I just wrote a book…in my comments section. So, in my desire to move those gruesome murder pictures down the line a bit, I’ve decided to post my conversation with Sourabh that has been ongoing beneath my Martin Luther King, Jr, entry. I have really enjoyed this respectful debate surrounding the question, “Is Homosexual Sex Abnormal?” Sourabh has asked some interesting questions – “what right do we have to police others’ decisions?” – and made some interesting assertions – “gays in this country cannot serve their nation or donate blood or adopt or marry.” This discussion has inspired me to ponder thoroughly and flex and stretch my brain muscles in coherent defense of marriage and family. Thank you, Sourabh. My brain can always use the exercise. :0)
Sourabh Chakraborty said...
I find it difficult to digest the argument that only heterosexuals can procreate. And that being gay is against the law of nature.
Yes gays cannot give birth but there are 6 billion people in this world ... millions and millions of kids all around the world ... impoverished kids and hungry kids and parent less kids who could use loving fathers and mothers.
Are we then to argue that women who cannot give birth are nature's abomination? That they have lesser rights?
Yes, gay marriage is about removing stigma. It is about civil rights. It is about that fundamental belief that we cannot discriminate anybody on anything. And that includes your ability to procreate or not.
Sourabh
Sourabh,
As difficult as it is for you to stomach this, the truth is that only heterosexuals can naturally procreate and homosexuality is abnormal in nature.
I agree that there are millions of children throughout the world who would benefit from a loving mother and father, but adopting and embracing homosexuality is not the brightest solution since it denies children the important presence of an opposite-sex parent by design. And research has proved, time and again, the importance of a child being raised by a married mother and father.
Women who are infertile are not nature's abomination and they do not have lesser rights. Frankly, I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion based on this post. You are lumping Lesbians together with married infertile women and the glaring lack of the former is still found in the desire to deny a father.
"Yes, gay marriage is about removing stigma."
Ah, and here you've hit the nail on the head. We don't create laws and legislation to accommodate hurt feelings due to stigmas. If this is the case and this is your argument, then certainly the stigmatized polygamous culture should have their right to marry whomever they will? I trust you would also support pedophiles in their desire to marry children and siblings to marry each other? After all, you did say that "we cannot discriminate anybody on anything."
That is a dangerous path to walk.
Thank you Pearl for that wonderful comment. To have been challenged logically rather than predisposed prejudice on this issue is very refreshing.
I'm not sure homosexuality can be considered abnormal in nature while heterosexuality normal. Is this based on the understanding that the choices or lifestyles of the majority of the population decide what is normal and abnormal?
Is homosexuality abnormal just because they cannot procreate? So that means lesbians and transgendered people (who were women before their sex change surgery) are still normal while gay men aren't? Are we solely driven by the ability to procreate as the deciding factor for normality and abnormality?
If that is not the sole factor, then we sure have a lot of abnormality in our world. Children born with Down's syndrome ... or with rare blood diseases. The point I am trying to make is where do we draw the line on normality and abnormality. Who decides what is normal and abnormal? And I think no one should. But if somebody must, it must be applicable universally to everybody.
Now if you held procreation as the sole factor in deciding normality, there are so many infertile people all around the world. Wouldn't we have to push them into this realm of "abnormality" as well?
I hope you'll forgive my forthrightness in writing such a long reply as I wanted to tackle every piece of thought logically and with reason.
As for the research study, I am unwilling to accept that opposite sex parents can be better parents than same sex parents. I would rather argue that the current social stigma that surrounds same sex parents is so divisive, that puts children with same sex parents in a difficult situation. So its not because they can't be good at parenting but because of a social order that we aren't so accepting of them that makes their parenting job even more difficult.
As for "gay marriage is about removing stigma", I am not saying bring laws to accommodate hurt sentiments. I am saying you need laws if you are discriminating against somebody. Blacks in the United States did not get their basic rights fundamental to any human being until the laws were changed to give it to them.
Gays in this country cannot serve their nation or donate blood or adopt or marry. Any of which a heterosexual man or woman can do. Now I am not talking about a disabled man who has lost both his legs demanding why he cannot still work as a heavy duty construction worker. I am talking of gays who are as capable in serving their nation, donating blood, adopting, raising kids and marrying like any other heterosexual. So why the discrimination?
When you say, "... then certainly the stigmatized polygamous culture should have their right to marry whoever they will? I trust you would also support pedophiles in their desire to marry children and siblings to marry each other?"
And I keep thinking what gives you or me or anybody the right to tell somebody what you're doing is totally wrong unless it infringes on my rights or somebody's rights by force.
The point is, then how willing we would be to accept when they would say ... hey, you know what ... we don't like it when you guys home school your kids or buy Christmas presents. If we have a right to tell these people that incest is wrong because we "believe" so, shouldn't these people have a right to dictate something similar to us of what they think is right to them?
My whole argument centers around the belief that we cannot be taskmasters and go policing around telling people what is right or wrong ... because using the same logic, then we must accept being policed around by somebody else with totally different ideas and views.
Telling gays you cannot marry is like telling a kid on a wheelchair you can't play basketball .. "son you might be able to play it okay, but not better than kids who have their legs" .. Gays can't procreate but we can be good parents .. just because we can't deliver an offspring (or rather don't want to have an offspring) doesn't in any way mean they cannot take care of them or they will be bad at it.
Sorry for the long post .. hope you haven't dozed off .. :(
Sourabh,
Thank you for your thoughts. I, too, appreciate a good discussion. Now, let's see if I can expound upon my beliefs a bit.
"Is homosexuality abnormal just because they cannot procreate? So that means lesbians and transgendered people (who were women before their sex change surgery) are still normal while gay men aren't?"
I have to clarify that the abnormal homosexuality which I discuss is specifically the act of homosexual sex. The attractions and feelings could be normal for some people to experience based on a genetic inclination. I honestly don't know.
Saying that lesbianism is normal because they can procreate is misleading. True, they have the right equipment to procreate...if employed properly...with a man. But in their chosen lifestyle, with their chosen partner, they cannot naturally procreate. The same goes for transgendered people; they cannot naturally procreate with someone of the same sex, no matter if they have a uterus or not. Claiming you are a man when you were born a woman cannot give you semen, a scrotum, vas deferens, and a penis...all necessary for natural reproduction with a woman.
"Who decides what is normal and abnormal? And I think no one should. But if somebody must, it must be applicable universally to everybody."
Well, our own Creator and Heavenly Father is the best place to start. However, since so many have disdained His commandments and denied Him, the next best place to look for defining abnormality is science. Abnormalities are traits and characteristics, "things" if you will, which naturally fall outside the frequency-of-existence curve. Now, what follows is my opinion, I'll have you know, but in my own mind, it seems quite sound (of course). ;) We do not know how frequent the actual genetic tendency toward same-sex attraction is, but we do know that homosexuals make up a very, very small minority of the humanity on this earth, and that in many instances homosexuality is adopted through education and experimentation rather than inherent attractions. We now run into the issue of growth. Couldn't the fact that homosexual numbers are growing indicate a movement toward normalcy? Well, sure, homosexuals are growing in number, but since there is evidence that that growth may be as much a result of learned behavior as it is genetic inheritance, the question on many people's minds then is why should we embrace a clear abnormality so that its education and frequency can increase and compete with normalcy to the detriment of society?
"Now if you held procreation as the sole factor in deciding normality, there are so many infertile people all around the world. Wouldn't we have to push them into this realm of "abnormality" as well?"
No, we wouldn't, because they still have the very normal and natural impulse to be with someone of the opposite sex and while they may not be able to have children as a result of their intercourse, their "equipment" is still designed for such a purpose when united.
"As for the research study, I am unwilling to accept that opposite sex parents can be better parents than same sex parents."
And herein lies the problem. So many today are unwilling to rely on basic research anymore. If it disagrees with their beliefs, they are quick to dismiss it. And I wasn't even using research to claim that heterosexual parenting is better (though I will always maintain that it is), I was merely pointing out that this new homosexual parenting trend does not have enough "experience" to yield evidence of equivalency or superiority. Problems in relationships do not exist merely as a result of external beliefs aimed at that relationship. That is a transparent attempt to project responsibility away from oneself. If majority public opinion is to be blamed for every troubled relationship, then alcoholics could claim they are discriminated against and unfairly demonized, as could abusive husbands and angry mothers, "My children don't have a quality family home because people don't like my alcoholism." Or, as you said, "Its not because they can't be good at parenting but because of a social order that we aren't so accepting of them that makes their parenting job even more difficult." That is, to put it crassly, a cop out.
"I am saying you need laws if you are discriminating against somebody."
Yes, but it is only your opinion that government is discriminating against homosexuals when it does not, by the vote of the people, recognize same-sex unions as marriage. And in my mind, that is not discrimination; that is discernment. If it must be discrimination just because someone doesn't like it or doesn't feel it's fair, then we will be creating new anti-discrimination laws from now until forever. Our government of the people was not created to make people feel good, it was created to ensure the comfort, security, and survival of a healthy society.
"Gays in this country cannot serve their nation or donate blood or adopt or marry."
Well, that certainly is untrue. How does the inability to "marry" stop one from serving their country? If you are referring to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation, then please answer this: how does keeping bedroom politics and practices in the bedroom keep one from serving their country? Additionally, here in California homosexuals are afforded the same protections under domestic partnerships as heterosexuals. This includes being able to adopt children. And in Massachusetts, same-sex "marriage" has been legalized. Are you sure you have not mistaken the United States for another nation?
"I keep thinking what gives you or me or anybody the right to tell somebody what you're doing is totally wrong unless it infringes on my rights or somebody's rights by force."
I thank you for your honesty, but "infringing on somebody's rights" is not the only negative effect against which we should be fighting permissiveness. What about survival of a healthy society? What about the nurturing of unconfused children? Right and wrong does not only exist where so-called "choice" is being guided. Pedophilia is wrong. Polygamy is wrong. Neither promotes healthy society. Neither preserves the definition of marriage most necessary for the optimal nurture of children.
"If we have a right to tell these people that incest is wrong because we "believe" so, shouldn't these people have a right to dictate something similar to us of what they think is right to them?"
Um, no, because home schooling and buying Christmas presents doesn't hurt society. Neither does maintaining marriage solely between one man and one woman. What does hurt society is devaluing a sacred, imperative institution by redefining it over and over and over again which is sure to happen once a first, radical redefinition is successful. Pedophilia is not just wrong for pedophiles, it is wrong for everyone. Similarly, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman in California for everyone. Homosexuals are not being discriminated against because they still have the same right as everyone else to get married...to a member of the opposite sex.
"My whole argument centers around the belief that we cannot be taskmasters and go policing around telling people what is right or wrong ... because using the same logic, then we must accept being policed around by somebody else with totally different ideas and views."
Imagine that. Checks and balances are no longer okay, according to you. That's what our entire government is built upon! Yes, we teach correct principles and let people make decisions, but when their decisions begin to affect others (society) negatively, we put our foot down. I am policed, Sourabh! So are you. We are not allowed to murder or steal or abuse. These are things that we, as a collective society, have decided are wrong, are frowned upon. We are collective taskmasters and individual servants. We can be tolerant of "different ideas and views," but tolerance is not equivalent to acceptance. That is imprudent.
"Telling gays you cannot marry is like telling a kid on a wheelchair you can't play basketball .. "son you might be able to play it okay, but not better than kids who have their legs."
Well, you might not want to say it out loud, but it's still the truth. Do we deny the truth and risk negative societal repercussion just to spare the hurt feelings of a few? Just the fact that you compare homosexuals to a disabled child in a wheelchair says a lot about the pervasive victim mentality of the former. Besides, if you spoke the truth to that child with sincere love and concern, he would be hurt but a moment and then I guarantee he would set about finding ways around his inability. So, too, could homosexuals do, but instead they've chosen to focus all their energy on their perceived inabilities rather than seek other alternatives than the appropriation of "marriage" in their struggle and desire for societal acceptance.
"just because we can't deliver an offspring (or rather don't want to have an offspring) doesn't in any way mean they cannot take care of them or they will be bad at it."
Contrary to popular gay activist belief, love is NOT enough. Children need a mother and a father. Homosexual parenting denies that by design. Deprivation should not be justified or glorified in any form.
"Sorry for the long post .. hope you haven't dozed off .."
On the contrary, this has been quite stimulating. Thank you.
What are your thoughts, Pearl People?
Yours in respectful debate and marriage preservation,
~Pearl
Related Links:
Animals Are Not Gay
How the APA Dropped Homosexuality From its List of Disorders
Homosexual Behavior/Relationships and Health
Pope’s Christmas Greeting Says We Must “Protect the Human Being Against Self Destruction” of Sexual Aberrations
What About the Mutual Affection of Homosexuals? Isn’t That Enough for Marriage?
Big Labor for Big Love?
Traditional Marriage//The Gay/Liberal Agenda is Trying to Eliminate All Tradition
Shame on You, You Heterosexist!
42 Comments:
I just want to respond to one point made by SC:
Gays in this country cannot serve their nation or donate blood or adopt or marry.
As pearl mentioned, those who have SSA can still serve their nation, they are just told to keep it to themselves.
They cannot donate blood, because the definition of their sexual encounters are unhealthy. (another reason why homosexual sex is abnormal-- it naturally leads to all sorts of disease, with or without condoms). I think its fair for the red cross to be concerned about the safety of the blood they take.
Besides, many many people are barred from donating blood for various reasons.
They aren't allowed to adopt in some US states because there is no proof that they can provide homes which are as good for children as the in-tact heterosexual couple.
And marriage: well, the definition is a man and a woman, (and in the united states they must also be un-related). There have always been restrictions on marriage.
Bonus note on discrimination: All of our laws are discriminatory. We discriminate against smokers in CA--they aren't allowed to smoke in restaurants, airplanes, etc. We also discriminate in favor of people who recycle. They get a number of benefits from the state.
Discrimination in laws is normal. Just because a group complains...doesn't mean society has to grant them whatever they wish. It is not wise for society to extend the definition of marriage. Especially because the only reason gays want it is:
1. so they can feel better about their identity.
2. so they can get benefits from the government.
these aren't the reasons for marriage.
The use of the words "normal" and "abnormal" can have a variety of meanings for different people. They are very broad terms.
There are lots of different types of disorders in our world including genetic disorders like Downs Syndrome, learning disorders and eating disorders, alcoholism etc. Some people also have sexual disorders such as being attracted to people of the same sex, being sexually attracted to children and even animals.
Although some people have these disorders it does not mean that they can not live a "normal" life. People with these disorders need to either be healed of them or learn to live with them in such a way to affirm their human nature. Pretending that the disorder is not disorder but instead using it to define who they are does not affirm their human nature.
Bravo, Pomegranate Apple! In my methodical response, I completely failed to address the issue of health and giving blood. Of course the Red Cross would not accept blood donations from homosexuals. The lifestyle is too risque and accurately characterized by disease. I am grateful for their discernment.
Bravo to you Pearl for fostering a respectful discussion on your blog with someone who disagrees with you.
As a lesbian and frequent blood donor, I just want to pop in here to ensure that when you said "Of course the Red Cross would not accept blood donations from homosexuals" you are referring to men who have sex with men. Too often, people fixate on gay male sex and then make generalizations about gay men AND lesbians, when such generalizations are unwarranted.
Lesbians have the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS of all demographic groups and, accordingly, there is no ban on blood donation among women who have sex with women. I don't say this to demonize gay men. Yet I do have mixed feelings around the ban, since men who have sex with men are at higher risk of contracting HIV/AIDs than other group. For now, I think the ban should stay in place until we develop screening methods to test for HIV within the 6-month incubation period between infection and when it shows up on a test.
Finally, I agree that the words "normal" and "abnormal" have different meanings for different people. I think it's important to be clear on which definition of these terms one is using when we declare other people or their behaviors to be "abnormal." For, if we're talking about normality in the statistical sense, then yes, homosexuality a deviation from the average. And then, so what? If we're talking about normality in the psychological sense, well, as you know, mental health associations do not consider homosexuality to be "abnormal" or pathological.
Personally, I find it unfortunate when normal human variation is stigmatized as "abnormal" in the pejorative sense. Yet, as well-adjusted, law-abiding successful woman, I also don't base my self-worth on whether people who know nothing about me consider me to be "abnormal" just because of who I form relationships with.
Take care.
As a people, we have to determine what is best for society. Then we must promote what will strengthen society, and discourage (in varying degrees and ways) things that will weaken it. We promote marriage between a man and a woman because IN MOST CASES the best place for a child is with his/her biological parents. We should discourage all other forms of sexual practice, as none of it promotes a strong society, especially for children. There are varying degrees of discouragement, though. Some societies kill those committing homosexual behavior, or those found pregnant outside of wedlock. In our country, so many laws and social stigmas have been relaxed that it's paved a way for discouragement to give way to endorsement. But most states and the federal government still give added incentives for men and women to get married. That is by design. If we start endorsing other behavior in the same way, society will be weakened.
One of the things I notice often in these sorts of discussions is that some people think morality is arbitrary, not based on any kind of reasoning process.
But this is not true. Traditional morality makes sense, and has proven time after time to not only be the traditionally moral course of action, but also the SMART course of action.
The other thing that kind of "proves" the soundness of traditional morality is that nearly all religious traditions have separately arrived at the same conclusions with regard to moral biggies like the importance of continually encouraging heterosexual norms over homosexual indulgences.
Good moral standards lead to a virtuous and strong society, whereas practices that are immoral really are bad for us as a society and really do weaken us.
Like many people, I fully believe God has revealed the commandments to us so that we will not have to break our heads and hearts finding out the hard way what is good and bad. We use religion as a sort of short-cut to knowing right from wrong, and in this regard faithfully following traditional Judeo-Christian morality is actually amazingly reliable in guiding us to what is indeed good. When it seems to fail, almost always we can see that the morals taught by religion are not what fail us, but we ourselves and our own lack of devotion to what we know is good and moral are what fail. We make bad choices.
If we want to try to "re-invent the wheel" and by-pass thousands of years of moral tradition to try to figure out for ourselves which moral boundaries will lead to the good and which will end up bad, that is another option. But I don't think any of us really have the time or the ability to build our own moral system without making tons of mistakes and damaging ourselves and others in the process.
Our society has decided to PERMIT people to make what have traditionally been considered bad choices. But increasingly, people who are enamored of those choices are demanding that their chosen actions be CELEBRATED, not just PERMITTED. What they fail to do is make the case WHY this should be so. Their argument is basically that morality is arbitrary, so their self-constructed morality is just as good as anyone else's.
[When I think about how I would feel in this situation, I guess it is just human nature to respond this way, but...] nowadays whenever somebody asserts that some ACTION is bad, then people who are fond of DOING that action hear "oh, so that means *I* AM BAD", and they become defensive and angry.
Understandable as this reaction may be, this is like a roadblock to rational communication about these important unavoidable moral issues. And we seem to keep getting stuck behind these same roadblocks over and over again with this issue of homosexuality. Some people are looking at white and seeing black, and some people are looking at black and seeing white.
There are still some people in the middle, but I'm wondering how we are going to start bringing people together. And not just all agreeing on some arbitrary morality just for the sake of not disagreeing, but agreeing on a morality that is actually good and beneficial and will make a strong future society.
Sorry so long! Thanks for listening.
Hello again Pearl.
Thank you for acknowledging the blood donor error.
You express concern that a gay man would engage in promiscuous sex after an HIV test cleared him of the virus. Are you concerned then that such a man would contract HIV and then transmit it to a donee? If so, per FDA regulation, a donor's blood is tested after each time it is drawn and before it is given to a donee.
For instance, even though I'm at extremely low risk for HIV, my blood-like everyone else's- is tested for HIV every single time I donate, no matter what I claim with respect to my sex life and other risk factors. As it currently stands, HIV tests are not yet sensitive enough to be able to detect HIV within the first several months of infection. My point was that if tests could be developed that could detect HIV immediately upon infection, whether a gay man is wildly promiscuous would not be relevant to the blood safety issue.
Anyway, when I said "so what?" with respect to homosexuality being a deviation to the norm, my point was that many traits in human beings are deviations from the norm. I know you do not believe that homosexuality is an inherent trait, but can you at least concede that some people have inherent same-sex attraction that other people do not have? To many of us, homosexuality or same-sex attraction or whatever it is in us that makes us different than "the norm" is nothing but a benign deviation from the norm that is similar to other instances of human variation.
The normal (meaning "average") height for women, for instance, is about 5'7" or so. I'm 5'10", so that makes me a deviation from the norm. So what? Most people living in the Netherlands are white. To be a black person there is to be "abnormal," or a deviation from the norm. So what? That was my point. Deviation in and of itself is not malignant.
With respect to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, I am aware that many people believe that un-pathologizing homosexuality was some sort of politically-motivated act. But, from some people's perspective, putting it there in the first place was a politically-motivated act stemming from religious hostility towards homosexuality.
I know that some psychologists still claim that homosexuality is a psychological "abnormality." But that belief is certainly not the professional norm, so to speak. As Dr. Greg Herek has said (from the above link):
"However, empirical evidence and professional NORMS do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology." [emphasis added]
In other words, statistically speaking, the belief that homosexuality is a mental illness is an abnormal. Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;-)
SC--
Are you saying in the first part of your comment that you do not trust scientific studies concerning homosexuality? Because if that is the case you are proving Pearl correct when she asserts that many times gay activists, or gay people, are unwilling to listen to any kind of evidence which refutes their choices.
So far, no one knows what causes homosexuality. It is probably a combo of factors both genetic and environmental.
However, the expression of homosexuality, the behavior, is a choice. No one has to act on it.
It is not an immutable characteristic, like skin color, shape of nose, hair color, or eye color.
Discriminating based on behavior is something we do as citizens every day.
Discriminating based on race is not okay because race is not a behavior.
This is why your analogy of smoking and racial discrimination is incorrect.
You could make the argument that homosexual sex does not hurt anyone. But, it does hurt the individuals involved. When men have sex with men, there is ALWAYS high risk factor for disease.
Always. With our without a condom. Even when wearing the condom-- there are other issues involved. (as a side note: if all men wear a condom these days--why are we still having outbreaks of syphilis and the spread of HIV among gay men?)
I don't think this is wise as a society to sanction a relationship with government approval that
a. does not provide any possible or resulting child with a mom and a dad.
b. that has sky-high risk factors for disease.
Regarding parenting. There is absolutely no evidence that same-gender parenting is as good as heterosexual parenting.
The history of the world, and common sense tell me, that if it takes a mom and a dad to create a child-- it's probably a good idea to have a mom and a dad raise the child.
The government does not reward single parenting with the term "marriage."
Scientific and Social Evidence:
Sources:
While study after study shows that children do awesome in traditional marriages--there is no evidence that shows children do the same in same-gender households. I don't think it's a good idea for government to sanction a social experiment.
1.William Meezan & Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children, 15 FUTURE OF CHILD. 97, 104 (2005)
"We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. . . . Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite- sex parenting (or better, or worse) are . . . right."
According to this source from a magazine devoted to same-gender parenting…no one knows what the outcomes are for same-gender parenting.
2. American college of Pediatricians:
Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.
3. Bonus Problems with the studies
"Numerous reviews of the literature on sexual orientation and parenting have been conducted. At least three such reviews have pointed to the serious scientific limitations of the social science literature on gay parenting.
Perhaps the most thorough review was prepared by Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who was asked to review several hundred studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada.
Nock concluded:
Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that
1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal
flaw of design or execution;
2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research. Design flaws researchers have found in these studies include very basic limitations:
a. No nationally representative sample. Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz, acknowledge that "there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of [same-sex couple] families."
b. Limited outcome measures. Many of the outcomes measured by the research are unrelated to standard measures of child well-being used by family sociologists (perhaps because most of the researchers
are developmental psychologists, not sociologists).
c. Reliance on maternal reports. Many studies rely on a mother's report of her
parenting skills and abilities, rather than objective measures of child outcomes.
d. No long-term studies. All of the studies conducted to date focus on static or short-term measures of child development. Few or none follow children of unisex parents to adulthood."
Anal Sex is Always High Risk
"Anal Health for Men and Women," LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth/; "Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men," LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/stdmsm/.
These articles discuss how the incidence of HIV infection and other dangerous acts actually increases in steady gay relationships:
Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.
Jon Garbo, "More Young Gay Men are Contracting HIV from Steady Partners," GayHealth (July 25, 2001).
Just want to highlight this recent CDC report:
Syphilis Summary
In recent years, [Men who have sex with Men] have accounted for an increasing number of estimated syphilis cases in the United States and now account for 65% of syphilis cases in the United States based on information from 44 states and Washington, D.C.
That is a SUPER high percentage for a group which is very small.
In 2007, (MSM) represented 65 percent of the 11,466 P&S syphilis cases reported. Increases in cases among MSM have occurred and have been characterized by high rates of HIV co-infection and high-risk sexual behavior. Syphilis among MSM is of particular concern because it can facilitate HIV transmission and lead to irreversible complications such as strokes, especially in those who already have HIV. There is also the financial burden that this life style places on health care budgets.
Heterosexual marriage may cost us money because it gives society things like babies. Babies are delightful contributions. However, disease is not. Government has no interest in promoting, rewarding, or privileging homosexual behavior.
CDC gov report on syphilis
Fannie,
do you consider it abnormal for a sister to be attracted to her? And then would it be abnormal for her to have sex with him?
I'm sorry, but for people who don't fetish homosexuality its a really boring topic.
Fannie, good to see you behaving here.
There are some interesting relativistic dynamics going on here. Normality is a relativistic paradigm, as many here are encountering. Each comes from a situation of a certain normality, and wonder how to discover some grander perspective of normality, or at least moral qualification of deviance.
In a world where cultural frameworks provide the battle ground for establishing or dis-establishing certain lifestyles and characteristics, a debate like this is more force than understanding. I see we all have our angles, and they are all to often orthogonal to each other. We wind up talking at right angles.
So lets start at the beginning, and for my purposes norm and deviance are the mathematical tools of observing large sets of data. If the framework is simply what is a relationship, then homosexuality and heterosexuality are both deviant. Relationships are generally not sexual at all.
If the framework is sexual relationship, then monogamy is deviant.
Marriage, is becoming more and more deviant. But what is most disturbing is the notion that the lifestyle of life long care and nurture of your co-creator in having children, as well as those children, is becoming deviant.
Consider how in the case of Rosie O'Donnell, or ex-Governor McGreevey their choice to marry is in deviation of that marriage ideal. In Rosie O'Donnell's case, she openly puts her sexual bias in front of her kids longing for a father. IN McGreevey's case, it is also his sexual bias that not only keeps him from taking part as a functional family unit, but motivates and is called on for justification to remove their children from the mother's attention and affection.
In our world everything has a cost. And if nothing else steps forward to pay that cost, then the payment is in the burning want of something. And whether you call it deviant or normal, these children are in want because their care-givers are putting their own sexual bias in front of the children's needs.
As our adult needs of sexual bias (be it promiscuity, homosexuality, or simply the need to have a sexually active or attractive relationship) will cost us our dearest treasure. Our functional and in-tact family kinship, our kin altruism.
Marriage is not against those exercises of free will, but it is not compatible with them either. Nor is our society's dissemination of love, understanding, and self-esteem as capable to meet children's needs if marriage as an institution is made subservient to these biases.
Then, as morality is simply our ability to maintain this social happiness (morale), then moral deviance comes from sacrificing (or taking) from others their wants to satisfy our own. Morally, this is deviance from a set of principles that establishes (or allows us to find) truly humanitarian behavior.
I know you do not believe that homosexuality is an inherent trait, but can you at least concede that some people have inherent same-sex attraction that other people do not have? To many of us, homosexuality or same-sex attraction or whatever it is in us that makes us different than "the norm" is nothing but a benign deviation from the norm that is similar to other instances of human variation.
Same sex attraction is a desire that some people experience, but so is the desire to have sex with children and also the desire to have sex with animals. If same sex attraction is just a benign variation from the norm then so is pedophilia.
Guy For Marriage,
Can you please clarify your question and explain its relevance? You asked "Do you consider it abnormal for a sister to be attracted to her?" Who is the "her" you are referring to? Are you talking about incest?
I'm sincerely not trying to be nit-picky or anything, but your question is very unclear.
Secular Heretic said:
"Same sex attraction is a desire that some people experience, but so is the desire to have sex with children and also the desire to have sex with animals. If same sex attraction is just a benign variation from the norm then so is pedophilia."
Okay. I think the problem with your argument is that you're equivocating the definition of "abnormal." Statistically speaking, all of the sexual behaviors that you mention are abnormal (used in the "variations from the norm" sense). However, according to the norms of professional psychology, only bestiality and pedophilia are "abnormal" (in the pathological sense). See my previous comment to Pearl for further discussion on the distinction between statistical abnormality and pathological abnormality.
However, according to the norms of professional psychology, only bestiality and pedophilia are "abnormal" (in the pathological sense).
Many psychologists disagree. Only a few years back practically all agreed that same sex attraction was a disorder.
Same sex attraction is a disorder just like being sexually attracted to children is a disorder. The primary purpose of sex is to reproduce the next generation. The desire to have sex with someone from the opposite sex helps to bring this about. The union between husband and wife fully reveals the completeness of what humanity is. Humanity is not just man or women, it is both. Sexual intimacy reveals the fullness of humanity. An attempt to join two men or two women together in this way does not reveal anything but a lop sided balance.
On Lawn, I think you brought up probably the most interesting point. My husband and I talked about it for more than an hour this morning and that is the idea that people have a right to choose their lifestyles whether expressing homosexuality, monogamy, polyandry, etc., for whatever reasons they choose, whether it be religion, personal creed or how the stars align....the reason to choose a 1man/1woman lifetime arrangement is for the stability of children and family.
Why do we value voluntary social restraint? For children. That's it.
It's not a hetero vs. homo argument, it's a mono hetero gold standard vs. everything else argument, because history, science and experience show that this is best for children.
You can have all the religious, personal creeds you want, but only the ideal that puts a child's needs before the individual's own sexual desires deserves the support of society.
The topic of the normality or abnormality of homosexual practice is obviously of great interest to many people, but it is important to distinguish this question from the question of whether it is good policy to neuter marriage. Many have brought marriage into this discussion, but I think Pom.Apple has done a good job of bringing up the more salient issues for marriage, the social policy of it. There are many "normal" tendencies for which marriage is not redefined because doing so would be bad policy.
For example, just about everybody is capable of cheating on or abandoning their commitments. That everyone is capable, even tempted, to break commitments makes the tendency "normal." That doesn't mean marriage should be redefined to embrace that "normal" temptation. Eliminating commitment as a component of marriage would leave children abandoned by their mother or their father... or both. That would clearly be bad policy.
That there is no tendency for monogamy would make it "abnormal," but it is good policy nonetheless. Those of us who may not necessarily have the tendency to be monogamous live monogamously anyway when we marry, or in anticipation of marriage. This does not constitute "living a lie," or "being untrue to our nature," even if we may have had the tendency toward multiple partners for as long as we can remember. Rather, this is doing what is best for our families, our society, and hence, our ultimate happiness. That is good policy.
Turning marriage from an inherently procreative union set up for the benefit of the potential children of that union, into a mere adult affectation would similarly be bad social policy. It would likewise be bad to turn marriage from its child centered purpose into some kind of bludgeon to affect public perceptions of one identity group or another. We have institutions for changing public perceptions. We have institutions for adult needs. Marriage is neither of those and there is no reason to abandon it's current purpose to try and make it a me-too to one of these other institutions.
The very survival of our society depends on our ability to pass on what we are to our next generation. It is wise to continue to support marriage as the institution that accomplishes that goal.
thanks everyone here for an awesome discussion.
I said:
"However, according to the norms of professional psychology, only bestiality and pedophilia are "abnormal" (in the pathological sense)."
Secular Heretic said:
"Many psychologists disagree. Only a few years back practically all agreed that same sex attraction was a disorder."
Again, you are missing it. Re-read my statement, I am using the my chosen words very carefully. According to the NORMS of professional psychology, homosexuality is not a pathology. Yes, currently some psychologists, like those who promote "ex-gay" therapy, believe homosexuality to be some sort of disorder. My point is that that idea is certainly not the prevailing norm among professional psychologists today.
Yes, many psychologists used to believe that homosexuality was a disorder, but that is no longer the case. (Although even in the early years of research on sexuality, homosexuality was not universally labeled a pathology. Psychologist Havelock Ellis, for instance, in 1901 argued that homosexuality was inborn and not a disorder). The professional norms have changed. Whether due to new information, less prejudice, or a vast homosexualist conspiracy. ;-)
Secondly, you claim that it was only a "few years back" when "all" psychologists believed homosexuality to be a disorder. Actually, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973, the American Psychological Association in 1975. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of a "few years," but I don't consider 30-some years to be "a few." :-)
Third, for those who suggest that the topic of this conversation is "boring," perhaps they need to be reminded that they are not required to participate in that which they find dull. Personally, I find it fascinating to better understand other people's opinions. And, I gather that those who dedicate their blogs to opposing homosexuality and LGBT rights also do not find the topic to be "boring."
Take care everyone.
Finally, some have compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. This is a common tack.
The commonality between these three is that homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia are statistical variations from the norm (meaning "average"). I wonder if anyone here can offer any other arguments as to how a lifetime, faithful romantic commitment between two women is equivalent to having sex with animals or children?
Or to marriage, for that matter.
Bravo Op-Ed! Excellent question. (Sorry, Fannie, no offense you understand, your questions are necessary for the discussion, but I do so love the brilliant responses from my like-minded friends here).
Perhaps, Fannie, you could just answer Chairm's questions as to how these sexual preferences/orientations can be distinguished from each other?
What distinguishes incest from bestiality and pedophilia, "in the pathological sense"?
What distinguishes incest from homosexuality, "in the pathological sense"?
The comparison is common because it is a valid concern. If we redefine marriage once to accommodate consensuality, what stops us from redefining it again for another deviant, yet consensual, relationship? That seems to be the course of action advocated for in the gay activist bible, After the Ball, which was introduced by Kirk and Madsen, two Harvard graduate homosexual activists, shortly following the 1988 War Conference:
"When you're very different, and people hate you for it, this is what you do: first you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then - when your one little difference is finally accepted - can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first. As the saying goes, allow the camel's nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow."
And Beetle, thanks for reminding us that the reason for all of this marriage defense is to protect the children. It is absolutely true.
That's easy, op-ed. A lifetime faithful romantic commitment between two women is like marriage because, to many (including Andrew Sullivan who I'm stealing this quote from, "the essential meaning of contemporary marriage is a lifetime legal commitment between two unrelated, consenting adults to take responsibility for each other (and their children, if any) and to share their lives and home together."
Since I answered op-ed's one-liner, I certainly hope others will answer my question and clarify how a lifelong, faithful romantic commitment between two women is like having sex with children or animals. I am very interested in the reasoning process that would lead people to believe that.
Pearl, I understand your concern that opening up marriage to same-sex couples will mean that we then will not be able to draw the line anywhere in the future. If you've never read it, I would encourage you to read Andrew Sullivan's piece (that's linked to in my comment here).
Although I don't anticipate that you'll agree with him on much, he does do a good job of explaining how the "rules of marriage have changed beyond recognition in the West over the past few thousand years." For instance, it used to be that slaves could not marry. Yet, when legal marriage was opened up to slaves, it did not then mean that marriage was opened up to everyone. Drawing new lines around who can enter marriage does not mean the abandonment of all lines.
I know you all believe marriage to be something different, but many heterosexuals and many of those who advocate for same-sex marriage believe that marriage is a lifetime legal commitment between two unrelated consenting adults. The line stops there. Using that definition, there is then no reason to allow men to marry turtles or men to marry little boys.
I hope that makes sense.
"Sorry, Fannie, no offense you understand,"
No offense taken, Pearl. I'm not offended that you and your readers believe marriage to be something different than what I believe it to be.
I said...Many psychologists disagree. Only a few years back practically all agreed that same sex attraction was a disorder.
Fannie said...Secondly, you claim that it was only a "few years back" when "all" psychologists believed homosexuality to be a disorder.
You have misquoted me Fannie.
The commonality between these three is that homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia are statistical variations from the norm (meaning "average"). I wonder if anyone here can offer any other arguments as to how a lifetime, faithful romantic commitment between two women is equivalent to having sex with animals or children?
I don't think they are equivalent. They do have something in common though. All are sexual disorders. Non of these desires lead to the fulfillment of the purpose of sex.
Fannie has compared how marriage and two lesbians are alike, but she's completely missed where they differ. As Pom-apple said,
"Why do we value voluntary social restraint? For children. That's it.
"It's not a hetero vs. homo argument, it's a mono hetero gold standard vs. everything else argument, because history, science and experience show that this is best for children.
"You can have all the religious, personal creeds you want, but only the ideal that puts a child's needs before the individual's own sexual desires deserves the support of society."
And I'll re-quote something I wrote from before along those same lines (though Pom-apple put it more succinctly)
"Marriage, is becoming more and more deviant. But what is most disturbing is the notion that the lifestyle of life long care and nurture of your co-creator in having children, as well as those children, is becoming deviant.
"Consider how in the case of Rosie O'Donnell, or ex-Governor McGreevey their choice to marry is in deviation of that marriage ideal. In Rosie O'Donnell's case, she openly puts her sexual bias in front of her kids longing for a father. IN McGreevey's case, it is also his sexual bias that not only keeps him from taking part as a functional family unit, but motivates and is called on for justification to remove their children from the mother's attention and affection.
"In our world everything has a cost. And if nothing else steps forward to pay that cost, then the payment is in the burning want of something. And whether you call it deviant or normal, these children are in want because their care-givers are putting their own sexual bias in front of the children's needs.
"As our adult needs of sexual bias (be it promiscuity, homosexuality, or simply the need to have a sexually active or attractive relationship) will cost us our dearest treasure. Our functional and in-tact family kinship, our kin altruism.
"Marriage is not against those exercises of free will, but it is not compatible with them either. Nor is our society's dissemination of love, understanding, and self-esteem as capable to meet children's needs if marriage as an institution is made subservient to these biases."
Andrew Sullivan, and virtually every neutered marriage advocate, miss entirely how marriage is something more. Something that is so ingrained in our human capacity and operation that we use words like "purpose" and "design". Something which is our gift to future generations. They miss that their ideals do come in conflict with marriage ideals.
They have many good ingredients for a relationship that are noble, but they miss out on how marriage is something more.
"how a lifetime, faithful romantic commitment between two women is equivalent to having sex with animals or children?"
Even a relationship between two monogamous women is not on the same playing field as a family. Families offer children the opportunity to have a mom and a dad. Lesbian relationships create fatherless children, and abuse the rights of children to have both genders by their very nature.
Children have a right to a mom and a dad.
Fannie: A lifetime faithful romantic commitment between two women is like marriage because, to many...the essential meaning of contemporary marriage is...
"To many," the world is flat. That doesn't mean we should change our shipping lanes to keep the boats from falling off.
The "to many" appeal is merely an excuse for an argument. It is not an argument itself. It concedes that one's beliefs are not based on reason because no reason is given. Instead, the only reason offered is because someone might agree with them. It is equivalent to answering Fannie's question by saying "to many," "a lifetime, faithful romantic commitment between two women is equivalent to having sex with animals or children."
...the essential meaning of contemporary marriage is a lifetime legal commitment between two unrelated, consenting adults to take responsibility for each other (and their children, if any) and to share their lives and home together.
And why does government need to get involved in that? Consenting adults are perfectly capable of looking after their own interests.
I don't doubt that you can define down marriage until it includes who you want it to and excludes who you want it to. Your problem comes in creating a dumbed down definition that still warrants special government recognition. There is nothing in your dumbed down definition of marriage that cannot be handled by private contracts already.
Fannie, assuming consent, what distinguishes incest from homosexuality, in a pathological sense?
And what distinguishes incest from bestiality and pedophilia, again assuming consent of the human beings involved?
And, no, you may not hide behind a legal argument since you raised the distinction entirely within "a pathological sense".
Chairm has asked multiple times the difference, pathologically, between homosexuality and incest. (I do assume here that you are referring to incest between two consenting adults, and not between say, a parent and a child). That's a really broad question and I really don't think one-liner soundbites can do the answer the justice it deserves.
To understand pathology, it is essential to understand social taboos and norms. Social taboos surrounding homosexuality and incest have arisen for very different psychological and sociological reasons. The taboo against incest, for instance, is largely believed to have arisen in order to promote alliances with outside groups. The taboo against homosexuality, to be very general, arose as some sort of biblical "crime against nature."
Another distinction is that unlike incestuous behavior between two consenting adults, homosexuality is an orientation. While having sex with someone of the same sex and having sex with a related person are sexual behaviors that deviate from the norm of having sex with unrelated opposite-sex persons, we don't say that people have "an incestuous orientation." In actuality, for whatever reasons, incest between two consenting adults is very rare. And I would be highly interested to hear if anyone has heard of adults who claim to only be sexually attracted to adults that they are related to. Most often, incest is committed by male adults on unconsenting female children. In the case of these individuals, they probably suffer from pedophilia as defined by the DSM-IV. Unlike such incestuous pedophiles, gay people are not pathological under the current norms of professional psychology.
That's really all I have time for at the moment. Yet, that being said Chairm, you would receive a warmer reception and a more detailed response from me if you showed more of a willingness to answer question my friends and I have put forth to you in the recent past. If you would like me to remind you what those questions are, let me know.
And to anyone, what do you believe distinguishes homosexuality from incest, bestiality, and pedophilia?
Secular Heretic. You're right, you didn't say "all" psychologists used to believe SSA was a disorder, you said "practically all" of them did. My mistake. Although, I do wonder if you still believe 30 years to be "a few." ;-)
[I deleted my comment from 3:36, because it contained a significant typo. To avoid confusion, I am re-posting my corrected comment]
When I began commenting in this thread, I intended the scope of my comments to encompass the question of the normality/abnormality of homosexuality and to clarify the issue regarding the ban on gay male blood donors. I see that the conversation has strayed from those topics onto the more specific topic of marriage. Further, as I am quite outnumbered here and many questions/responses have been posed, I'm sure you will understand that I cannot get to them all. Especially at the beginning of a busy work week.
As I don't expect to change anyone's mind on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, I'd like to leave this conversation for perhaps another day. Instead, I would like to clarify op-ed's erroneous statement regarding the ability to same-sex couples to contract for the benefits of marriage.
Actually, there are many protections and benefits that go along with the legal status of marriage that same-sex couples cannot contract for. Social security survivors benefits, for instance, is one. The right to a green card marriage for immigration purposes, is another. Same-sex couples cannot "contract" to jointly file their federal taxes, is another example. Even if you do not support calling it "marriage," I do know that some of you would at least agree that same-sex couples deserve these tangible benefits and protections that cannot be encompassed in contract law. If you do not agree, then I wonder why.
Unfortunately, in a comment yesterday, I see that one of Pearl's readers said "I don't have any positive associations regarding these people (as a group in general)..." Now, I would be interested in an articulation of who exactly "these people" refers to, but as a lesbian it's difficult not to feel frightened by such a broad de-humanizing statement. I sense that some of you are frightened by what you perceive as an epidemic of rampant anger among LGBT rights activists, but as someone who is not violent I'd just like to put it out there that it's frightening when you paint us all with the same broad brush. I see you cherry-picking activists who are angry, and discounting those who condemn violence and displays of anger.
The Join the Impact movement, for instance, is probably the largest grassroots advocacy group for the LGBT community. It sprung up as a direct result of Proposition 8 and its mission statement specifically says:
"JoinTheImpact, as an entity, will not encourage divisiveness, violence, or disrespect of others and we do not approve of this."
Are you not aware that this organization exists? This non-violent movement is sweeping the nation and many LGBT people are a part of it. Why do you only focus on those who are violent? What if I focused on those on your side who were violent, and made the generalization that most of you here were violent? What if I looked at the 4 men who recently gang-raped a lesbian woman in California, and said that because of this violent assault I have no positive association of men or of heterosexuals? Many of you are making the exact same types of generalizations. Anger and violence are not "homosexual" problems. They are human problems.
Anyway, because you hold erroneous views of what you believe most "homosexuals" are like, it is not surprising to me that you do not see our shared human need to care for and protect our families. Because yes, we have families too. Even if you would not call our families by the same name as yours.
Ah, Fannie. I had a sparklingly, brilliant comment (at least I thought it was), in response to this revised comment of yours. And, of course, when I hit "post comment," it disappeared. Grrr.... So, I will try again once the kiddos are in bed for the evening.
In the span of all of history--30 years is a pretty teeny slice.
I would like to clarify Fannie's erroneous statement:
Fannie: I would like to clarify op-ed's erroneous statement regarding the ability to [sic] same-sex couples to contract for the benefits of marriage.
I never said any such thing. Mine is not the first post in this thread Fannie has misread. In fact, what I said is that the relationship Fannie described, which is not marriage but rather a simple association between adults, could be accommodated with just private contracts.
"There is nothing in your dumbed down definition of marriage that cannot be handled by private contracts already."
Fannie: ...there are many protections and benefits that go along with the legal status of marriage that same-sex couples cannot contract for.
Which is as it should be. There is no reason to treat one relationship based on the needs of another. Or put another way, an individual who chooses not to enter into a given relationship has every right not to be treated as if they had.
Actually op-ed, I didn't misread your statement at all. I believe we have, unfortunately, talked past one another. The relationship I described is that of a same-sex relationship (and many heterosexual marriages), and there is a lot in that "dumbed down definition" that cannot be handled by private contracts, contrary to your claim.
Further you say:
"There is no reason to treat one relationship based on the needs of another. Or put another way, an individual who chooses not to enter into a given relationship has every right not to be treated as if they had."
Actually, there are many reasons to, not the least of which is that under equal protection principles, similarly-situated persons are entitled to equal rights under the law. That being said, I don't expect you to agree with me that gays and lesbians in same-sex relationships are similar enough to heteros in marriages to enable them to receive the benefits of marriage. So you can spare me that one. Secondly, as didactic pairs, same-sex relationships and heterosexual marriages have many common needs, legally and financially. It's just not accurate to say "there is NO REASON to treat one relationships based on the needs of another" [emphasis added] when there are so many commonalities.
Pearl,
It's interesting that you call the collective LGBT response to disappointment "over-the-top inappropriate." I attended several Prop 8 rallies, none of which were remotely violent and I have supported the large, peaceful grassroots Join the Impact movement. So, based on my tangible experience, I do not share your opinion at all. In fact, from my perspective, the response that many of you have taken in labeling the community that I am a part of in mob-like terms is so exaggerated that it's almost amusing.
Anyway, as a fellow lover of books, I'd like to recommend John D'Emilio's book Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities. I have hunch that this book, written by an actual historian, will give you a more accurate history of the LGBT movement than the The Marketing of Evil. Personally, I will be picking up a copy of the The Marketing of Evil if my library carries it. So thanks for bringing my attention to it.
Thanks for the hospitality here. Perhaps I'll comment on another one of your posts in the future. Take care.
Hi Fannie,
I hope you've had a lovely day. Thank you for sharing your perspective on the protests you attended. I am glad that JointheImpact saw fit to reel in the early, post-Prop 8, frenzied protesters under a banner of civility.
I find your barely veiled contempt for David Kupelian's journalism background interesting. After all, who's to say that "an actual historian" would be more of an expert on marketing and public relations strategies than a journalist? I suppose if he did his research he could be, but then, under those qualifications, so too could a journalist be.
Your comments are always welcome and appreciated. This has been an excellent discussion and I sincerely hope you will also be well.
Peace and blessings,
Pearl
Fannie: there is a lot in that "dumbed down definition" that cannot be handled by private contracts, contrary to your claim.
That may be true, but you failed to point to any. All you did is point out differences between marriage and private contracts. I am not arguing those things are, or should be, the same.
Fannie: ...I don't expect you to agree with me that gays and lesbians in same-sex relationships are similar enough to heteros in marriages to enable them to receive the benefits of marriage.
I'm sure I would feel the same way if I thought procreation was unimportant and facile.
Procreation is not unimportant. On the contrary, it has profound impacts on all of society and to the couple involved. And it is not facile, but rather presenting unique challenges to all of society and particularly the couple involved. Society has no reason to treat any non-marital arrangement like marriage, and no reason to treat any marriage like non-marriage.
Fannie: It's interesting that you call the collective LGBT response to disappointment "over-the-top inappropriate." I attended several Prop 8 rallies, none of which were remotely violent...
Which does not say that there weren't violent "over-the-top inappropriate" rallies. What is truly interesting is that you don't express any disappointment at those.
Sorry everyone. I was skiing this weekend. Fresh powder is irresistible to me. My question was also asked by Op-Ed. I think.
If a sister is attracted to her brother, is it wrong for anyone to prevent them from being married.
I think this was pretty well covered. Enjoyed reading through all the comments.
Thanks, Pearl-Lady.
op-ed said:
"Which does not say that there weren't violent 'over-the-top inappropriate' rallies. What is truly interesting is that you don't express any disappointment at those."
I wanted to end my participation in this thread on the more positive note above with Pearl, and to avoid personal character trials. I have appreciated the discussion here when it has been focused on substantive issues.
Yet, due to op-ed's parting statement, I see that I need to say aloud what I take for granted in other people: I am disappointed whenever people use violence. Based on accounts that I have read and my own attendance at rallies, I think that reports of violence among LGBT activists have been greatly exaggerated. Yet, I am nonetheless disappointed that some LGBT rights activists have engaged in violence.
The thing is, I tend to assume that most people already know that violence is wrong. I would agree that non-violence is a shared value among most Americans, gay or straight. So, unless a person expressly condones an act of violence, I try not to assume or insinuate that he or she approve of it.
For instance, in one of my previous comments, I mentioned the gang-rape of a lesbian woman in California that occurred after Prop 8 passed. Not a single one of the commenters here explicitly condemned this act of violence or even expressed disappointment that it happened. Yet, working from my assumption that most people know that violence and rape are wrong and disapprove of such things, I didn't find it "interesting" that you failed to express disappointment. Unless I hear differently, I have been working from the assumption that you all know that the rape of a woman is wrong, even if she is a lesbian.
In the future, I would appreciate if someone just outright asked me how I felt about something rather than make insinuations or vaguely note that my silence on an issue is "truly interesting."
Take care everyone.
Fannie, those are fine sentiments and a good assumption.
But have you not asserted that you "understand" the angry protests of the anti-8 side?
It is not just about the violence, the threats of violence, but also about the reprisals and the villification. It is also about the hostility toward the amending process itself. It is also about the way that the anti-8 side openly used inflammatory rhetoric -- calling opponents "bigots" is not peaceful when screamed in faces, chanted in front of churches, and routinely excused by the leaders of the protests -- grassroot and official.
Do you "understand" their angry, because you share it? I would expect so.
I do, but not in a sympathetic way for the anger is unjustified. It is merely an outburst of aggression and, yes, prejudice and intolerance. No excuse for it. None.
* * *
If you want to show that you are capable of comparing apples to apples, then, consider the response of marriage defenders to the following:
1. The legislative expansion of domestic partnership into a localized merger with marriage -- against the man-woman criterion approved by 60% of the electorate in a statory enactment.
2. The attempt of legislators to over-ride the electorate's constitutional authority re that same statute.
3. The AG's weak argument in court -- abandoning the strong argument that won in other states.
4. The judiciary's imposition of the merger of DP and Marriage and its elision of the actual disagreement.
5. The impositoin of gay identity politics into the state's constitutional jurisprudence.
6. The judiciary's failure to wait for the outcome of the pending vote on the marriage amendment.
6. The anti-8 side's disparagement of the amending process as "mob rule".
7. The AG's current argument against the constitution of California.
8. The Governor's abandonment of the state constitution.
9. The anti-8 side's court case against a fair election result.
You may claim to have witnessed only peaceful protests, and your experience may be valid, however, the inflammatory rhetoric was an incitement to violence in the dozen or so large protests that I witnessed. Perhaps we can exchange videos and photos. I can point to a very prominent pro-SSM blogger who declared open war on the Mormon Church.
Like it or not, if your campaign seeks to villify those who dsisagree by labelling them "bigots", that incites violent reactions to fair votes.
The incident at El Coyote was an outright reprisal against someone for having participated in the marriage amendment campaign -- just as anti-8ers has participated. Yet there is no comparable blacklist targetting reprisals against vulnerable individual anti-8ers.
The aftermath has become poisonous precisely because the core of SSM argumentation, and its pro-SSM campaign, is identity politics fueled by the emotivism -- a deliberate attempt to rile people up based on false equivalencies -- and not based on reason, fair discussion, and peaceful resolution of contentious issues.
The vote was peaceful. The anti-8 protest, not so much.
Fannie: Not a single one of the commenters here explicitly condemned this act of violence or even expressed disappointment that it happened.
True. Then again, not a single commenter here tried to describe the rape as an expression of "disappointment" or found it "interesting" that you found it "over-the-top inappropriate."
Post a Comment