Human Right and Gay Marriage

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Actually I think Mexico has legalized gay marriages. But I am not sure.

[Imogen]

quick digression: it's awesome to be having an intelligent discussion about this. everyone where i am just agrees with me, so i never get to think things out and have my ideas challenged. seriously, i'm loving it. especially because we're all be really mature (eat that, swicket!)

return to your regularly scheduled post.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

fred is correct. when i say that marriage is cultural, i mean all marriage. anthropologically speaking, society deemed it "better" for two people to remain monogamous, and society created marriage. biologically, it actually makes more sense for people to have multiple partners so the gene pool stays nice and deep, but society has made most sexual relationships outside of marriage wrong. and once the state got involved in marriage and family planning, there were even more issues attached.

Back to this point, when you say that multiple marriage is better because it can make sure "the gene pool stays nice and deep," how do homosexual marriages help the gene pool deepen? The people involved in them are not going to reproduce, so they are not going to help deepen the gene pool. This is what I interpreted this statement as. Can you tell me how this relates to/supports gay marriage?

[Nanti-SARRMM]

I agree with the no federalized/legal marriage. It would definitely solve a lot of problems. If the government were to go to basics, just provide everyone with civil unions, with basic legal rights (such as divorce) and taxes, without calling it a marriage and leaving marriage to the churches, then that would be better.

[Imogen]

fred is correct. when i say that marriage is cultural, i mean all marriage. anthropologically speaking, society deemed it "better" for two people to remain monogamous, and society created marriage. biologically, it actually makes more sense for people to have multiple partners so the gene pool stays nice and deep, but society has made most sexual relationships outside of marriage wrong. and once the state got involved in marriage and family planning, there were even more issues attached.

Back to this point, when you say that multiple marriage is better because it can make sure "the gene pool stays nice and deep," how do homosexual marriages help the gene pool deepen? The people involved in them are not going to reproduce, so they are not going to help deepen the gene pool. This is what I interpreted this statement as. Can you tell me how this relates to/supports gay marriage?

i didn't mean marriage here. i meant sexual partners. more chance of the seed getting sown if it's planted many places or fertilized many times.

biologically, homosexual relationships benefit society because they keep the population down. as you can see in our world right now, when a place's resources are disbursed among too large a group, it leads to trouble, war, famine, etc. so, less people=more to go around. i'm sort of oversimplifying, but that's the basic idea.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

So homosexuality will keep the population down, but I don't understand what the seeds being sown have to do with the issue at hand.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

So homosexuality will keep the population down, but I don't understand what the seeds being sown have to do with the issue at hand.

It means less population growth with more gays around.

It sounds like a plot of a bad movie, where scientists see that animals adapt to what happens to survive but don't realize that nature is doing the same thing to them, increase in homosexuality to decrease the population growth

[Imogen]

So homosexuality will keep the population down, but I don't understand what the seeds being sown have to do with the issue at hand.

It means less population growth with more gays around.

It sounds like a plot of a bad movie, where scientists see that animals adapt to what happens to survive but don't realize that nature is doing the same thing to them, increase in homosexuality to decrease the population growth

human beings have engaged in homosexual activity for centuries. it's not even until fairly recently that the classifications of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" became so fraught with meaning. men and women would get married and have families and have homosexual relationships with others, but that didn't mean they were "gay" because that didn't even exist. it was just a part of life.

[Imogen]

So homosexuality will keep the population down, but I don't understand what the seeds being sown have to do with the issue at hand.

to clarify:

statistically speaking, a woman is more likely to get pregnant if she has sex with more men, and a man is more likely to GET someone pregnant if he has sex with a lot of women. if our only instinct was to keep the species alive, it would make more sense to have more sex with more people because your chances of procreating increase.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

So homosexuality will keep the population down, but I don't understand what the seeds being sown have to do with the issue at hand.

It means less population growth with more gays around.

It sounds like a plot of a bad movie, where scientists see that animals adapt to what happens to survive but don't realize that nature is doing the same thing to them, increase in homosexuality to decrease the population growth

human beings have engaged in homosexual activity for centuries. it's not even until fairly recently that the classifications of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" became so fraught with meaning. men and women would get married and have families and have homosexual relationships with others, but that didn't mean they were "gay" because that didn't even exist. it was just a part of life.

I wasn't saying that homosexuality is something that has cropped up in the last century, I believe it has occurred in other societies before. What I am saying is that the attention to it, or increased knowledge is more public.

[Imogen]

indeed nanti. can't disagree with you there.

i think humans naturally want to place others in different categories and discriminate because of that. i think it's an innate human instinct.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

indeed nanti. can't disagree with you there.

i think humans naturally want to place others in different categories and discriminate because of that. i think it's an innate human instinct.

Maybe, but I think it goes on to a certain level of violation of beliefs and break from social norm. You could say it is the perception thing. Due to religion, most people have grown up believing that it is inappropriate behavior to engage in homosexual behavior. It is living within the norms of society, of what they have always known to be true. If there were no God, then this wouldn't be as big of an issue, but God does exists, or for the sake of the argument, many perceive that he exists and believe based on that.

As I was saying, I think it is living their beliefs, which in this case, violates something they have believed in. In part it is lack of consideration of the other party and how they feel, but I don't think it is largely to feel superior over people. It sure looks like it in some angles, but I don't think that is why most people object to it.

[Imogen]

i still maintain that it is wrong to use one's personal beliefs to judge others actions if those actions do not concern or harm said person. i'm a staunch believer in John Stuart Mill's "harm principle." and if the guy down the street from me is gay, it's none of my business and does me no harm.

i'm sort of playing to my audience with this example, but whenever someone around me disparages mormonism, i defend it for the same reasons. people are free to do and blieve whatever they want, no matter how strange it may seem to some. and as long as they're not causing me any sort of trouble, than it's not my place to say they're wrong. same goes for homosexuals, transgendered people, etc.

[Cognoscente]

Word.

[Imogen]

best thing EVER!!! that is so awesome! *right click. save*

[Fredjikrang]

i still maintain that it is wrong to use one's personal beliefs to judge others actions if those actions do not concern or harm said person. i'm a staunch believer in John Stuart Mill's "harm principle." and if the guy down the street from me is gay, it's none of my business and does me no harm.

i'm sort of playing to my audience with this example, but whenever someone around me disparages mormonism, i defend it for the same reasons. people are free to do and blieve whatever they want, no matter how strange it may seem to some. and as long as they're not causing me any sort of trouble, than it's not my place to say they're wrong. same goes for homosexuals, transgendered people, etc.

I used to have a lot of discussions with some libertarian, atheist friends of mine. You remind me a bit of them.

[Imogen]

i still maintain that it is wrong to use one's personal beliefs to judge others actions if those actions do not concern or harm said person. i'm a staunch believer in John Stuart Mill's "harm principle." and if the guy down the street from me is gay, it's none of my business and does me no harm.

i'm sort of playing to my audience with this example, but whenever someone around me disparages mormonism, i defend it for the same reasons. people are free to do and blieve whatever they want, no matter how strange it may seem to some. and as long as they're not causing me any sort of trouble, than it's not my place to say they're wrong. same goes for homosexuals, transgendered people, etc.

I used to have a lot of discussions with some libertarian, atheist friends of mine. You remind me a bit of them.

congnoscente told me once he thinks i'm libertarian. maybe i am and don't know it!

but i'm no godless heathen, promise! <--this smiley sums it up!

[Cognoscente]

in the simplest way to put it:

Republicans are traditionally socially conservative (against abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization, etc) and fiscally conservative (small gov't, low taxes)

Democrats are traditionally socially liberal (gay rights, etc) and fiscally liberal (universal health care, tax the rich and corporations, larger gov't with more social programs)

Libertarians are usually socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Legalize everything that doesn't hurt others (like drugs and consensual sex between adult partners), and keep the government as small as possible. Get rid on unconstitutional programs. Maximize personal freedoms and the free markets to insure prosperity.

Libertarians have some great ideas, but sadly they're pry not very politically viable since the party attracts all the crazies. Oh well.

[Yellow]

i still maintain that it is wrong to use one's personal beliefs to judge others actions if those actions do not concern or harm said person. i'm a staunch believer in John Stuart Mill's "harm principle." and if the guy down the street from me is gay, it's none of my business and does me no harm.

i'm sort of playing to my audience with this example, but whenever someone around me disparages mormonism, i defend it for the same reasons. people are free to do and blieve whatever they want, no matter how strange it may seem to some. and as long as they're not causing me any sort of trouble, than it's not my place to say they're wrong. same goes for homosexuals, transgendered people, etc.

The problem with basing decision on whether or not it hurts me is that it doesn't protect everyone. The alleged sexual abuse taking place on the FLDS ranch in Texas probably doesn't hurt you or I directly, but I don't think that makes it okay. At some point, our culture has decided that if it hurts anyone in our culture, it is wrong. (Gross overgeneralization, I know, but you get what I'm trying to say.) So the question then becomes: Does gay marriage harm anyone in our community? I think my biggest concern is that if marriage between two people of the same gender is codified under law, then same-gender couples will probably be allowed to adopt children. These children don't choose to be born in that situation any more than children born on the YFZ ranch chose that lifestyle, and yet both are brought into it.

So, are children raised by gay parents harmed in anyway? Are there psychological or emotional issues that may make it difficult for them to trust people of the "other" sex, much as children in single-parent homes might not learn to see authority figures of the other sex in a good light?

For that matter, does anyone know if single-parent adoption is legal? Because frankly, I think my concerns about gay marriage are only slightly stronger than my concerns about single-parent adoption would be. (There are a few other issues, but I think this is the big one for me.)

[Wisteria]

Yes, single-parent adoption is legal. I know at least two single women who have adopted children.