuality would be the death of the species should be enough to slap people across the face. But ignorance dominates this nation.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't even know what to say to that.

You wrongly assume that "equality" is inherently a value statement. It is not. Homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same; they're not equal... but that doesn't speak to their relative value.

I keep saying it because it is something is very important and it distinguishes homosexual relationships from heterosexual relationships.

It is a difference (the relationships aren't equal), but procreation is only one of many very important things to society.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Saying that marriage is nothing other than a legal contract that can be broken at anytime for any reason is destructive to marriage. SSM stems from this belief and perpetuates it.

What do you think marriage is in the eyes of the government? We aren't arguing over religious definitions here; different religions can keep their own counsel on what constitutes a marriage. But in the eyes of the law, marriage is a legal contract. And, because of our current divorce laws, it can be broken (certain provisions such as alimony and child support notwithstanding) at any time. Are you arguing that government should outlaw divorce?

 

[sandorski]

The concept of humans and the survival of man is what dictates the laugh-ability of homosexuality.

By all means, enjoy it. But trying to prove it's not a choice - and trying to dictate that it is ever intended or realistic is just hilarious. Hell, the general rule that homosexuality would be the death of the species should be enough to slap people across the face. But ignorance dominates this nation.

It is not a new phenomena and yet we are still here. Reading your post has filled my mind with Fuck.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The concept of humans and the survival of man is what dictates the laugh-ability of homosexuality.

By all means, enjoy it. But trying to prove it's not a choice - and trying to dictate that it is ever intended or realistic is just hilarious. Hell, the general rule that homosexuality would be the death of the species should be enough to slap people across the face. But ignorance dominates this nation.

Lord knows if gay marriage was legal, you'd be waist-deep in dick every day, am I right? Because it's a choice, and the only thing stopping you from turning into a lustful cockmonster is the government's current restriction on your right to marry another man. Do you honestly believe that heterosexuality is a choice you made, and only so you could preserve this precious species of ours which is one tiny piece of legislation away from annihilation?

 

[zsdersw]

Well that could suggest that someone may not be gay, even if they think they are.

This goes to the "confusion" part I like to talk about because a young person can be "in the closet" thinking he's gay, but find out later on that he was never really attracted to men, for example.

It may have been just a phase, or some small hiccup in his young man-hood.

However, its the pro-homosexual people who like to suggest you're either born gay, or you're not.

No in-betweens.

Wrong. Human sexuality is a continuum. It's the anti-homosexual people who see sex as a binary condition. See Kinsey's sexuality scale

 

[zsdersw]

The concept of humans and the survival of man is what dictates the laugh-ability of homosexuality.

Homosexuality has been present throughout all of human history. It was not something created by the media or pop culture. These facts demonstrate the laughability of your ignorant and idiotic beliefs.

By all means, enjoy it. But trying to prove it's not a choice - and trying to dictate that it is ever intended or realistic is just hilarious. Hell, the general rule that homosexuality would be the death of the species should be enough to slap people across the face. But ignorance dominates this nation.

It appears to dominate you more than it does the nation.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

However, its the pro-homosexual people who like to suggest you're either born gay, or you're not.

No in-betweens.

Technically, modern views of sexuality espoused by gender studies professors over the course of the past 30+ years view sexuality as a continuum, with most people falling towards a strong preference for one sex over the other but with very slight bisexuality present in most people.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It could be made a valid point that bringing women into the workforce has also caused more suffrage through reduction in pay...

Yeah, I hate how more women in the workforce led to an increase in the right to vote.

 

[zsdersw]

It is interesting to note that the countries with the highest standard of living are also the most tolerant of homosexuals.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Hell, the general rule that homosexuality would be the death of the species should be enough to slap people across the face.

Evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality as a trait would not last because it discourages reproductive sex with women and therefore procreation.


However a new study, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, found a correlation between gay men and their mothers and maternal aunts, who are prone to have significantly more children compared to the maternal relatives of straight men.


Researchers led by Andrea Camperio Ciani, from the University of Padova in Italy, say that the findings of the link between homosexuality and female fertility strongly support the "balancing selection hypothesis," which suggests that a gene which causes homosexuality also leads to high fecundity or reproduction among their female relatives.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/article...uality-gene-mother-reproduction-evolution.htm

But ignorance dominates this nation.

It certainly does, but progress is slowly being made in this area.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Homosexuality has been present throughout all of human history. It was not something created by the media or pop culture. These facts demonstrate the laughability of your ignorant and idiotic beliefs.

Care to quote a decent reference on that?


And no, 2 men doing anything related to just pleasurable intercourse is not the same as marriage. 2 male dogs humping occasionally out of pleasure is not the equivalency to dictating you are only attracted to males and associate it with a committed relationship as if it was meant to be. What you are trying to refer to is more along the lines of bi-sexual.

 

[OrByte]

Care to quote a decent reference on that?


And no, 2 men doing anything related to just pleasurable intercourse is not the same as marriage. 2 male dogs humping occasionally out of pleasure is not the equivalency to dictating you are only attracted to males and associate it with a committed relationship as if it was meant to be. What you are trying to refer to is more along the lines of bi-sexual.

huh?

 

[zsdersw]

Care to quote a decent reference on that?

And no, 2 men doing anything related to just pleasurable intercourse is not the same as marriage. 2 male dogs humping occasionally out of pleasure is not the equivalency to dictating you are only attracted to males and associate it with a committed relationship as if it was meant to be. What you are trying to refer to is more along the lines of bi-sexual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality

 

[nehalem256]

You wrongly assume that "equality" is inherently a value statement. It is not. Homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same; they're not equal... but that doesn't speak to their relative value.

Besides, we could continue your line of reasoning and establish a continuum of relationship benefit to society with say:

Monogamous heterosexual relationships > Monogamous homosexual relationships > Platonic Friendship

Given that only heterosexuals are capable of pro-creating, and the obvious increase in poverty for single parents over married parents it would be hard to argue against this continuum.

Therefore, heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not equal, and there is no reason to treat them as such.

Your response using "equality" was to the above statement. Clearly in that context equality is a value statement.

see http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34467192&postcount=141

It is a difference (the relationships aren't equal), but procreation is only one of many very important things to society.

And based on this statement how would you not conclude homosexuals relationships are less valuable (to any degree even minute degree) to society.

 

[sm625]

Marriage was becoming a failed institution long before gays and lesbians started getting married in any appreciable number.

 

[nehalem256]

Marriage was becoming a failed institution long before gays and lesbians started getting married in any appreciable number.

I don't disagree with this statement.

In fact I think it is marriage becoming a failed institution that makes SSM make sense to some people.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, and don't let a gay man refer to his "partner" as a "husband," because that would just make me uncomfortable. Why is he disrespecting my views by insisting on having his own?

God, this debate is fucking stupid. This is the shit we're reduced to as a country. Fighting over what to call gay unions and threatening to legislate the completely unlegislatable (like guns and pot) while our economy goes to shit all around us? Good thing we can point the finger at our neghbors instead of working together to fix actual problems!

And all because of those homophobes... :sneaky:

I don't want to call opponents of gay marriage homophobes - I think some people have reasoned opposition based on religion and tradition - but otherwise I agree 100%. This debate needs to be over. Both sides are fighting over something that does not materially affect 90+% of us, and the fight itself makes us bitter and less able to agree on other issues. If gays get civil unions with 100% of the rights of real marriage, I suspect most will be happy, but this stupid fight will go on and on.

Bottom line (no pun intended) - if we don't HAVE to have government discrimination, we should not have it, period.

 

[werepossum]

You wrongly assume that "equality" is inherently a value statement. It is not. Homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same; they're not equal... but that doesn't speak to their relative value.



It is a difference (the relationships aren't equal), but procreation is only one of many very important things to society.

Very well said. The last thing we need is government deciding which relationships are more valuable and discriminating on that basis, for that inevitably leads to valuing relationships on their value to government. (As Kelo v. New London did for private property rights.)

What do you think marriage is in the eyes of the government? We aren't arguing over religious definitions here; different religions can keep their own counsel on what constitutes a marriage. But in the eyes of the law, marriage is a legal contract. And, because of our current divorce laws, it can be broken (certain provisions such as alimony and child support notwithstanding) at any time. Are you arguing that government should outlaw divorce?

Different religions already do that, so it shouldn't be too much of a change. Some religions do not recognize divorce and therefore do not recognize second marriages, so refusing to recognize gay marriages should be no extra burden. Sucks to not live in a society that holds the same values as you, but that's going to be the case for someone either way and it's much better to live in a society where one has equal rights even if others disapprove than a society in which one's rights are allowed only if exercised in the approved method.

If we're going to discriminate against people of whose behavior we don't approve, let's start with those who put subwoofers in automobiles. I've never been unable to carry on a conversation because the guy in the next car was too gay . . .

 

[nehalem256]

Bottom line (no pun intended) - if we don't HAVE to have government discrimination, we should not have it, period.

Marriage is inherently about discrimination against single people non-marital couples.

You are making an argument against opposite sex marriage not in favor of SSM.

Very well said. The last thing we need is government deciding which relationships are more valuable and discriminating on that basis, for that inevitably leads to valuing relationships on their value to government. (As Kelo v. New London did for private property rights.)

It is valuing relationships on their value to society.

Marriage is inherently about society assigning special status to certain relationships because of their value to society.

In today's society this happens to do be done through the government.

 

[soulcougher73]

However, its the pro-homosexual people who like to suggest you're either born gay, or you're not.

No in-betweens.

I myself could care less if they are born that way or chose it. Makes no difference to me in legalizing SSM.