Mantus

Adysav

There is no “next”. You cannot refute the validity of a statement by attacking the motives of the individuals who made it.

I'll second that. Can we leave it at that?

wilbjammin

How so?

What are you talking about?

Ah, I see, all of your talk about incest and defects is totally moot to the subject of homosexuality. Well, to give you my opinion about incest, I think that there are several reasons to abhor it. The increased chance of genetic disorders is part of it, but I do see it as more of a sociological problem. When people are unable or unwilling to leave the comfort of their own genetic lines that indicates a social deficiency. Incest is particularly disturbing in many cases because there seems to be one person who has a major power advantage over the other that is abusive. I think that anti-incest laws/taboos are meant to protect society from defective offspring and from developing a sort of inverted social system.

The nature of social contracts is that there is going to be a tension between minorities and the majority. I can't imagine there being many minorities much smaller than the incestuous portion of society. I have noticed that society has become more accepting of homosexuality and other "alternative" lifestyles and I have heard some speak of incest that it will be one of the next taboos to fall. I doubt it will soon, but I really don't know for the future. I think that there are lots of disadvantages to growing up to an incestuous couple, but there also are for lots of other people born into great disadvantage (like poverty). Ultimately, I don't think it should be my decision for who should and shouldn't get married or have kids. But - as I outlined in my hypothetical circumstances for how to ensure couples of incest don't have children (per your contraception clause) - I think people will have great difficulty giving up the structure that prevents incest from being acceptable and the possibility of incestuous couples having children.

I find it difficult to look at social issues as "right" or "wrong" but as what can be done legislatively about the situation given the social climate. I don't know if there's much that can be done for the social acceptance for incest, or if there should be much done for it. At least, personally, I won't champion it and I'm content with any anti-incest legislation on the books.

__________________
Innominate.

adysav

Then you clearly don't understand my point. If you don't understand what I'm getting at by now, just stop replying to my posts. The attempts to permeate your skull with reason have failed and I don't really think I can be bothered any more.
How kind, but I asked for clarification, not repetition.
I was merely reiterating what other people had said. What people are coming out with is simply:
"All consenting adults should be allowed to marry, except incestuous ones, for some reasons which you would never even consider applying to other couples."
In short that's discrimination. I thought this whole debate was about removing the discrimination from marriage.
If you don't understand why promoting hearsay as fact is dishonest, then there is nothing I can say here that will help.

wilbjammin

Ah, well, I'm not being intellectually dishonest because I'm not saying that it is a fact that everyone thinks that incest causes genetic deformities. I'm saying that I'm under the impression that most people think that incest cause genetic deformities. My claim is that in my observations, the majority of people that I've seen that make comments about incest do it in conjuntion with comments about genetic deformities. My claim is about the observed public opinion that I've seen.

I even asked you: "Do you really think that most people don't think that incest contributes to the possibility of there being birth defects?" If you don't think so, then it would have been helpful to respond so that I could know where you are coming from.

__________________
Innominate.

adysav

I never said most people didn't. I believe most people do think that. I think that incestuous couples produce for defective couples than other couples. The reason I believe this however, is because studies have been undertaken to assess it, I do not believe it purely on the grounds of public opinion.

wilbjammin

I'm making points about public opinion, not that I'm right because others opinions agree with mine. Laws and taboos are based on what people think and feel regardless of whether it is true or not, and I think that is more at issue here than anything.

__________________
Innominate.

adysav

Then why didnt you just post the suggestion that a referendum would solve the problem?

filtherton

Oh, don't let me bother you.

I don't mean to keep repeating you, but i would imagine that i could say the same thing to you just as accurately.

I know what you're trying to say, and i don't find it particularly compelling for reasons that i have already explained to you.

In a thread about homosexuality you are arguing about whether one can succesfully argue for gay marriage based on the idea that all loving couples should be allowed to marry and not argue for incest. It's an argument at least an order away from the issue at hand. It isn't particularly important because even if your incest gambit negated the idea that all loving couples should be allowed to marry there still are compelling reasons to allow gay marriage. You aren't destroying the lynchpin of the pro-gay marriage argument. You're grasping at straw.

adysav

It's hardly far off the argument. It's a situation which is in essence the same as the homosexual one, at least within the arguments previously given. I can't help it if people aren't specific enough.

Well why didn't you say that in the first place. Anyway, let's hear the reasons.

filtherton

They're all back on page one and two. I want to hear some compelling reasons against legal recognition of gay marriage.

adysav

If there was a world beating reason on page 2, why are we on page 4?
From what I can gather the arguments on the first two pages weren't particularly well received.

filtherton

Everyone was distracted by incest.

Let me sum it up, though. There is no good reason not to allow gays to marry.

FoolThemAll

Just to reiterate, with the help of a Mantus quote here:

Adysav is arguing that the reason above for disallowing incestuous marriages is not a good reason. Or not good enough, at any rate. That seems to be where the argument stands right now.

Although I have a question for adysav, for clarification: are you against allowing homosexual or incestual marriages?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

wilbjammin

Because I don't think that it would solve the problem due to the likelihood that people wouldn't agree to it if it was placed on a ballot. Additionally, I don't think that there is enough will anywhere to get enough signatures to get it on a ballot, to get any legislator to bring it to Congress, or even to get money to pay lobbyists to advocate for incest rights. Just imagine the way CNN, FOXNews, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. would destroy the political career of a Congressperson who advocates for making incest legal.

__________________
Innominate.

wilbjammin

On further thought, from my last response, I'd like to add that since there are so many more homosexuals that are becoming open in our society, more exposure to homosexuals in the media, famous people who are gay, and more social connections between homosexuals and straight people (compared to connections between incestuous families and everyone else) that homosexuals have a much greater chance to make it into the political agenda and have a political voice. Of course, the attempts of homosexuals to get political rights is very much reminiscent of the social movements in the 1960s with the backlashes that are occurring today. Since there are so many homosexuals and homosexual advocates today, the concept of a movement is viable. The arguments against homosexuality do not include things like having a larger tax on society for having to take care of children who have deformities and such. When asked: "how does allowing gays to get married affect me personally?" I don't think there is much that anyone can say personally against it.

I do not see the same kinds of variables for incest, and I doubt that this will change any time soon.

__________________
Innominate.

Mantus

Adysav,

Your summary is a very warped view of the posts found on this thread. It is YOU who claims that these two issues are related. I would like you to take more then a few seconds to write a brisk reply but actually explain your stand, explain your argument and prove your point.

In order for the two topics to be related they need to share a common ground. Same-sex marriage does not share the same issues as incest and the arguments advocating same-sex marriage do not dislodge any of the arguments against incest.

There is nothing negative about same-sex marriage that should force us to take away that right from same-sex couples.

There are negative aspects to incest. Once the arguments concerning incest’s are proven false, then and only then, will incest share a common ground with same-sex marriage. But I am just repeating myself now…

The “equality” angle just doest work. We can’t let people do whatever they want. If an action harms the individual, other people or society then it should not be legal. Only when the issues surrounding incest are dispelled can the “equality” card be played.

gondath

This thread is not really about gay marriage at all. It's interesting how some people are hell bent on pushing their political agenda onto this discussion. If you want to have a realistic debate here, then get back to the topic at hand. The same reasons people are against incest are the same reason people are against homosexuality in general: they find it distasteful and that is that. The rationalizing tends to come after the base desire to judge a particular behavior. This applies whether you are for or against a sociological issue.

hazendcry

Regarding the original question of whether homosexuality is immoral or not, I claim that it is not. Morality involves choice. I do not believe that homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex. Therefore, homsexuality cannot be judged in a moral context.

Regarding the political question of whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, I am still unsure.

__________________
The past is not dead. In fact, it is not even past. - W. Faulkner

mo42

Alright, here's a brand new argument for anti-gay marriage: I wish to have grandchildren. I want my genetic material passed on, to have a nice big extended family, and I want that as likely as possible to happen.

Now, given that homosexual couples cannot have children on their own, if one of my children were to be a homosexual, I would not get any grandchildren from that child. (on a side note, I wouldn't disown a homosexual child or anything, but I *would* prefer that they were heterosexual).

I know that not all homosexuals are born that way. Sure, I bet at least some are, but some also aren't. Case in point: my girlfriend has several aunts. Two of them are identical twins. One of these twins is happily married and has three kids, and occasionally flirts with other men (jokingly, of course). The other twin is a lesbian, who usually brings whichever woman she is dating at the moment to family gatherings. So not all homosexuality is genetic or hormones in the womb or whatever.

This implies that social and environmental factors can affect sexual orientation. I feel that one of these factors would be gay marriage. It would be a sign that homosexuality is perfectly equal to heterosexuality in every way, and I could definitely see a lot of written material about that tossed into the school system. Books about how Bobby doesn't like Cindy and so he marries Michael instead, or how Prince Charming didn't like any of the girls at the mall and so he marries Prince Dashing instead. This would be at an age where the opposite sex still has cooties and the idea of marrying your best friend might seem like a good idea. (btw, that Prince + Prince book was already written, and put in an elementary school, until the school realized what they had and then removed it from their collection)

So I think that gay marriage will promote homosexuality (or remove a negative social stigma from it, same effect) and thus lower my chances of having grandchildren.

I think this is more of a personal argument, rather than a legally defendable one, but it is one reason why I oppose gay marriage which has not yet been brought up.

wilbjammin

Which is why it is really easy to argue against. Rather than wanting the most fulfilling lives for your children you'd rather have them adopt the sexuality of your choice for your benefit. That is very selfish, and definitely not legally defendable.

The questions that go along with this are - why is it so important for your children to have children? Why do you think that accepting homosexuality will greatly, significantly, or even minutely decrease your chance of having grandchildren? Does removing a stigma truly increase the chances that someone will be gay - or just openly gay? Is it not true that gay couples can have children (with help from others), and, in fact, it would be easier for gay couples to have this kind of help in a society that supports them?

There are many reasons that people have or do not have children, if I have children I will not be upset if they choose to not have children of their own. In fact, there are so many children out there who have no parents of their own, I see adoption as one of the most noble and necessary options out there and if my children chose adoption I would be proud of them.

__________________
Innominate.

mo42

No no, you misunderstand. If my children are gay, it would be better to be openly gay, but I would rather not have my children who would be otherwise straight altered to be homosexual by environmental or social influences. Furthermore, I would think it would be more fulfilling to have children of your own seed than adopting. I'd prefer it if my children were Christians, too. And I'd prefer if they weren't socially maladjusted rapists, regardless of whether that would be satisfying to them.

The desire to pass on one's genetic code is an intrinsic feature in all organisms; it's the reason why we have sex drives. I think I have good genes. Intelligence, creativity, and above average physical fitness run in my family, and I would like more intelligent, creative, healthy people around.

I feel that gay marriage will, as my post stated, be a social factor encouraging homosexuality, and thus make it more likely (probably only slightly, I doubt there would be a change of more than 5% or so) that my children will not be of a sexual orientation where they can procreate with their spouse.

As for removing the stigma increasing the chances of homosexuality vs open homosexuality, unfortunately no data will be available, because as far as I am aware, there were no good scientific surveys taken with options to put down "openly gay, closet gay, openly bisexual, closet bisexual...".

It does become possible for gay couples to have children with the aid of others, but not with their partner. This would be costlier and more difficult to do than having children the natural way, however, and only half the kids would end up as my genetic grandchildren if they split them that way.

Gay marriage would be more than the removal of a stigma; it would be a watershed ruling on homosexuality as a whole. Books like the ones I mentioned earlier would be forced into the school system in an effort to encourage equality, just as books containing messages which I approve of, such as gender and racial equality, have been. I am sure that other media would also begin to spout pro-homosexual messages, such as TV specials.

Your last point on how there are many children with no parents in need of adoption is not a good one, however, at least in America. The waiting lists for adopting children are quite long. There are more would-be parents than healthy adoptable children at this point.



I also found a source a while back stating that 10% of children raised by homosexual couples became homosexuals (which, as the site claimed is consistent with average for the Kensey(sp?) study, which has since been found to be a biased study) compared with the average found on nearly every other population study of 3-4%. This is more of an aside in the current argument, but it does back up the post made by Halx a while back.

adysav

This is very interesting, but I'm not surprised noone has responded to it.
I will admit that I don't like homosexuality or incest and marriage as such, but I believe that equal rights are a good thing, so I'm for both.
We aren't talking about whether it would be made legal, but whether it should on the ground of equal rights.
gondath seems to have the point.
The definition of marriage people were using in order to bring homosexual union within it's boundaries does not exclude incestuous couples.
Basically "loving consenting adults". If you include one and not the other it is just a judgement based on your personal tastes.
Please point out to me which of the following are exclusive to incest/polygamy (I'm including polygamy as FoolThemAll raised it again).

• Weak relationship
• Complicated custody/inheritance/divorce settlements
• Birth defects
• Abuse within a relationship

wilbjammin

How can we talk about whether something should be made legal if we don't look at all of the consequences of trying to do so? Just like how in any revolution the who lead the revolutions have to ask themselves if the violence and disorder is worth going through for a cause. Or like how our Social Security system is having serious troubles sustaining itself, but politicians are doing what they can to keep from changing it significantly because so many people are depending on it and expecting it.

Many things should be done for equal rights and consistency theoretically, but remembering that the rights you are speaking of only exist as state-sponsered rights that are freedoms-from because legislation has passed there is more to consider than "yes/no" questions. I don't want the best politicians out there that are fighting hard for my rights, the rights of the poor, education, etc. to lose their legitimacy by trying to pass controversial legislation that there isn't a will to pass. Should politicians try to make incest legal on the grounds of equal rights? No, because that is political suicide.

Do you care enough about incest rights to forego the ability of politicians to advocate for other things that are important to you and your vision of society?

__________________
Innominate.

adysav

Your argument against it has basically come down to "it would be a pain to have it legalised". Does this mean you support it in principle?

It's a good job people didn't take the same stance on black rights, women's rights and the human rights issues during WWII.

wilbjammin

You intentionally misquote me but not quoting what I actually said, and then compare me to someone who was complicit during the Holocaust. Nice rhetorical trick, very intellectually honest.

As I said earlier, there is no will to legalize incest. To champion that issue would be political suicide and is not going to accomplish anything. I'm not saying that it would simply be a "pain" to have it legalized. I'm saying that it won't get legalized at this point, even if a few champions of it emerge in Congress.

Additionally, as I also wrote earlier, this issue does not carry the same weight as other social movements in the past (which, particularly, is why it can't get the political backing for change).

__________________
Innominate.

mo42

I think that much of the confusion of this thread can be alleviated by the pro-gay marriage side listing their points as to why the definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex partners. A proper argument on the side of why gay marriage should be legalized would make it far easier to make points/counterpoints.

FoolThemAll

You missed his point. Regardless of how difficult (or impossible) it would be to legalize incest, regardless of whether this is the ideal time to make an attempt, is legalizing incest a desirable action? Would you support its legalization if such advocacy wasn't political suicide?

But it'd be equally useful for you to list reasons why the definition should not be changed. And if you can't come up with a solid reason, then it matters little how weak the pro-gay marriage points are. You listed an interesting one, gay marriage increasing homosexuality. Assuming for a moment that your anecdotal evidence was sufficient, and assuming that homosexuality is immoral in some way, here is my response: mere negative influence is not a sufficient reason to disallow something. KKK leaflets shouldn't be illegal, nor should condoms (to use an example outside of free speech), despite my belief that the presence of either in society carrys a negative influence.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Mantus

Mo42,

Finally an argument that gets at the heart of the matter, very nice.

I too think (based purely on observation) that homosexuality is as much a due to nurture as it’s due to nature. Making homosexuality culturally acceptable will push the people who would normally suppress their natural tendencies and force themselves into pursuing heterosexual relationships.

Yet this is not necessarily a bad thing. I think that making homosexuality socially acceptable makes people happy because it allows them to live the lives they want to live without being shamed into doing something they don’t want too.

Procreation of genes is certainly a part of every living thing, yet we cannot force this on other people. There are other situations besides homosexuality where people choose not to have children and it would be wrong to steer people away from these paths.

So as Wilbjammin mentioned your (and most likely everyone’s) hope of having grandchildren is in conflict with the happiness of the individual. I just think it’s too weak of a case to stand up against making homosexuality socially acceptable; the margins of loss are too small. Sure it would be nice for our sons/daughters to have our grandchildren but that is their decision to make.



Adysav,

[sarcasm]…thanks, that is exactly what I mean by an “explanation of your augment that takes more then a few seconds to write”. [/sarcasm]

I get it (at least I hope that I do). You think same-sex marriage argument will also make incestuous marriages lawful. You claim that the “loving consenting adults” argument will do this. I claim it will not because even though incestuous couples may be “loving and consenting adults” there are still other problems with their relationship that must be eliminated - problems that same-sex marriages do no share. No once again can you PLEASE put some effort into actually explaining your argument and proving your point. I ask this because every time I reply to one of your posts I always have to guess at exatly what you are trying to prove.

As I already mentioned, it is believed that there are higher chances of these problems occurring within incestuous and/or polygamous relationships. That would the base of the lawful argument against them. It is these arguments that separate these issues and same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages do not suffer from problems of being weak relationships, complicated custody/inheritance/divorce settlements, birth defects or abuse within the relationship any more then normal heterosexual marriages.

mo42

The thing is though, it's currently illegal, and there should be reasons to change it if we will. I mean, we could just abolish income tax and implement a nationwide sales tax and make the same amount of money, but we should probably come up with a good reason to change it rather than just do it.

FoolThemAll

I see what you mean. Here's one for starters, others can chime in or reiterate reasons to change already stated:

Legalizing gay marriage will increase the number of stable, permanent two-parent households receptive to adopting children currently in foster care.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

chickentribs

Civil Rights. Our federal government is based on equal rights and liberties for all without regard to race, religion, gender, and, for now, sexual orientation. That principle must be upheld. When we start to legalize discrimination against any group, where do we go from there? From a purely pollitical point of view it is ridiculous that this is even being tossed about.

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

mo42

Now, how are homosexuals being discriminated against? They can still marry, no one is preventing them from doing so. They do wish to marry outside of the current legal bounds of marraige, however.

The number of stable, permanent two-parent households receptive to adopting children is currently greater than the number of children in foster care, as demonstrated by the long, long waiting lists for adoption. Perhaps this argument would carry more weight in India, but not in the United States.

filtherton

Is seperate now equal? Marriage is a religious word and recognizing only a specific religion's definition of the word is a violation of the first amendment.

So is the, "Legal gay marriage will mean more gay people" argument the only thing the antigay marriage side can come up with, because that's only half an argument. I sympathize with your desire to have grandchildren, but i were you i'd be more concerned about polution control regulations than whether you're kids are going to go gay. I think you're reaching here. Even if legalized gay marriage increased the number of gay folks by any reasonable amount you're hard pressed to support the assertion that that would be a bad thing.

Adysav, i'm still waiting for your good reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

chickentribs

Well, I guess there is still one or two states they can go to and get married, assumming the constitutional ammendmant fizzles - it will. But having laws on the books that seperate ANY specific group of people, let alone a protected class, and using said laws to treat them in a way that is different (not better or worse, just different) than the rest of the country, that is discrimination.

Our forefathers were smart enough to know that tradition wouldn't be sufficient argument for laws as our country grew and evolved. Why are people having a hard time with that today?

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

mo42

Ah, now here you might have me. If certain religions begin recognizing gay marraiges, there might not be a whole lot I can say. But so far, the gay marriages that I have been aware of (eg San Francisco, although those were later voided) were state-sponsored, not church-sponsored. So that argument doesn't fly... yet.

filtherton

Any church that defines itself as "open and affirming" accepts gays and most likely performs gay marriages.

adysav

Filtherton, if you really were reading my posts you'd notice I'm for homosexual marriage... but since you insist.

Children of same-sex couples will fall into one of two categories, foster children or surrogate children.

Surrogate: Issues may arise with the biological parent who is outside the marriage. The non-biological parent in the marriage may feel resentment and less attachment to the child, similar to a step-parent. Either way, there are biological ties overlapping the marriage with potential for abuse or conflict.

Foster:
Children died as a result of abuse in foster care 5.25 times more often than children in the general population.
Source

In either case you could argue that there is no maternal instinct within a gay couple. Traditional custody settlements have usually ended with the mother gaining custody because she is more capable of caring for a child, unless she is proved unfit.


Mantus, I did write a lengthy reply, then my browser hung and I lost it all. If I can be bothered I'll rewrite it in a bit.

filtherton

I know, but you seemed to imply that you wanted to argue against it.

Well, these are more arguments against surrogate and foster parenthood than gay marriage.


You could argue, but you'd be fooling yourself if you thought that men are less capable of raising functional children. Tradition is not in and of itself a justification for anything. I would argue that traditional custody settlements are full of shit, for the same reasons that the traditional idea that men are incapable of raising children effectively are full of shit.

adysav

And your arguments against incest were more against people with genetic disorders than incestuous couples.
They are still valid arguments against same-sex couples because they must be one or the other.

It isn't, but the tradition is based on the fact that women are biologically better equipped, physically and mentally, to raise children.

filtherton

I never argued against incest, i just argued that it was irrelevant. Like i said before, i believe in consenting adults.


That is hardly a fact. Any more than the "fact" that women are less able to handle themselves in a business environment, or any of the other vaguely sexist "facts" that most of the twentieth century based its traditions on.