The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
Gay activists want civil unions to be called marriages. I think we'd be better off if all domestic partnerships were legally called civil unions and leave the term marriage to religions. Make marriage a sacramental distinction rather than a civil distinction. That would be great for churches and it would give the atheists something else to complain about.
Unfortunately, the Gay marriage debate is not really a civil rights debate. In reality, it is a moral debate. Some people, maybe even the majority, still think that homosexuality is an immoral choice that people make. Given the stigmas attached to homosexuality historically, why would anyone make that choice, if they could choose?
I've come up with an exercise that hopefully will demonstrate that one's sexuality is not a choice any more than one's skin color is a choice. Given that I have only ever experienced male sexuality, this exercise will probably only work for men. Caution: if you are homophobic, either choose not to be, or discontinue reading right now because your day is about to be ruined. You'll be very angry with me. If you run a local newspaper, you might make this blog front page news for weeks.
Still here? If you are, it is your choice to go forward, don't blame me if you don't like the rest of this post.
OK, here goes:
Think of a man you like or admire. It could be a friend, a relative or someone famous. Any man you like or admire. Gay or straight. It doesn't matter.
Close your eyes and imagine being with that man. Start kissing him passionately. Feel his stubble on your face. Put your tongue in his mouth and caress his butt with your hands.
Now, choose to be aroused by that imaginary experience. If you are already aroused by the experience, choose to be repulsed by it. Choose, do it now.
It didn't work, did it?
Now that we have demonstrated that one's sexuality in not a choice, I have a question for those who thought it was. Is it moral to give different legal rights to people based upon their sexuality?
The comments for this post should be interesting, if there are any.
Posts
33 comments:
Your question:
Is it moral to give different legal rights to people based upon their sexuality?
My answer:
No
There I said it.
Let the attacks begin.
You know it was one thing when you were throwing the word nigger around, Art, but this one is just creepy.
And while I didn't get aroused taking part in this exercise, I did start whistling show tunes.
Lugar96
The answer to to Choice or not, nature or nurture is not simple or clear cut. How do you explain bisexuals or women who become lesbians and then are not. (Julie Cypher and Ann Hecht being two high profile examples)
Everyone is sexually attracted to the same sex to different degrees. Some almost not at all and some exclusivly while others fall somewhere in between. Clearly some people are born with a strong genetic disposition to be attracted to the same sex. However we are not solely governed by genetics. Enviornmental factors also play a part. People who were sexually abused as children have a much higher rate of homesexuality. Similiarly men with weak or absent fathers and very strong mothers are gay in higher concentrations.
Of course many behaviours have a genetic predisposition some we tolerate but discourage such as various addictions, others we try to cure such as various neurosis and psychosis and some (for good reason) like pedophilia we make illegal.
While I oppose discrimination in housing, employment and education against Gays I question the wisdom of the Government putting a stamp of approval on what to me is clearly (here is where you all yell at me) a mental illness.
I know many Gay people. Some are friends and relatives. Many wish they where not attracted to the same sex. So why are we not looking for a way to help people overcome homosexuality?
It is not a healhy lifestyle. Gay people have higher rates of addiction,psychosis,neurosis. They are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. Gay men in particular suffer a terrible price. The average life span of a gay man is somewhere in the forties, about half of that of a heterosexual male. It is not just because of Aids. The Primary male sexual act makes them susceptable to a whole host of disease such as diseases of the lower GI traxt, hepatitis and varios forms of VD in much higher rates then the general public. Even looking at it from the biological perspective of what the various parts of the human body are made for leads to the logical conclusion that same sex sexual acts are not normal.
Removing societal constraints against homosexuality will result in higher rates of homosexuality.
Culture does play a part in how we react to different behaviours. Some things you find repulsive now you would have no problem accepting if you lived in a different culture. So envionrment and genetics and cultural acceptance all plays a role in sexual orientation. In some people it is the result of almost all of one thing in others it is a combination. I would submit that is the case with a lot of behaviuors outside the "norm".
I realize in the 70's homosexuality was removed from the DSM by the American Psychiatric Association but no one can point to a scientific basis for that decision because there was not one.
It was and remains a purely political decision.
No it is not compassionate to allow Gays to marry or have civil unions nor is it in society's best intrests.
What would be compassionate is to look for a "cure" for those who would avail themselves of it. As to the remainder they should be free to live their lives free from discrimination but without a Government license.
Son of Liberty said:
"Everyone is sexually attracted to the same sex to different degrees."
Whoaaaaaa!
I'm pretty certain my meter has been pinned 100% to the "Likes Girls" side of the dial my whole life.
That happends to be exactly why I agree with Art. I don't choose for something to happen to me when I see a pretty girl - it just happends. Nothing happends when I see a guy.
You don't choose your desires - they happen to you.
As Art points out - pass all the laws you want and I can't change my desires.
If Adam and Steve get married it won't hurt my marriage to my wife in the slightest.
As a conservative, the same reason why I want to equal and conserve the rights of the little unborn humans is the same reason why I want to equal and conserve the rights of all other humans - gays included.
OK I will ignore that you guys ignored the facts I laid out that support my position and just ask you 2 questions.
1 What is your definition of a mental illness?
2 If people wouldn't choose to be gay then why don't we look for a way make them heterosexuals? Isn't that what they would rather be?
SOL..do you think there's ome kind of summer camp for wayward gays?
I just can't believe you would be so condescending to a whole group of people and just dismiss that whole group as mentally ill. I know from your blog that you're not THAT ignorant, yet you continue to show exactly that.
Maybe we should send you summer camp for wayward conservatives...and turn you into a liberal democrat. Do you think that would work with enough indoctrination? Kind of like a Manchurian Candidate scenario.
Son of Liberty said:
OK I will ignore that you guys ignored the facts I laid out that support my position and just ask you 2 questions.
1 What is your definition of a mental illness?
2 If people wouldn't choose to be gay then why don't we look for a way make them heterosexuals? Isn't that what they would rather be?
SOL,
The most compelling of the facts you wrote, in my mind, was the short live span of gay males. You didn't cite a source, but if that is so, it is disturbing.
Clearly, sticking your uncovered pecker in a poop shoot is dangerous regardless of the gender of the receiver.
Yet people enjoy all kinds of risky behavior and take precautions to protect themselves.
My definition of mental illness doesn't matter and more than my definition of quantum physics. I have no expertise in those areas.
However, you point out that there are may be many contributing factors to determining ones sexuality; genetics, life experiences, environment and culture. To label homosexuality a mental illness that needs to be cured seems a bit extreme to me.
Regarding seeking a cure to make them straight because they wouldn't choose to be gay, my point was that choosing to be gay was not a rational choice given the historical stigmas. With those stigmas lifting as we become a more accepting or our differences, homosexuals may well find themselves happier and healthier, both mentally and physically.
If there was a "cure" or a way for a gay person to become straight, no one should be "made to" make that converstion. If they want to, fine with me. That's Liberty, Son. You would seem to agree.
Regarding a license, I consider that a unnecessary tax and intrusion on the government's part regardless of the genders of the partners.
SOL,
Your whole point is flawed based on two things:
That there is something wrong with homosexual people, which there is not.
That us straight people should "cure" it by attempting to make them heterosexual.
Homosexuals are people, like you and me, the only difference is that they are attracted to the same sex. It's not my bag, but who I am to judge? If it's consenting, then what are we so worried about?
Just how exactly would one cure homosexuality? By repressing it? McGreevey showed that doesn't work.
It's not a choice, but it's something they should be proud of. Instead of working to "cure" it, we should be working to make society more accepting of it and open to people who are the same, with the exception who they are attracted to it.
This is something where I think my generation actually gets it.
SOL,
I don't think the point is that people are not choosing to be gay means they would rather not be gay, it's just part of who they are, just as someone does not choose to be black or Asian, it's just how they're born.
So if the problem is "redefining marriage" then let's redefine the term civil union. If you were wed in a church, you are part of a marriage. If you were wed by a government entity, you are part of a civil union. This way, no one has redefined marriage, homosexuals can be on equal civil footing with heterosexuals and religious people can bask in the glow of knowing that the term marriage is sacred and clearly defined.
Lugar96
Eric,
your generation has been brainwashed. There is something wrong with homosexuality because it goes against the obvious natural order. Biologically men where made to be attracted to women and women attracted to men.
Ergo it is not normal for men to be attracted to men or women to women. I am not talking about morality I am talking about the naturaul order of things.
Lets assume they are born that way and it is completly genetic even though the scientific evidence does not suggest that to be the case. Truth is there are probably multiple causes.
The same can be said for a whole slew of conditions and we try to find "cures for those" Addictions,
Autism, OCD, someone explain to me why same sex attraction should be treated differently other then it is politically incorrect.
BTW I did not say there is a cure or that it would be easy to find it I said we should look. Forinstance what if it was found that the genetic component which causes homosexuality acted by suppressinig a particular hormone and a drug therapy would cure it. Or what if the genetic abnormality itself could be corrected with gene therapy. I fail to see why we would not offer that to people. Ambro. NO where do I suggest that it be forced on people
"Robert L. Spitzer argued in 1973 that homosexuality is not a clinical disorder—key to the American Psychiatric Association arriving at the same conclusion. Thirty years later, Spitzer caused another stir when he argued that some people who want to change their homosexual orientation may do so (Archives of Sexual Behavior, October 2003).
Spitzer is professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and chief of the New York State Psychiatric Institute's Biometrics Research Department."
Lugar People say all the time "Who would choose to be Homosexual no one wants to be that way. I am just responding to that and saying ok lets look for some way to allow them to change.
The definition of Mental Ilness is important. That definition determines what is considered as such.
No one has explained why homosexuality does not fit the definition. I am not being condescending. I am asking a legitimate question. gay people act in a way that we were not created for. Whether you believe we were created by God or evolution. I get that people think its mean to say it but sometimes the truth is not pretty.
Maybe its not the truth but it is not an unreasonable discussion to have. Art, I do not view the word as extreme. Mental illness includes everything from Psychpathic serial killers to people who compulsibly wash there hands and a lot in between. One end is extreme the other is not. Once again consider the definition.
Look I have friends and relatives who are gay. people I care for a great deal. I have seen how some of them have suffered as a result of their affliction.
I believe the suffering results from the understanding deep in their hearts that this is not how they are supposed to be. I think the compassionate thing to do is not affirm how they live but seek to give them an alternative.
Read the studies look at the science not the propaganda.
As far as Marriage is concerned Civil Marriage is not a right it is a way for the Government to bestow benefits on and therefore encourage an arrangement that historically has been beneficial to society. Our right is to shack up with whoever we want.
The same benefits do not flow from Homosexual relationships. In fact such relationships are a detriment to society. (see prior post) Not to the extent where I think the government should go back to banning it I just don't believe the government should be encouraging it by giving them an official status no matter what you call it.
Finally those of you who took Arts challenge and said no way. Nothing there. Methinks thou doth protest too much ;-)
Lugar96 has hit the nail on the head.
The "problem" is that at some point the government got into the business of this thing called marriage, which is a word reserved by most churches to define the union of a man and a woman.
What's worse is that the government even issues marriage licenses for a small fee. So on top of all of the other fees and taxes you pay (and the $$$,$$$ ring) you have to give the government their share as well, just to get married - even if it is a marriage performed by your own church.
To make matters even worse, the government, via the IRS, gives you a break on your taxes if you file a joint return as a married couple, meaning that I'm SOL on a tax break because the government won't recognize the marriage I have with my GF because the government doesn't seem to recognize the Church of Hoganism or it's rituals, I think my church might even fall under the label "cult"!
On top of that, I also get discriminated against by my health insurance, auto insurance, life insurance, bank and several other private corporations who also seem to need to know my marriage status in order to determine a rate for me to use their services.
Like most any other problem, if the government would give up it's $5 fee and get out of the marriage business, there wouldn't be an issue. No gov't performed or sanctioned marriages. No gov't breaks for religious sacraments (do I get a tax break for the sacrament of the MidgetThrow, which is important in my religion?). Of course, if private companies like my bank still want to ask my marital status and discriminate against me for not being married, that should be their choice - hopefully I'll find a bank which will give me a loan without having to perform some religious function first.
I disagree with the gays on this one - it's not that civil unions should be called marriage, but "marriages" performed by the state should be called "civil unions", leaving "marriage" as a thing for the private entity we refer to as a "church".
From Wikipedia
The definition and classification of mental disorder is a key issue for the mental health professions and for users and providers of mental health services. Most international clinical documents use the term "mental disorder" rather than "mental illness". There is no single definition and the inclusion criteria are said to vary depending on the social, legal and political context. In general, however, a mental disorder has been characterized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress, disability or increased risk of suffering. The term "serious mental illness" (SMI) is sometimes used to refer to more severe and long-lasting disorder. A broad definition can cover mental disorder, mental retardation, personality disorder and substance dependence. The phrase "mental health problems" may be used to refer only to milder or more transient issues. There is often a criterion that a condition should not be expected to occur as part of a person's usual culture or religion. Nevertheless, the term "mental" is not necessarily used to imply a distinction between mental (dys)functioning and brain (dys)functioning, or indeed between the brain and the rest of the body.
There are currently two widely established systems that classify mental disorders - Chapter V of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), produced by the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) produced by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Both list categories of disorder and provide standardized criteria for diagnosis. They have deliberately converged their codes in recent revisions so that the manuals are often broadly comparable, although significant differences remain. Other classification schemes may be in use more locally, for example the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders. Other manuals may be used by those of alternative theoretical persuasions, for example the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual.
Some approaches to classification do not employ distinct categories based on cut-offs separating the abnormal from the normal. They are variously referred to as spectrum, continuum or dimensional systems. There is a significant scientific debate about the relative merits of a categorical or a non-categorical system. There is also significant controversy about the role of science and values in classification schemes, and about the professional, legal and social uses to which they are put.
This conversation reminds me of an editorial cartoon I saw years ago.
The view was from the stage of an auditorim and there was a banner on the back wall that said, "Welcome to the Annual Convention of the Association of Normal People"
The room was empty.
SOL,
"It is not a healhy lifestyle. Gay people have higher rates of addiction,psychosis,neurosis. They are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol."
Gee, what could drive a gay person to drink or drugs? Hmmm.....self-loathing brought on by anti-gay zealots such as yourself?
Nah......
Anon said "Gee, what could drive a gay person to drink or drugs? Hmmm.....self-loathing brought on by anti-gay zealots such as yourself?"
Thats it, do not have a reasonable discussion just start throwing around names. Thats always the response of someone who does not have a counterargument.
We do not care to discuss the issue, its see it my way or be labeled a bad person.
I am not anti Gay. I would just rather help people then enable them to engage in ultimately self destructive behaviour
Art. " In general, however, a mental disorder has been characterized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress, disability or increased risk of suffering. The term "serious mental illness" (SMI) is sometimes used to refer to more severe and long-lasting disorder. A broad definition can cover mental disorder, mental retardation, personality disorder and substance dependence. The phrase "mental health problems" may be used to refer only to milder or more transient issues. There is often a criterion that a condition should not be expected to occur as part of a person's usual culture or religion. "
Sounds to me as if same sex attraction fits within that definition. My point is we treat this particular deviation from the norm (a mathematical term) different then we treat other deviations.
Living with a woman without a binding contract and midget throwing? Where do I sign up to become a Hoganist?
Hoganists believe in the sanctity of the NFL schedule right?
Lugar96
Hogan who the hell is doing your taxes?
Married filers don't get a break we pay a marriage tax penalty.
So much for encouraging family values.
There was a law passed in 2003 to reduce it but if I recall it didn't do much.
Everyone is sexually attracted to the same sex to different degrees.
Finally those of you who took Arts challenge and said no way. Nothing there. Methinks thou doth protest too much ;-)
SOL, something tells me you enjoyed that exercise.
Tom, first, to come full circle - thus my point - I agree 100% with Art - "I think we'd be better off if all domestic partnerships were legally called civil unions and leave the term marriage to religions".
The gays have nothing to complain about. The courts have determined that they have the same rights, and tax burden, as the rest of us, married or not. Further, as I said, the problem is that somehow the government got involved in this marriage business and treated it like a corporation with tax incentives and/or penalties, which to me is a problem, again because my religion's version of "marriage" is not recognized by the government who is taxing me.
Second, and I'm not a tax expert, so correct me if I'm wrong (maybe a correction could cause the collapse of the Church of Hoganism), BUT I'm lead to believe that:
1) If you make megabucks and your wife makes peanuts, you get a HUGE benefit being married. In fact, the more you make compared to your wife the better/bigger benefit you get since your combined salary is divided by two people.
2) If you and your wife both make good incomes and close to the same incomes, you're right, you get the bend over and take it penalty - I suggest you should have followed the Church of Hoganism. Again, the "penalty" mostly comes from the government/banks asking about your marriage status in the first place to determine how much they'll *LET* you save/tax defer.
3) If you and your wife both earn not much, then I'm lead to believe that you REALLY take it in the pooper in terms of a tax penalty because you miss out on benefits that single, low income people are "entitled" to.
For me personally, I'd fall into case #1 where I'd be better off if the government would recognize my "marriage". I'll PAY more in income taxes this year than my GF will EARN before taxes. I really do think that a tax expert would recommend me joining a religion that allows marriage. A lawyer might suggest it is a good for property rights and such as well too, but thats a different issue.
Now, *IF* my GF was a freeloader, which she is not, then one could argue that the benefit in NOT being married is that, despite working, she probably could apply for/receive many government benefits for being "low income". Her child could probably get free lunches in school at the least, maybe there are some healthcare benefits she could receive for her and her child and maybe there are other benefits to "low income" people as well, who knows. Being not married, those benefits would be coming in while at the same time I'm providing the MegaBucks(TM) salary for the household.
*IF* you're not convinced that I've completely fallen off of my rocker at this point, then I could go one step further and say that if the government not only got out of the marriage business, but also got out of the business of providing handouts to low income/single parents (and all handouts to all income levels for that matter) THEN my GF would probably REALLY REALLY REALLY try hard to convert my religious beliefs so we could be married and I could be the bread winner in the household providing for her since the government would no longer be available as a breadwinner that provides for her and her child, really making it in her best interest to be married and keep me (and my salary/benefits) around, which then gets to the woman's lib thing where I'm able to beat up my GF because she "needs" me and there are no programs to help her and so the cycle repeats.
I'm SURE there is a flaw somewhere in my logic but then I've never claimed to have all of the answers. As I've insisted, at best I'm just an average no one with an opinion. :-)
Finally, regarding the Church of Hoganism and the NFL - the Church officially looks down upon professional sports as adults playing children's games. HOWEVER, the Church does have a 106" HD BIG SCREEN with 7.1 Surround Sound - http://www.txstock.com:8047/hometheater/ - perhaps the Church will be willing to open it's doors to the local blogging community for the SuperBowl, email me jhogan@fbody.com to find out more about the Church, or the Super Bowl and if there is any interest, I'll get permission from my GF to have people over. :-)
...tired of typing...
Art
You raise a good point. At least someone out there is actually THINKING! I always wonder if people actually think about what I say when I challenge preconcieved notions. Thank you for that.
I want to address your comment but first I want to say a few things I have been thinking about.
First lets throw away the word mental illness then more questions. Can we agree that from a biological perspective the human body is designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. I think that is pretty undeniable.
Then isn't it fair to say that if someone is uncontrollably attracted to the same sex doesn't that lead to the logical conclusion that something in their mind is not working the way it is supposed too?
Now I have proposed that homosexuality is caused by a variety of factors in some people it is biological in others their are enviornmental factors at play. I think that in many cases it is a combination. It is not a simple issue. I have even posited that culture plays a role and sometimes it is a choice. Art's exercise is meant to bebunk that. I have historical precedents to counter that. Spartan warriors had sexual relationships with other spartan warriors. this was a method of strengthening the bond between these warriors. They also had wifes and children. They were not repulsed, as Art,Eric and Tom claim they were, by the thought because they were acculturated to it. The three gentleman listed above grew up in a culture that taught them it was yucky and apparently they have no brain problems that effect wether they like girls or not. Culture can play a role in whether a person will engages in same sex sex. Another example. Some Men in prison or on ships for years at a time who are normally would be hetersexual will engage in homosexual activity if deprived of their regular outlet.
Let me be clear about my point here (besides debunking Art).
Genetics, enviornmental factors and culture all play a part. There is not one cause. Many people do not have a choice as to who they are attracted to but not all. If culture plays a part in some cases we have to ask will the government putting a stamp of approval (as opposed to mere tolerance) result in an increase in homosexual behaviour. If so is that desirable?
As to Arts question it all depends on whether you view marriage as a right.
As I said we have a right to shack up with however we want. Marriage is not a right it is a subsidy. Society has instituted Civil marriage so it can regulate it but more importantly so that men and Women are encouraged to get married and form a family unit. The theory is (which I subscribe to. Sorry I don't buy into the Church of Hogan)) is that stable families with a husband wife and some kids is beneficial to society. The benefits of marriage are meant to encourage you to enter into it not because you have a right to them.
Society does not get the same set of benefits encouraging Gay marriage. Oh sure you could argue that some benefits exist but not to the same extent and there are downsides to encouraging gay marriage.
Its like the Government deciding to subsidize wheat growers because we need more wheat and the Cannabis growers saying hey wait a minute we grow things too its not fair that we do not get the subsidy.
Art you are correct we do not say alcoholics ect... can not marry but Alcoholism does not go to the heart of the institution. The institution of marriage is all about the relationship. We don't extend benefits to people that essentially reward them for being alcoholics do we?
So my argument is 1.We should not encourage or reward homosexual relationships and granting the relationships a legal staus does that.
2. We should worry more about helping people then being politically correct and look for ways to cure homosexuals in the cases where it is not a choice and they want to be cured.
PS. Honestly how many gay people out there if offered a pill with no side effects that would change your sexual orientation wouldn't at least think about taking it?
As always on Arts forum this has been a very interesting exchange of ideas.
SOL,
Another thought provoking response. It takes some time to digest it all, but two off the cuff comments with more to follow.
1)Your overall argument seems to be weakening. First you said the definition of mental illness was critical to the discussion. Now you want to set that aside. Not good for your position.
2) I never said I was repulsed. I didn't say I wasn't repulsed. I suggested that people couldn't choose how they responded to the exercise.
I did not change my position. thay the definition of Mental illness is a key.
I threw out what appears to be a politically charged word and tried to express the same idea in a different manner so as to avoid using a word that gets everybodies back up. I want them to try to concentrate on the idea not the nasty word.
So you were not repulsed. Very interesting;-)
So you were not repulsed. Very interesting;-)
There you go putting works in my mouth. As long as that's all you put there I'll be ok. :-)
It did not take me long to debunk your argument. Like many attempts to control others behavior, your call for a cure is wrought with unintended consequences.
Let's imagine for a minute that a pharmacutical company thought there might be a market for a pill that would allow people to experience a different sexual orientation. Theoretically, if we could make gays straight, we could also make straights gay.
Think of the marketing. Maybe Barney Frank could use the endorsement money, ala Bob Dole with Viagra.
If the product flops, there is always the government. Given your Spartan example, there may be terrific military applications for such a pill. Instead of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" we could have "Take this pill and get busy" in booty camp.
About your biological argument, I'm reminded of something a Doctor who was speaking at a Catholic indoctronation I attended as a high school student said. He said, "If sex is only for procreation, why did God make it feel so good?" Sister Mary You Better Do It My Way was pissed.
Using your logic,SOL, we would go back to criminalizing sodomy between married couples.
Its bad enough that so many men complain that they rarely get blow jobs after "I do."
I go back to my original premise. I think your argument is a moral one, not a political one or even a medical/scientific one, as hard as you try to fit your morality into a political or scientific paradigm.
I will always defend your right to practice your moral principles and your right to attempt to convert other people into adopting them.
However, equal rights should be equal for everyone. Government should get out of the marriage business. Problem solved.
Is morality anything more then curbing behaviour that has a negative impact or is a least viewed as having a negative impact for society? ohhh lets not go there we could post on that one for 10 years.
Your conclusion about where a cure leads seems to be premised on coercion. I explicity rejected that as I rejected criminalizing Homosexuality.
I have submitted that there is a difference between tolerance and affirmation.
We could go back and forth on this adnausem and I doubt we will see eye to eye probably in part because we have different views on the role of government visa vee (sp?) marriage.
I am clearly not a full fledged libertarian.
It was however a good debate.
oh and too answer the question.
"About your biological argument, I'm reminded of something a Doctor who was speaking at a Catholic indoctronation I attended as a high school student said. He said, "If sex is only for procreation, why did God make it feel so good?" Sister Mary You Better Do It My Way was pissed"
Thats easy who would procreate if it weren't fun to do it? :-)
Your conclusion about where a cure leads seems to be premised on coercion. I explicity rejected that as I rejected criminalizing Homosexuality.
Not at all. I think the unintended consequences of the cure could open up all kinds of new choices and ethical questions, most of which you wouldn't like.
I think a Barney Frank commercial for the cure would be a hoot. Now that I think of it, there may already be a cure. Bill Mahr once quipped that Viagra is a pill that lets you have sex with someone you're not attracted to.
Let's see if we can get Pfizer to market it that way to test your theory.
SOL,
I certainly never said I was repulsed by the experiment.
I can be a 100% confident heterosexual, as proud of that as those who march in the "Pride" parade are of themselves, without at the same time being "repulsed" by Gays.
To note that I am different is not the same as being repulsed.
Also, you have to be kidding with this mental illness stuff.
Can you give to me any authority that says desire comes from the neurons in the brain and not DNA?
Tommy,
You have not been paying attention to your science.
Your Dna would effect how your brain is put togetehr and your brain structure or Chemistry would then impact your sexual orientation. The fact of the matter is that there are all kinds of studies as to why people are homosexual. Everything from the size of certain areas of the brain to not getting enough of a certain cahemical or hormoner in the womb to they were sexually abused as children. (sorry I do not have time to look up all the citations)
That is why I say that there is not one cause but myraid influences on ones sexual identity.
In some people there is one cause in others it is a combination of influences.
The cause is not relevant to whether we should seek to give people the means to change. That only goes to the how.
I can list 100 conditions that cause people to act outside the "norm" in ways that effect their ability to function or has harmfull effects. Homosexuality is the only one we do not look to cure.
BTW guys the repulse comment was a joke stop getting your panties in a Knot. I never met such a politically correct group of conservatives before.
I am amazed at the shock my use of the word mental illness conjures.
Humans were undeniably created (wether by God or evolution) to be attracted
to the opposite sex. That is clear from how are bodies function and how we procreate.
If someones brain is miswired somehow so that they are attracted to something other then the opposite sex why is that not a mental illness?
Pedophelia is considered a mental illness. Sure it hurts innocent children but is that the criteria of a mental illness? that it hurts someone else. I do not think so. Therefore why should pedophelia and homosexuality be treated differently for a MEDICAL standpoint. Please note before you start screaming at me that I limited my comparison. I am not suggesting that the two conditions are equally heinous from a societal standpoint. I bet there are other atypical sexual attractions listed in the DSM
For crying out loud we treat addictions as a mental illness. They have a genetic component.
Someone give me a scientific reason why homosexuality should be treated differently?
Untill you can stop with the incredulity and outrage.
SOL,
With all due respect, I believe the only one's who are brainwashed here are those that feel something is wrong with homosexuals and then need to be cured for the betterment of themselves. The only help these people need is our push to make society more accepting and tolerant of their lifestyle's.
The pill idea is one of the most disturbing things I've ever heard. I know it was used as a simple example, but I can't shake the feeling that I'm watching X-Men 3, but instead of mutants, it's homosexuals that are being offered "cures". Horrible example use by me, but it's disturbing none the less.
You say, "Can we agree that from a biological perspective the human body is designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. I think that is pretty undeniable."
It sure seems that way, like square peg in round whole type deal. But couldn't a homosexual make the same case essentially?
While I think you make a compelling case that one's childhood and experiences may have an effect on their sexuality, it still would not account for all "cases" of homosexuality, not even a majority of them either.
If you take a look at how society has progressed on this issue, you get a good idea of where it'll end up in the near future. Sure there are some bumps along the way, but applied in this specific case, it's easy to see that disrupting the progress and going back to 1970's thinking would be disasterous.
I'm glad this debate on this forum has been civil and has jumped partisan and ideological boundaries it seems. The worst thing to do would be to assign the cause to one particular party or ideology. A case can be made from each side of the spectrum.
Eric,
I guess where I loose your argument is here.
you said;
The pill idea is one of the most disturbing things I've ever heard. I know it was used as a simple example, but I can't shake the feeling that I'm watching X-Men 3, but instead of mutants, it's homosexuals that are being offered "cures". Horrible example use by me, but it's disturbing none the less.
From my perspective your position leads to the conclusion that we do not want to find a pill to cure Autism, shizophrenia, addictions, OCD, anorexia, manic depresives, and a host of other "conditions"
Explain to me why they should be treated differently. Aren't those just alternate lifestyles resulting from genetics or some other type of biological cause.
Then you say; But couldn't a homosexual make the same case essentially?
How so?
I don't want to know how people feel about the subject. They feel it is unfair to homosexuals to make these comparisions. Feelings should be irrelevant. I want to see crtitical reasoning skills applied. With all due respect only Art has made that attempt.
Come on convince me I'm wrong you can do it ;-)
Again you are comparing apples and oranges though. Homosexuality is not a disease; therefore it can not be put in the same catergory as autism, shizophrenia, addictions, OCD, anorexia, and manic depressives.
Here is where you are wrong:
To even consider your argument one would have to believe homosexuality is a disease.
It's not feelings.
Here is my favorite definition of disease: "a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms"
Homosexuality does not impair normal functioning, unless you were to advocate that normal functioning is to be attracted to the opposite sex. You'd also have to say who defines what normal is. Maybe it's us heterosexual people that are not normal...it's a ridiculous assumption but who decides that?
Your statistics on those who are homosexual and the reduced quality of lifestyle is alarming, if true. But assuming it is true, then we could come to a conclusion fairly easy that it can be prevented to decrease the rates easilty:Reduction of stress and being safe.
Being safe is up to the individual, while reduction of stress is a combined effort.
You named a whole host of conditions that impair one's ability to live.
Homosexuality would not impair one's ability to live if it evolved in a society that was completely accepting of it. Unlike addiction, there is no physical harm in being a homosexual, as long as one is safe (that's a straight responsibility too). Society is accepting of the other conditions you mentioned. But there is fact based reasoning to believe that those conditions severely affect one's basic functions. Homosexuality does not.Unless procreation is somehow a basic function, but then you're stepping into a whole nother realm.
Again though, the basis for your argument is comparing apples to oranges.
---------------------------------
My main argument for marriage equality is pure simplicity.
If I have the right to marry, why doesn't a homosexual?
To say they do not have the right to marry essentially argues that they are unequal and inferior.
Of course Art and others like Hogan make great points about the whole idea of government getting into the marriage business and the conflicts with religous institutions and such.
But I don't go to the root question of who should be granted marriage. I work in the current reality situation.
I'm allowed to get married, simply because I'm heterosexual. When it goes down, assuming it does, I can refer to myself as married, get all the wonderful perks (including that tax), and call myself so.
As of now, a homosexual can not do this, except in two or three states, and New Jersey is not one of them.
Here's my argument: Why not? That means they are unequal to me, which is simply not true. The only thing that's different is sexual attraction, which is the same as one's culture, religion, skin color, or race being different in the book of Eric.
Ladies and Gentlemen...longest comment ever. Thank you for saving me from finals insanity.
Eric,
A much better effort but here is where your logic fails.
You say "Homosexuality does not impair normal functioning, unless you were to advocate that normal functioning is to be attracted to the opposite sex. You'd also have to say who defines what normal is."
Of course normal functioning is to be attracted to the other sex. Our survuval as a species depends on it. It is obvious from just looking at how are parts work that it is what is normal. Are you really going to argue that sexual reproduction is not one of our "functions". Is there a function actually more important.
I know people with mild autism and OCD who are less impaired then that and we offer them treatment OPTIONS.
One of the functions of society and culture is to determine what is normal and I could write about why and how for days but in this case I do not have too because NATURE (or evolution or our creator, take your pick) has decided for us what is normal.
It looks as if years of indoctrination by the media and our educational system has blinded you to logic with regard to this issue.
Art how long will you let this go on. Warning, I suffer from the inability to stop arguing(no treatment for that either)until someone admits I win or I get hit with a tranquilizer dart.
Art how long will you let this go on. Warning, I suffer from the inability to stop arguing(no treatment for that either)until someone admits I win or I get hit with a tranquilizer dart.
Maybe you'll get tranquilized for Christmas. I'm not going to stop it until you admit that you lost. :-)
Wrong is wrong! Marriage must not be bestowed on homosexuals for the same reason blind people should not get a driver's license. The issue of nurture versus nature is irrelevant. If someone is born with an ailment or develops it later, we don't celebrate it. We acknowledge that it exists and hope that it does not happen to anyone else.
Post a Comment