This month’s podcast somewhat accompanies this post.
It’s been a long time coming: my response to the HP’s second argument in our series of blogger debates. For those of you new to the blog, the blogger debates between Hispanic Pundit and I evolved out of last year’s election. While I saw many progressives talking of either migrating north or “strengthening the base,” there seemed to be very little effort of reaching across the aisle to understand the other side.
Or maybe better put, of transcending the entire notion of two sides and an aisle and getting to the meaty heart of the issues rather than the sound bite rhetoric of left versus right. For that reason, I asked HP if he’d be kind enough to take part in a series of debates about real issues that seem to divide the country in a manner that doesn’t fall back on stereotypes and “my side versus your side” generalizations.
I can’t say we’ve been successful in staying away from those sorts of generalizations, but I do believe we have so far done in important service (at least to ourselves) in better understanding positions we disagree with and the roots of those positions. If you are interested in reading the debate HP and I already had over abortion you can read both his side and my own. (comment on those posts are still open)
When introducing his argument on why unborn fetuses deserve the same legal protection as born babies, HP brought up the civil rights movement and extending legal protection to those previously thought unfit. In fact, I will go a step further and say previously thought biologically unfit. That is, it was assumed a black man or woman was not deserving of the same legal protection and “privileges” of a white man or woman because they were biologically inferior. Studies of IQ, cranium size, and other “genetic” tests were compiled as evidence. Likewise, an important cornerstone of the pro-choice movement is that fetuses (especially first and second trimester) are biologically inferior to their born counterparts. Here it is consciousness and perception of pain which seem to be most important.
So it seemed only natural to extend this same line of thinking to protest the discrimination of homosexuals in US legal code (which, though beyond the scope of this debate, is much more than gay marriage). But then HP made an important point which first cracked up at what I thought was his ignorance, but has since made me seriously question the foundations of our sexuality. He said that homosexuality was not a definition of someone’s biological make up – or how they are born – but rather by their behavior. Go ahead, laugh, I did too. Is this guy from the 19th century or what, I asked myself. Then, I countered his comment asking, does that mean heterosexuals are also defined only by their behavior. His reply was “sure would.”
Don’t ask me how we get into this conversation, but at one time or another, I’ve asked nearly all of my ex-girlfriends and a good number of friends if they’ve ever had an erotic dream with someone of the same sex. Almost every one of the girls admitted that yes. Not surprisingly, only one guy friend of mine admitted the same. I think I probably first got the idea of asking when I read somewhere that some psychologists actually believe that humans – as a species – are to varying degrees, bisexual.
Now let’s think about what we want out of laws. We want to be able to behave as freely and naturally as possible without causing harm to others right? We must come to a compromise. I should be able to drive as fast as I’d like on a freeway so long as it doesn’t put others in danger. So in California we come to a compromise around 70 mph and in Utah around 55. But I cannot for the life of me figure out how two men or two women married and raising a family could possibly cause harm to others. Perhaps you may be bothered by homosexuality, but certainly not harmed.
In terms of the debate, my position doesn’t change whether you believe homosexuality is biologically determined or a psychological choice: your either discriminating against someone’s DNA or their behavior. Neither one is something that should be practiced in America or any other country. HP asks, why extend the meaning of a tradition that has endured millenia. I ask, why wouldn’t you? That much seems simple enough. But what I really hope to get out of this conversation (and I hope everyone comments uninhibitedly and respectfully) is what you believe the nature of homosexuality is? And for that matter, what the nature of heterosexuality is?
Blog buddy Myke seems to agree with HP’s definition of homosexuality – in other words, if you do, you are:
Have you ever noticed there are degrees of gayness? I don’t mean like you can be say 70% homosexual and 30% heterosexual or vice versa or anything like that. To me, you’re either gay or you’re not. It’s simple, if you’d sleep with men, you’re gay. If you adamantly wouldn’t, you’re not. Plain and simple. That’s not to say that even if you are gay, you wouldn’t ever sleep with a woman, either. Some would. Some very much do. However, I do firmly believe that a heterosexual man would simply NOT sleep with another man, period. Simple distinction.
Up until 1973 homosexuality was seen – according to the APA – as a psychiatric disorder which should be treated. Then:
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) after intense debate. They stated that homosexuality “does not necessarily constitute a psychiatric disorder.” Effectively, this saw its official acceptance as a viable sexual orientation and saw the increase in gay liberation throughout the Western world.
Many other associations across the world followed suit soon after. The American Psychoanalytic Association made similar steps and began accepting openly homosexual men and women. However, it wasn’t until 1992 that the World Health Organization ceased to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder, followed by the UK Government in 1994, and the Chinese Psychiatric Association in 2001.1
As Steven Kotler points out, there are generally two foundations to the idea that homosexuality is abnormal while heterosexuality is normal:
The first came from the Bible. The King James Version of Leviticus 18:22 is quite clear: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: It is abomination.”
Darwin, whose theory of evolution says that all life originated from a common ancestor, made the other frequently cited argument against homosexuality. The reason the tree of life is so varied is because reproduction is an inexact process. Mutations arise that either help or hinder existence. Helpful ones create new lineages; harmful ones die off.
While I can’t argue with the first, many studies have been done in response to Darwin’s assertion that homosexuality is an “abberation.”
From plasticbag.org:
Author Bruce Bahemihl, in his book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and natural diversity, has cataloged over 200 vertebrate species in which same-sex genital contact regularly occurs. In some species, homosexuality is not very common – around 1 to 10 per cent of all mating. In others, such a bonobos, homosexual mating occurs as often as heterosexual mating. In some species only males participate, in others only females, in still others both sexes.
In humans, moreover, homosexuality is much too common for it to be considered a genetic aberration.
According to this website:
43% of Americans believe that ‘young homosexuals became that way because of older homosexuals’
But as J.M. Bailey pointed out as early as 1992:
No one has ever found a postnatal social environmental influence for homosexual orientation – and they have looked plenty’
There seems to be plenty of evidence to support the theory that our sexual orientation and/or preference is genetically determined:
One of the most frequently cited studies of homosexuality was that of Kallmann in 1952. He reported a one hundred percent concordance in identical twins for homosexuality, and only twelve percent concordance in fraternal twins.
Furthermore, sexual orientation in fruit flies has been changed by replacing a single gene. (Zhang SD. Odenwald WF. Misexpression of the white (w) gene triggers male-male courtship in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 92(12):5525-9, 1995 Jun 6)
And in the most thorough collection of research revealing the genetic correlation with sexual orientation, Dean Hamer found that the DNA marker Xq28 on the X chromosome is more prevalent in homosexuals than heterosexuals. (Hu S. Pattatucci AM. Patterson C. Li L. Fulker DW. Cherny SS. Kruglyak L. Hamer DH. Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics. 11(3):248-56, 1995 Nov.; Hamer, D.H.. S. Hu, V.L. Magnuson, N. Hu and A.M.L. Pattatucci, “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation.” Science 261(1993): 321-27.)
Not surprisingly, as the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality is quick to point out, there is more at hand than one’s DNA. If I were to have sex with a guy … let’s say, just for experimentation … then according to both HP and Myke, I should be considered gay because of my action. Even if I will never, my entire life, have sex or even thoughts of sex again with a man. Furthermore, where do bisexuals fit in?
Taking all of the science into account, it is tempting to conclude – as this undergraduate student did in 1994 – that our sexual orientation and/or preference is 50% genetic and 50% constructed. This makes sense to me and would explain why many men consider themselves straight and even remain married to their wives while having sex with other men. The same, of course, is also true with women. It would also explain why some groups claim success in “curing” homosexuality and why many straight men have sex with other men in prison.
I know that I feel 100% heterosexual. I am wildly attracted to women (one in particular) and have never once had any erotic thought, desire, or dream of a man. So I would assume that genetically I am heterosexual, but I have also been raised in a society and culture where it was very clear during my sexual development that I should be staring at, touching, and whistling at women, but never men. If it were the other way around, I can’t say with any certainty I wouldn’t also have relations with men. Reading Beat literature of the 1950’s is interesting because they formed a small community where sexual definitions were questioned. And you end up having someone who seems the quintessential heterosexual American male – Jack Kerouac – having sexual relations with both men and women.
In terms of my debate with HP, however, what is most important to keep in mind is that whether our sexual preference/orientation is biologically determined or socially constructed, no one should be negated the 1,049 benefits of marriage either way. I will answer his own arguments (which I realize I don’t even bring up here) one by one as a comment on his post, but what I’d like to see discussed on this post are reactions, ideas, comments, and violent dissent about how our sexual orientation and/or preference is formed. If there is new or different research or theory out there, please bring it up. Let’s help enlighten each other on a topic that doesn’t get dissected enough – whether it be because of political correctness or lethargy or just apathy.
Finally, as a progressive, I’ve got to say this feels like a hopeful and optimistic time to be writing this post. If our great-great-great-grandchildren do in fact read our blogs 150 years down the road I hope they will look back at the discussions taking place today in Massachusetts, South Africa, D.C., Spain, and Holland and see that they mark the long overdue change of tide when humans started accepting humans as humans. Have at it.
I think that this post is gonna cause people to think, I know it got me thinking. I, for one, am a gay chicano. I grew up in a totally Mexican household in Chula Vista, CA. ( suburb of San Diego). I am the oldest man child of four boys and believe me when I tell ya’ll this, me being gay was not taught, or at all programmed into me. Growing in a stereotypical Mexicano heavy family, including many, MANY male cousins and uncles I just knew that I wasn’t like them, I may have been brown, loved agua de jamica and played basebol but I hated menudo and couldn’t climb trees and treat woman like objects.Me hating menudo made me more weird than me not wanting to whistle at rucas on the street. I am out to my family, we just don’t talk about it, and I am okay with this arrangement.It works fine for everyone, I have just turned into that uncle or cousin that swoops in for the holidays with crazy clothes and funny stories that makes everyone laugh, helps the Tias clean up and dances with his grandma. I would like to have the right to marry the man that I will one day meet and fall in love with, it would be nice if both my parents are alive to see and share that day with me…. I don’t know if this at all helps, I just felt that I needed to say something. Living in NYC I forget that not everywhere is as tolerant or blind as they are here…jose
Lethargy, I love that word…
To me, not all traditions are worth carrying on. Traditionally, slavery was seen as a viable economic alternative. Traditionally, women did not work and stayed home and raised children. Traditionally, you couldn’t marry someone of a different race. Traditionally, minorities could not vote. Traditionally, it was ok to beat the crap out of your wife because she was your possession.
You either evolve or you get ran over. Right now socially America is de-evolving (devolving? help me out college edumicated peoples). I’m with you Oso, I can not for the life of me see how two homosexuals marrying harms me in any way. But then again, I can’t see why our politicians spend so much time worrying about what happens in the bedroom of two consenting adults.
Oso….que bonito escribes….when I grow up I want to be just like you!
dude, homosexuality is so gay.
HP – sometimes I have no idea who you are talking to.
It’s easy to tell, just look at the name I addressed my response to. 😉
But I see what your saying, I actually addressed my response to several of the other people who responded to this post. I just forgot to include their names in the title as well.
Wow … where to begin. I think what I’d like to do is put things a bit more concisely. Sort of ‘cut to the chase’ as it were. I’ve discussed the issues here at length on this blog, my blog, and elsewhere and clearly several here have given the issues thoughtful consideration as well. I think, though, it’s important to some times slice through the theoretical musings and point to very specific points that effect how people view such controversial subjects.
Let me begin with the what Oso quoted me on, as he said “if you do, you are”. I stand by this. It’s simple. I’ve lived through an existence in one of the most conservative areas of the country as a gay man trying to come to terms with being just that. I can say with authority that a) you do not choose to be gay. I know that prior to accepting my own homosexuality that I would have easily taken the ‘blue pill’ if it had meant a simple choice down the path of heterosexuality. Now, as I’ve said before, that doesn’t mean there are not individuals who are attracted to both. The bi-sexual factor of the equation is what is throws a wrench in to the entire discussion for many. More than likely, there are simply allot more bi-sexual folks out there versus wholly straight or gay. That’s what dilutes the “if you do, you are” theory some what.
Here’s an analogy that can serve to shed a little clarity on this point. You can think of the gay/bi/straight line of thought comparatively to the political spectrum. There are firm gays on the left, firm straights on the right and a considerable lot of BIs right there in the middle. Perhaps this will serve to alleviate a little of the fears of all of you hardcore straight guys out there that if you had one of those little erotic dreams with another male involved or had an “experiment” with a man, it doesn’t mean you’re gay at all. You might have a little bi-sexuality in you though.
OK. Now … the arguments above are an aside. What does this mean to the as to whether or not sexuality is a choice or a given .. nature vs. nurture or genetics vs. environment? I think I can be factual vs. theoretical when I say … let’s lean on the side of genetics here. The most firm example of proof I have is myself and my own experiences. Think about it. Why would any male raised in an extremely conservative societal culture geared toward predominance of males, that emphasizes the church as a moral arbiter of life (and the southern baptist one specifically), and raises both girls and boys to assume that the natural order of life is getting married and raising children? To specify further, in my case there was a family of all male children where all were involved in one sport or another with a very stereotypical (of the time) truck driver father and stay-at-home mom. In no way, shape or form, can anyone arguably with a straight face find any thing in my background or the way I was raised that contributed toward a “choice” to be gay later in life.
The gay factor enters men’s lives at different points but for most I’d say it surfaces following puberty. Perhaps a hormonal issue?? You struggle with it. At some point you accept it. Then you deal with it. Those born in a tolerant atmosphere (both familial and societal) have an easier time. The rest stay hidden much longer or simply flee to a more progressive area to live there lives.
So let’s now assume for the sake of argument in my assertion that gays are that way whether they like or not. What makes a person gay or not really is a mask for those wanting to use the thought that it’s all “choice” to solidify there point that homosexuality is just an aberrant lifestyle to begin with. Where does that leave us with the whole marriage issue?
I’ll have to firmly agree with Abogado in his assertion that … the most common argument is that the “tradition” of marriage would be undermined by giving gays the right to marry. This argument is appealing because it allows its proponents to distance themselves from the real reasons they are against gay marriage — namely that they are against the life style. I would extend that line of thought by saying that utilizing the life style argument goes back to assuming you have a choice in the matter of being gay to begin with. As I’m arguing that you this makes no sense as choice as an issue is a fallacy. I would also like to point out that if anything has led to the decline of marriage as an institution … as a positive tradition … wouldn’t it be heterosexuals themselves? After all, since they are currently the only ones who have ever married, don’t you need to take into account the high divorce rate coupled with the high rate of adultery with straight couples? Also, doesn’t the ease with which you can be granted a divorce from marriage civilly show that it isn’t enshrined in the level of revered tradition that it might once have been?
So if it isn’t really an issue of harming the grand old tradition of marriage as a sacred institution, then what is the general problem with allowing gays to marry? I have to go back to Mr. Abogado who hit the nail firmly on the head … They want to discriminate against people who are gay because they want to make clear to their children and the rest of society that this “lifestyle choice,” or whatever they want to call it, is not okay. But saying “we are protecting tradition” is simply a way to avoid the appearance of outright discrimination. This is it in a nutshell. Allowing gay marriage across the board would, in the eyes of those who despise homosexuality as a “chosen lifestyle”, sanctify that very lifestyle as legitimate. To legitimize homosexuality would thereby negate all of their arguments against gays as welcomed, productive members of society.
Now, why do gays want to marry to begin with? Why is this issue so important to gays as a whole? There certainly is, in some circles, an aspect that looks at gay marriage as simply another battle to be won in equalizing straights and gays in societal terms. Others look at it as a way of sanctifying the love of two people regardless of their genders and sexual orientation. I can agree that these are both legitimate issues of importance. However, for me it wouldn’t be near as important if not for the personal, pragmatic ways that LEGAL marriage can affect a couple. I stress ‘legal’ as I’m looking at marriage less from the traditional, religious ceremonial aspects as from the rights that it grants under current jurisprudence. Personally, I don’t care what word you use but marriage is essentially a contract. Not permitting gays to marry prevents them from entering into a type of legal contract based upon their sexuality. For instance, I know a lesbian couple in their fifties. One partner has a family that accepts her for who she is. The other partner was ostracized by her family nearly two decades ago. They have been a firm, loving, committed couple for over 15 years. Yet … they can not legally cover each other on insurance plans nor have each other serve as standard bearers for such important issues as living wills. If the partner whose family hasn’t had anything to do with her was to have an accident and enter into a coma, the family who ostracized her would have more authority to deal with such issues as life support than her supportive partner. That family would also have total rights to her estate over the partner. There is no other way to put this than to say that it is simply wrong.
Let’s call the marriage issue for what it is — not giving gays the right to, at bare minimum, have full civil (i.e. legal) rights under a contract whether you call it marriage or not is a travesty. Religions may be called different things. In one you may enter a temple, another a church, another a synagogue. Regardless, no matter which you are a member of you have the right to freely associate and express yourself under that religion. Also, each is treated equally under the law with respect to not granting any special rights over the other and granting all equal tax exempt status. Hell, the cult/church of Scientology was easily granted tax free church status. So … call it being married or coupled or (as I prefer) partnered … but the option to enter the same type of legal, binding contract and later divorce from it if you choose to do so should be granted to gays. Period. If not, we will always be second class citizens.
I really, really tried to be succinct. I suppose it didn’t work, did it?
My head hurts..really, it does.
HP – I’m sorry that you are the only one here to address responses to. If the news media tells us anything it is that you, and the people you know, do not represent the type of people who are behind the anti-gay crusade that is currently occurring in America. I am trying to do you the favor of addressing your points and not ascribing the arguments of your “side” to you. You are obviously much more level headed and honest than the people that appear on television and espouse hateful rhetoric on a daily basis. However, you don’t seem to be addressing the points that Oso, Myke and I have consistently brought up as counters to your arguments – which btw are starting to look more and more like subjective opinions. On that note, I will comment on the post that responded to mine:
I can honestly say I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say here. To me it sounds exactly like what Ron Cruz said in the conclusion of my last post. And if that is the case then my response remains exactly the same. What exactly do you mean that “objectivity is the only thing that a culture understands?” Again, the only thing I can think of are brightline rules that simply do not exist in reality. Nothing is easy and nothing is clear, which you seem to intimate by saying that “we all want our next generation children to grow up as healthy as possible.” Besides the implication that gay couples would raise less healthy children, an implications which I clearly addressed and you did not refute, I see absolutely no point in the statement of an obvious truism.
Again, the “objectivity of marriage” is a meaningless concept unless you explain it, and you have not explained why “protecting the institution of marriage” is a worthy goal if it denies a large segment of our population legal and moral equality. So your point is moot outside of some evidence that you do not possess.
I don’t care how or why people are or become gay. It has no baring on my argument, nor did I ever address it, so I think you must be referring to someone else here. Probably Oso, because he asked, so I’ll leave any response to him. Like I said, it doesn’t and shouldn’t matter.
So is this all about the definition of civil union? Because if that is the case then we’re on the same page. I am not gay. I don’t really care what name you want to give to a unification of people, recognized by society as legitimate, that comes with the corresponding legal benefits. Myke and other gays may care. I will back them up because I think they deserve as much, but that is only my opinion; my only point is in regard to social equality. I could care less what you call it, I just don’t want to live in a country that treats a large group of people as second-class citizens. But then you go off the deep end of logic. Straight off the Niagra Falls of non-sequiturs:
It about the children!! Who will save the children!! Ok, I’m glad your heart is in the right place. You care about kids. Great. That proves a grand total of nothing. Then you follow with this:
Where did you establish that people are harmed by gay marriage? You apparently linked to some site that says something about a “potential risk” that people will be harmed. I could care less about reading the article because it means absolutely nothing to my points which you have heretofore failed to even address. So now you say the primary motivating factor for your denial of a large segment of society the basic privileges that we give to everyone else is the protection of children. Even assuming that there was a potential risk (which I think would be very difficult, if not impossible to prove – see my last post) you have MUCH more explaining to do. Even with your massive assumption that children may be put at “risk,” this is not necessarily proof that we should deny gays the right to marry. Many things in society put people (and children) at risk and we accept them as consequences of life and human choice. What, HP, doesn’t put children at risk? Keep in mind I am, for argument sake, accepting your assumption. Violent movies, your (and mine) beloved hiphop, cigarettes, beer, cars, pollution, poverty, lack of healthcare etc. etc. etc. But somehow your main concern is gay marriage? How amazing and coincidental that anti-gay corresponds with your politics and religion. What is more of a risk to children: having them raised in a loving, healthy gay family, or having them raised in a family that cannot provide healthcare, or is neither healthy nor loving – which I might add seems to be a very large proportion of heterosexual families? You have established nothing…and this is the “primary motivating factor” of your argument?
Again, I specifically said I was not talking about “civil rights”, however, I think you would still lose the argument were I to try. But I will leave that to someone else who wants to address the Constitutional factors at issue here, because they are substantial and relevant.
[omitted long discussion of civil rights clearly not addressed to me.]
This is absolutely circular. You don’t have the right to marry a person of your same sex because we don’t give you the right to marry individuals of the same sex? This is the exact same thing as saying in 1859, “what do you mean blacks are not equal to me? if I were black I wouldn’t be free either.” It has absolutely no logical or moral weight. This is just plain insulting to everyone’s intelligence.
You choose to frame it that way, fine. But you have proved zip in this or an other post. The only thing that you have said that is coherent is this: “marriage” means man and woman, and “society has no obligation to grant [gays the right to marry]. These are truisms as far as I am concerned. And my arguments, and everyone else’s, stand untouched by what you have said.
Rereading what I have said there is an obvious tone of frustration. This is completely intended. It is frustrating reading comments by Myke and Oso and Beckie and the countless others in other posts that go ignored just so that you can reiterate your already clear position. I don’t think anyone is mis-interpreting what you are saying, I think you are mis-interpreting the implications and assumptions of your arguments. It is not fair that you are the only conservative here to represent your side HP, and I admire your initiative in tirelessly “defending” your points, but you cannot just repeat what you say over and over again and think that it makes it true.
Post script: I wrote this before HP’s last response (which I have yet to read). If it changes anything then I will go back and address that separately.
Great stuff Abogado, I will respond tomorrow. I am pooped.
Oso, I’m so sorry. I didn’t do my readings on queer theory. I can’t even tell you what queer theory is. I pretended to work on my papers all weekend (I didn’t) rather than take some time to prepare for class.
Part of me thinks that the only reason you put up posts like this and provoke the token Mexican conservative from Compton — who shall remain nameless — is because it’s great to increase your comments. And, you get Abogado to come out of his law school hole and to post, or at least comment to posts.
Token Mexican Conservative…LOL. I love your choice in words, I couldn’t have used a better word to describe your point than ‘token’. 😉
I love the blog!
Sheesh, can anyone here make a point without typing 5 paragraphs. Lawyers!
I seem to have been able to raise 3 kids who are not threatened by people of the same sex getting married. This gives me hope. I do not agree marriage is only there for the procreation of children. You do not need to be married to have children, that is a personal choice. A man putting his pee pee in a woman’s vagina is for making babies, if you choose to follow societies rules for making it legal so be it. The baby doesn’t stop coming out of the womb because there isn’t a marriage contract, mother nature still gets her way.
A portion of the arguement seems to be, “Well we want to keep our explanations to our children simple.” LAZINESS. Nothing in life that involves human sexuality is simple.
Polygamy, and marrying your sister. Ok. If it is between two CONSENTING adults, I could care less if someone has two or three husbands or wives. Why you would want more than one husband is beyond me, I can barely tolerate the one I got. Two would send me to an early grave. Marrying your sister? Honestly, I wouldn’t care. Your babies might have a tail, but hey it makes life interesting.
Algo mas? Nah, I don’t believe in dialogue, especially with people like HP, but don’t get me wrong I appreciate the fact that you’re having one and educating people about the issue. I just won’t contribute to it. You have to understand I’ve been gay for 23 years, I’ve been defending who I am since kindergarden. For me to even allow a discussion of who I am or why I am it’s tiring. Perhaps in the future I’ll feel like getting back on the horse and start fighting again, not now.
I am listening to your podcast, and let me tell you something, the transition from televisoras in Mexico to the segment from that radio station was VERY abrupt. I was lost for a moment, I even thought I was getting some interference but then I realized this was a podcast.
Cindylu,
Don’t you mean tokin’ Mexican conservative? Homeboy’s obviously on crack. You’re right … the comments are nice … I like hearing other people’s views. But the real reason I put up posts like this is because we’re actually getting somewhere. I’ve had arguments/discussions about topics like gay marriage and abortions and the economy dozens of times, but they always turn into shouting and name calling matches. We just don’t have enough patience to smartly and respectfully debate a topic and so usually we resort to dirty tricks and threatening body language to try to win our case.
But with a comment thread – and especially amongst people who already have respect for each other and a certain amount of familiarity – you have time to soak up what the other person/people are saying and really reflect on it before answering back. Plus, what you say is up for everyone to say so simple handwaving becomes more obvious. You really get pegged to what you claim.
And I have to admit, during our debate about abortion, I came to realize that there are certain consequences that come with being pro-choice which I hadn’t realized before. I would have a very tough time now supporting the legality of third trimester abortions without a threat to the safety of the mother. Likewise, I have a feeling – though I would never expect him to admit it – that HP is beginning to notice some of the … I’ll call them ‘double standards’ … of his gay marriage argument.
Those kinda realizations never happen while shouting at each other over a six pack of coronas. I think the real question is why don’t I write more posts like these. And it’s cause they’re exhausting. We resort to hand-waving and name calling during disagreements ’cause we just don’t have the patience to go on being logical and respectful. Same’s true on a blog, but usually we calm down by the time we respond.
Seyd,
Amen. In fact, If I were you, I’d probably be offended by my post. I’m glad you understand what I’m trying to do. I don’t know what happened with the podcast … I haven’t even listened to it. Maybe it’s missing a track. I realized that if I don’t spend less than an hour on making a podcast I probably wouldn’t do them. So, sorry ’bout the quality.
HP,
I’ll answer you comment soon.
Congratulations, to Oso, Abogado and Moreno to bring and discuss this matters.
First sorry about my english, I´ll try to make myself as clear as possible.
This is just my “medical-mexican” pointo of view.
I´m not against homosexuality. in fact I have some good gay friends, and I talk a lot with them about this things.
Right now, and excuse my ignorance, but I don´t think you are born being gay. There´s no gay “gene” or a biochemical sustance that change in gay people. (if someone here have scientific documentation about something different, please let me know)
I think being gay is a choice. And you have a freedom to chose whatever you want to be in life, but always respect another people rights and beliefs.
In mexico, where soccer is more important than even religion, and being “machista” is the law among men, we don´t have this point view. We are not prepare to accept homosexuality. We don´t have a culture in which you can be whatever or believe whatever you want and earn respect about it.
My point is that everyone is equal, and deserve tho be treated that way. But if you want respect, you must earn it. I heard my gay friends talking about some “putas”. As I remember they said: “this kind of gay people give homosexuality a bad name. Just because there are some of us that are just looking who to sleep with, the so called “straight” people thinks, all the gay are the same.”
I give credit to that…
You have to respect, to be respected as well, we have choices but we all are humans with a right to live and freedom of choice.
Maybe it was a freudian slip, but what I meant to say to Seyd was ‘no offense given’, in other words, I hope I have not offended in what I write. I try to be as sensitive as possible on this topic, as it clearly should be discussed with sensitivity to those most effected by it.
Thanks for your response again HP. I think I have a better understanding of your points now and I can attempt to address them again in an upcoming post. Particularly your point about how the laws shape society, becuase as I alluded to in my first post, I agree that (from a non-homsexual’s point of view debating homosexual’s rights) this is the crux of the matter. My problem here however is that I risk making weaker (or at least more detached and impersonal) arguments than a gay advocate would do, but since the majority of society is not gay, and they are the one’s that need to be having this debate, that is the ground I will stand on. At the same time, I’m sure Myke and Seyd could be much more forceful and poignant in their arguments, but I will leave that to them. I’m going to hold off for now though because (1) I am moving; and (2) it would be nice to have some more voices and viewpoints.
No way marriage is rooted in nature. Marriage is a certificate issued by a society to abide by it’s laws. It gives you certain rights, tax benefits and the like. It is nothing more than piece of paper. The idea of marriage is abided by the two people involved. You can have that piece of paper between you and hate each other. The paper doesn’t make the marriage the people do.
What you might mean is monogamy is rooted in nature, but even that is up for grabs.
You sort of proved the point of why we should give homosexuals the right to marry. Broken homes. Heterosexuals have screwed the sanctity of marriage up pretty good, by your own admission. Who is to say homosexuals would do the same thing, maybe they would maybe they wouldn’t. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. You can’t say: You can’t get married because I screwed up my marriage and got a divorce and I know you will do it too.
HP I’m not understanding how you are coming to the conclusion that allowing homosexuals to marry, by changing the legal definition of marriage, will result in more out of wedlock births. Heterosexuals have sex and make babies, how are homosexuals being married stopping them (heterosexuals) from getting married?
Because, the definition of marriage will no longer be in relation to producing children, meaning, the new meaning of marriage will say marriage has no connection to children, and the next generation will fully accept, and practice this new teaching.
Maybe I understand it so clearly because of all of my involvement in the abortion debates, but I strongly believe that laws have a significant power in shaping peoples morality. For example, lets say that tomorrow abortion was legalized, do you doubt that that would have a significant affect on the abortion views of our next generation? I think it would. For example, Reardon writes,
“Given their doubts about the morality of abortion, most aborting women are strongly influenced by the legal status of the abortion option. When asked, “Did the knowledge that abortion was legal influence your opinion about the morality of choosing abortion?” 70 percent said that the law had played a major role in their moral perception of abortion…Asked whether or not they would have sought an illegal abortion if a legal abortion had not been available, 75 percent said they would definitely would not have sought an illegal abortion…(David C. Reardon, Aborted Women:Silent No More(Westchester,Ill.:Crossway,1987)13,15).
Of course there are several women who would still have an abortion, either by illegal means or by going to a different country, but those women on the margin would certainly have been affected by abortion laws.
Again, my point here is not abortion, but laws and how they shape morality.
Same with the definition of marriage. If you change the definition of marriage to allow same sex couples, than the next generation will grow up in a society that teaches that marriage has nothing to do with producing children, and therefore they will be more prone, more likely, to produce children out of wedlock.
You are assuming that everyone gets married in order to have children. I got married because I love my husband. Pretty much everyone I know got married because they loved their significant other. I also know plenty of people that have children and don’t get married. I pretty much think now people do not equate getting married with having children. It’s just not a requirement anymore. We have already surpassed that, it’s not an issue. I know people are trying to make it an issue, but it’s an arguement that leaves you chasing your tail.
No, I am not assuming that everyone gets married to have children. I am assuming that people tend to associate marriage with children.
I realize that people primarily get married because they love their significant other, I am just saying that it is because they love their significant other, and enter into a lifelong commitment of love, and since they are members of the opposite sex, that marriage tends to primarily result in children. We as a society process that, and tend to push the belief that in an ideal situation, it is during marriage that children should arise.
But I tend to agree with your statement here,
I agree. Remember, I am not asking you to choose between a perfect system and an about to be broken system. In the gay marriage debate one is choosing between an already battered system, and an even more battered system.
There are many things that have moved marriage away from children. One of the primary things was no-fault divorce (which, btw, conservatives said would result in a weaker marriage). But nothing will sever marriages link from children like gay marriage would, that is a deductive fact.
But you know what, I am going to change courses. The more I think about this, the more I realize that it is more effort than it is worth to argue against gay marriage based on societal effects. When I had posted this, I had thought it was a given, something that both sides can agree on, that laws affect society, affect culture. The more I read responses, and the more I think about this, the more I realize that this is an argument that appeals to conservative/liberTarians, not necessarily liberals. It’s like arguing about economics, and I blurting out ‘the free-market is always better than a government solution’, obviously that statement will be more welcomed in a libertarian environment than a liberal environment. It looks like I’ve made the same mistake here. To try to defend the belief that laws affect society will move us into a direction much deeper than is currently at hand.
So how about we do this, we scratch the cultural affect argument. You obviously think it has no effect, I continue to think it will have an effect, and we can leave it at that; a point in this whole gay marriage debate that cancels out.
So now, let’s go back to what has always been my main reason to refuse to support gay marriage, the belief that I find no compelling reason to have the government recognize it. Currently, one can give the ‘children’ reason to support the government’s current involvement in marriage, but I don’t see a compelling reason to extend it to gays.
Of course gays love each other, and of course they want to share lifelong commitments like heterosexual couples, I just don’t see how that is any of the government’s business. Why should the government care that Bo and Joe have made a lifelong pact? That would be like arguing that the government should recognize friendship bonds as well. In other words, I am arguing against gay marriage, essentially, on the government waste criteria. It would be a waste of government resources to recognize a love pact between two people who are inherently unable to produce children. In the current case, one can make the argument that it is not a waste, since the government is encouraging the proper upbringing of children, but we both agree that that is not the case with gay unions. So with gay unions, why should the government care?
By the way, I must say, you have been nothing but respectful to me in this exchange Beckie and I thank you for that. I realize this is a sensitive topic, and I realize that I am taking, albeit unwillingly, an insensitive side. So by default, I am seen as the bad guy. Kinda like the guy that argues against farm subsidies in front of a bunch of farmers. While I believe it’s the right belief to have, I can understand how those who are on the other side of this can get offended. I hope that I have treated you with respect as well, and please understand, what I say here is what I truly believe, whether I can explain it well is a different matter.
HP,
Or for that matter, why should the government care that Jenny and Joe have made a lifelong pact? All I’m asking for is consistency. And I want to know why a heterosexual couple can get married and not have kids, but a homosexual couple can’t. Please answer just that one single question. (By the way, I’d like to say that you’ve been a perfect gentleman this entire thread).
You are actually answering why the government should recognize homosexual marriages, the children. Right now homosexual couples are raising children, yet they are receiving none of the benefits married herterosexual couples with children receive. And you are right, why should the government care? If you have a marriage certificate, you are married. Whether it be gay/straight..whatever. Why are we making an issue of it? If homosexuals getting married cause heterosexual couples to think twice before they got married and take it a bit more seriously, I’m all for that.
But for right now, the majority of politicians are arguing against gay marriage for religious/moral reasons. A politician preaching about morality is the epitome of irony in my book.
A couple of succinct (I swear) points here:
^ I don’t care what Oso’s motivation was for making this post. It sparks good debate among folks of various ideologies & points of view. This is a good thing. Perhaps it will even bring some of those points of view closer together.
^ Comparing the issue of committed consenting adult couple who happen to be gay and might want to marry to polygamy and/or marrying one’s daughter or sister only serves to obfuscate the entire subject. Not only that but I find it to be rather insulting.
^ Again, I don’t care what term you use whether it be married, partnered, etc. but gay couples should be allowed across the board in ALL states to enter into unions that have full benefits the fully EQUAL what legal marriage gives to heterosexual couples. I’ve given enough examples as to how these rights are important as have others so I don’t feel a need to restate again now.
^ HP — I’ve fully read all of your statements. My response boils down to this .. your arguments for denying homosexuals the right to marry almost borders on the ridiculous. After hearing some of the more rational arguments against the whole “heteros need to preserve marriage for the bearing of children” theme, I’m really surprised you’re sticking to it. ALOT of children are born out of wedlock, are raised by single mothers (whether successfully or not), and even more importantly, ALOT of children are in foster care in need of loving parents. Perhaps your argument that marriage as an institution was primarily associated with the desire to procreate was a valid one 50 years ago, but man, it just doesn’t hold water now in the year 2005. Times, they are a changing for sure and your whole argument seems stuck in the past. BTW — I think you have been respectful in at least your reasoning … whether or not I agree with it … so I hope you don’t take my vehemence against what you’ve had to say personally.
^ One final thought .. Beckie’s arguments above are right on par. Especially the thought of our politicians raging on about saving morality.
One more thing —
HP, the “government waste” argument? Are you serious? HOW is it wasteful for the government to extend across the board to homosexuals the same rights that heterosexual couples have? Remember, we’re not referring to what essentially boils down to a legal contract of marriage that is recognized by the government. The recognition soley with the church really is a moot point considering that you don’t have to get married in a church and getting married really becomes a legality no matter where you say “I do”.
this is too much reading. i tried to read it all but became exhausted and cross-eyed by post no. twenty-something–i confess i skimmed most of the entries with more than one paragraph….anyway, my two cents. being gay is not wrong, and since its not wrong, gay couples should have the option to marry if they want. its not something that heterosexual individuals have a right to deny them. gay couples are going to form unions anyway. why not acknowledge them, and allow them the same opportunity at participating in our society, the same rights and benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. considering how many unwanted children are in the foster care system, allowing gay couples who wish to adopt to do so may help balance things out and alleviate some of the real burdens on our society.
btw, i didn’t get married to have babies. i don’t think anyone does these days, that would just be plain stupid.
Irasali,
being gay is not wrong, and since its not wrong, gay couples should have the option to marry if they want. its not something that heterosexual individuals have a right to deny them. gay couples are going to form unions anyway. why not acknowledge them, and allow them the same opportunity at participating in our society, the same rights and benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.
Here, let me frame the discussion another way. Currently, the gay marriage debate is a debate where the burden of proof is on the proponents of gay marriage, not the opponents. In other words, they are the ones that want change, they are the ones that want to take something long established and expand it. So it is them that have to give a reasonable reason for the change.
Currently, the primary reason I have seen set forth is because they love each other. But there are many instances where two people form loving partnerships where the government doesn’t recognize, and shouldn’t recognize it. Two best friends promising a lifelong commitment to each other, two first cousins, a man with multiple women, etc…The point is, why should the government recognize a homosexual union? Do you think one of the purposes of the government is to recognize peoples love for one another? I certainly don’t! If you do, than why not allow various other unions that same recognition, Polygamous unions, first cousin unions, and even commited best friends should now get love certificates from the government as well, if not, why not?
Hey Derek,
Your right, we do need to have another drinking session at the pad, you do remember the wonderful guests I had over last time, don’t you. 😉
Yes, I have read Sullivans gay marriage defense, I think I saw it on the Wall Street Journal though. He makes several of the points I am trying to make here, for example, with regard to why the government recognizes the traditional marriage, he writes,
But I believe he goes too far in his support for gay marriage. Basically everything he said could be accomplished by a civil union, it doesn’t have to be a marriage.
While my explanation may be confusing, while I may say something one way one time, and something another way another time, the core of my argument against gay marriage is this; the loving commitment of a heterosexual union, by its very nature, has the potential for children. It is the core of all families, and something that is cross cultural, it is unique, makes its mark on everyone, and is the basic building block of all societies. It has something that all other unions fall short of, whether they be first cousin unions, polygamous unions, best friends, and yes, even homosexual unions.
And any argument any other union gives to being established into law, the loving heterosexual union has that claim, and more. And therefore should always be seen seperate and above all other unions.
If I have not explained this distinction well, it has to do with me, not with the argument itself. As I said in my introduction here, I don’t consider gay marriage one of my high priority issues, so therefore I have not read as much as I should have on the topic. But the uniqueness of the heterosexual union(as well as the costs associated with allowing gay marriage) is what seems to be at the heart of the matter, in all gay marriage discussions I have seen.
Derek and HP,
I fully expect an invite to the next party. The two of you need some relativity at your next conservative values shindig. 😉
This is probably my last comment on this post. I think the issue has been well discussed and we’re already starting to turn circles a bit.
HP, you need to separate potential from intent. If two people are allowed to get married without ever having the intent to have children, this seems like a pretty big flaw in your system. Using your hyrbid analogy, you’re giving the tax break before they even buy the car.
Your real motives keep slipping out and I wish you would just acknowledge them. You think that a man and woman in love is better than a man and man or woman and woman in love.
Derek says:
I don’t know if I’d call it disingenous, but certainly out of touch. And that seems to be what your entire argument is founded on.
I’ve got to disagree with you here as well. I think you’ve done a fine job defending an argument with inherent double standards. If you know of someone else who can put it differently, please invite them to comment.
Otherwise, I say roger, over and out.
We’ll discuss school vouchers next. Probably in two or three weeks. Given that I’m not well enough informed (nor entirely decided) on the topic, there’s a good chance that I’ll be asking someone to guest post for the side against school vouchers.
Hey Oso,
I fully agree, absolute’s can certainly put a hamper on the party scene!!
HP, you need to separate potential from intent. If two people are allowed to get married without ever having the intent to have children, this seems like a pretty big flaw in your system. Using your hyrbid analogy, you’re giving the tax break before they even buy the car.
No, my hybrid example matches this perfectly. Remember, the purpose of tax breaks to hybrids was to “encouraging environmental considerate driving”. When you buy the car, which is when the tax break is given, you still haven’t met that purpose. It is only when you drive the car that the purpose is met, yet the government gives it to you when you buy. Hence a perfect example of the difference between potential and intent. In marriage, the government recognizes the potential, some couples may not have children, but the potential is always there.
Your real motives keep slipping out and I wish you would just acknowledge them.You think that a man and woman in love is better than a man and man or woman and woman in love.
Just acknowledge them? I thought I already did! Damn, I must be having a harder time explaining myself than I had originally thought. In case you missed it before, let me answer as clearly as I can, YES I DO. A man and a women in love is ‘better’ than ALL other unions, including a man and a man or woman and woman in love.
Why do I think that, I also spelled it out above, because,
LOL…Those damn freudian slips, I meant Damper on the party scene, not hamper. I wonder what was running through my mind when I said hamper….
Party? did someone say party?? I’m way on the wrong coast.
if it were possible to convince people that marriage is a strictly prejudiced institution and we proposed to outlaw it entirely – we would have equality and no one would be left out of the material and sentimental benefits now offered to hetersexual couples. But, it’s an unlikely pitch, so….
the tradition of marriage was born 1st out of pagan rites (not christianity) then developed to organise and establish families / tribes / allegences. then marriage became a means to envelope all human exchanges under the power of various gods, then was used to excert control over the behavior of those masses, promote xenophopia, and regulate women’s sexuality. it also served some great purposes in so far as establishing responsibility for family members, locating and identifying citizens, charting historical movements, studies of geneology, etc. in time it grew to be a sentmental occassion where committment and love were expressed among friends and family. but the laws have not changed to reflect that progress among the masses.
like the phrase “traditional family values”… which tradition should be refered to and revered? family values before the middle ages differ drastically from that of post-WWI which differ drastically with that of post-WWII. modern marriage can take place outside the ‘union of god’, divorce is widely excepted and man is no longer master of ‘his wife’.
where one religion touts that tradition upholds a man and woman marrying, another upholds polygamy as tradition and the two strongly disagree. arguing to uphold or create laws on the premise of tradition is silly and does not serve the principal of ‘justice’. which is why most of our courts in canada are changing the definition of marriage. it harms no one and benefits more of us.
Come on down Myke, party at my pad and all them damn annoying absolutes will be stopped at the door; the way parties should be conducted!!!
I agree with this in principle, but I would go in the opposite direction. In other words, if the mormon Church wanted to allow polygamous marriages, so be it, if the anglican Church wanted to allow homosexual marriages, so be it, if the Catholic Church wanted to refuse either, again, so be it.
But from the states perspective, there should only be the societal perspective involved; afterall, why should an atheist be forced to subsidize polygamous ‘marriages’? And when you judge all unions from that perspective, the male and female union rises above all else.
By the way, why did ricia’s post get posted before mine when she wrote it after?
She wrote it before, but it got moderated. I dunno why. Something about WordPress not liking Canadians.
why should citizens subsidize corporate interests? medicare? education?
afterall, some of us despise the concept of investing in certain types of
industries and certain corp’s, some of us can afford private or group medical plans and some prefer private, public, traditional, creative learning, religious or otherwise education systems…
the question is a good one, but it leads to a discussion surrounding economic systems – and does not implicate the issue of male+female or same sex relationships what-so-ever.
Wow. Why do we care so much about this?
I got on this late in the game (surfing) but still would like to say
I never realized that gay people had the power to destroy a civilization. What does this really mean? That there are a lot more breeders out there who have gay inclinations but just dont act on them? Is this why they view it as a choice, because they have personally chose to not act on it?
I dont personally believe that there are enough of us to destroy life as we know it.
The way people argue it though is that yes, it is possible.
So given that we’ve been here probably since the dawn of man, we homosexual/homosocial/homoloving (which covers the myriad forms of man on man sex/love/socializing and not everyone is all three ie prison sex) WHY HAVENT WE DONE IT YET.
Why has society persisted regardless of the fact that we’ve been running around, legal or not, persecuted or not, fucking and loving. Could loving and living just like the breeders do actually destroy all that? Given the number of kids up for adoption, It would seem that giving married gays the same rights, they could actually help perpetuate society, by fostering those kids into positive adulthoods in nurturing environments, instead of being just another kind of prisoner in a school for the orphaned.
And why have couples who are married and dont or can’t have children not destroyed society either? They produce no offspring and yet we are still here. What’s this mythical superpower that this Terran Sun called Marriage (legal) would give us? To say it would devalue the tradition of marriage is to say that you dont view us as human like yourself, not as much American as yourself. That whorish drug abusing gays exist is beside the point. Frankly there are more of the breeders who do this. It’s not about deserve, It’s about equality. We are less equal because our society is misogynist and we dare take on a femenine role of loving a man.
In regards to civil rights, civil rights are by virtue of citizenship granted to you and include no discrimination and equal protections under the law. To say that this is not a civil rights issue is to either be dense, or selectively ignorant mister HP. In the case of being forced to write left handed, it is in fact discriminatory and favors the right handed. That you find it a petty or simple thing to squabble about in law is beside the point.
OK I might start rambling here. Nuff said.
Nobody said gay people had the power to destroy a civilization, what was said was that changing the definition of marriage to include gay unions, or polygamous unions, or first-cousin unions, has the power to weaken marriage, thereby causing harm upon society.
In other words, my focus is not on gays, it is on marriage.
I found all the arguments for and against gay marriage to be very insight. I have to side with HP on this issue. I believe the hard core supporters of gay marriage are pushing this agenda for only one reason. They want society’s blessing on their lifestyle. Why should a government institution sanction a lifestyle? I believe HP assertions that it was basically done in the first place to promote a stable family lifestyle which can benefit society. This reasoning has serve humanity for more than a millennium. After all, we see the devastating effects when people don’t follow through with marriage commitments. Now we have people advocating this only to satisfy such a small percentage of the population. I don’t see how society can benefit greatly for sanctioning this.
One other point, if supporters just want it for same benefits as marriages, why didn’t they advocate for civil unions only? The only conclusion I could come up with is that these hardcore folks are the same crowd that would go after the religious institutions for not accepting the homosexual lifestyle once gay marriage is implemented.
Bottom line, I’m for civil unions but against gay marriage. Marriage is defined as a union between “a man” and “a woman”. If homosexuals want to change the definition, what’s to stop the polygamists, same siblings, or any other lifestyle from doing the same? What gives the homosexuals that right to change the meaning and not others? Marriage is not perfect, but nothing is gain by changing the meaning of marriage for society.
A legalized civil union seems to be a pretty happy medium for all of us, but you don’t see anyone talking about making it law right now.