User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 91

  1. #31
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Even the argument that gay people can't/won't "procreate" doesn't even seem correct anymore, with all the fertility clinics and stuff. Also, if someone is adopting from another country (provided the country allows adoption by gay couples), doesn't that still increase the population of the state?
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  2. #32
    Senior Member sofmarhof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I think "partner" exists because gay people can't get married most places, so "husband" isn't legally valid. Also, it's a nod to the sensibilities of those who believe marriage as a term should be reserved for straight people. I think it's become less used over time for gay couples.
    I have wondered why gay people don't start referring to their partners as husband and wife. Who cares whether it's legally recognized, if you want to be married, then just start using the terminology of marriage anyway. However, it's likely that "husband" and "wife" just aren't desirable, and no more gay people will use them when gay marriage is legal. I'm straight and the idea of someone calling me his wife squicks me out (not the idea of marriage, just the word "wife"). Wife has centuries worth of connotations of ownership, husband of being the owner. I think gender neutral terms are going to become more common among straight people as more come to believe in gender equality.

  3. #33
    mod love baby... Lady_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/so
    Posts
    18,086

    Default

    my sister is getting married next month! whoohoo!!
    just felt like sharing....
    There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.
    -Jim Morrison

  4. #34
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Elton John in the quote I mentioned made a point which to me illustrated that not all homosexuals felt as aggrieved by this issue as was being made out, infact it made me think it was a minority of a minority, which I think sums up how I think about a lot of the movement which seeks to profile and promote homosexuality. Its also baffled me how vociferous some of the heterosexual fellow travellers are too, although I dont pretend to fully understand the US culture wars, no middle ground and to me that's weird.
    I stated earlier that I'm personally fine with "civil union," but could see how it might not be legally practical in some ways. I'm also not sure what you mean by "profile and promote." I'm hoping for destigmatization, tolerance, and maybe even acceptance, so other generations don't have to go through what I have with my family, and so that gay and lesbian youth don't see a life ahead so bleak that they commit suicide.

    If the positions were reversed it wouldnt bother me, I dont attach any value judgement per se and I dont attach any stigma or shame to "civil partnership" as opposed to marriage so it makes no difference to me.
    You are more enlightened than many in that respect, then. In some sense, though, you are saying here that the terms don't matter, yet you do object to the term marriage being used. That word clearly matters on some level to you. If you are just upset in the sense of language being modified for political purposes, I can understand that.

    Also, keep in mind that marriage has historically referred to things that you would also find objectionable. I don't think you necessarily would defend polygamy, even though that has a long history as being defined as marriage. Likewise, I hope you wouldn't defend the definition of marriage that defines a wife as property, with no rights of her own.

    I'm not demeaning anyone and I'm not suggesting anyone "suffer in silence", I would suggest that some serious questions be asked about what's causing the suffering though, if you're being persecuted, victimised or brutalised I can understand it, this is the essential difference between black civil rights and the modern gay rights movement, at least so far as I understand each movement.
    Not sure I follow you here. Are you advocating a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of policy for gay folks? Does that mean protection from being fired from one's job for being gay or lesbian is out? What if someone found out from some outside-of-work context?

    I agree that the dynamics of being gay or lesbian are different than that dynamics for most blacks (aka people of African descent). Most gays and lesbians have to choose whether or not to come out to the people they interact with. Most blacks don't have that option. Also, most blacks are raised in black families. This has both positive and negative consequences. It means that for blacks, economic inequality tends to be passed down through generations.

    Gays and lesbians are raised primarily in straight families, and are often (though not always) ostracized and judged when they come out. They can also choose to remain in the closet, although at great psychological cost. There's less likely to be inherent economic inequality passed down through generatations, and gays and lesbians are socialized variously, depending on their families of origins.

    Do keep in mind that it's entirely possible to be both black and gay or lesbian. It's not like gays and lesbians are ethnically homogenous and all come from privilege. Being gay and African-American, for example, means you have all the disadvantages of being black in America, plus the fun of having to deal with coming out into a particularly gay-unfriendly subculture. Not a lot to envy, there.

    I know there are states in the US which still prohibit sodomy or sexual behaviour that effects homosexuals more than others but how are they enforced? Is it really like the integration of little rock or the freedom riders? Really? I know there are a lot of veterans of those struggles who cant stand that comparison and not because they are homophobic, although they are often labelled that way.
    Like every comparison, it is both true in some ways, and false in others. Personally, I don't feel like a highly oppressed victim. I am a white male who could afford a college education. I've never risked life and limb by fighting for my rights. I haven't had to deal with a cab passing me by because of my race or sexual preference, and I haven't been pulled over regularly because I'm guilty of "driving while black" (or whatever the gay equivalent would be). I admit to being fortunate on many levels. I personally think I'm better off societally than many African-Americans, through no great virtue of my own.

    That doesn't mean that I and others haven't suffered because of their orientation. That doesn't mean that people haven't been fired from their jobs, beat up, denied housing, etc because of their sexual orientation. I'm thankful that there are are anti-discrimination laws in my state. I doubt I'll ever need recourse to them, but still I'm glad they exist.

    Much of the "suffering" experienced by homosexuals is a consequence of seeking especial recognition or approval from others, when its not forth coming the idea is that the state can legislate it into existence, I dont think that's a role for government at all, its prohibitively expensive, not to mention intrusive, coercive and a good case of over reach by the authorities. Sometimes its transference because they were rejected by family or others, sometimes its an even more general thing. Sometimes, and I'm NOT suggesting for a moment it is in every case, nor even the majority of cases but in some cases the sexual behaviour and identity is some sort of trauma playing out.
    So do you think there should be sexual orientation anti-discrimation laws? How about anti-discrimation laws for race, gender, age, etc? Do you think asking for equal treatment under the law is "especial recognition or approval?"

    I agree that in a perfect world, anti-discrimination laws wouldn't be needed. The only reason people should be fired is because they can't perform their job adequately. Sadly, that isn't the world we live in. I also realize that anti-discrimination laws can be abused. They are an imperfect tool with which to try to counter-balance discrimination and prejudice. I'm not sure what metric you'd want to use to determine if they were appropriate, if ever.

    Personally, I'm against most hate crime legislation, because beating people up and killing them (for example) is already illegal. Anti-discrimination laws are a murkier area for me, since it's pretty easy for employers to spackle over their real reasons for sacking someone.

    Legislating social attitudes has been tried in the UK for a long time were the state is massively paternalistic, check it out and see if its any better or if people simply cant speak freely without being afraid of being labelled bigots or haters.
    I agree that "political correctness" can have a damaging effect on real communication. I also think it is painful to have to listen to people use "gay," "faggot," "queer," etc as terms for anything that's stupid or unappealing. I'm an adult and I can call people on it if it's making me uncomfortable. I agree that making others uncomfortable shouldn't illegal in itself. That's a two-way street, though.

    My concern about profiling and promoting homosexuality per se, not specifically the topic of changing the meaning of the word marriage, is that it eschews what I believe is the proper sphere of government, equally it creates sort of crazy expectations of others, normalising other directedness of that kind cant be healthy. I cant ever, ever buy that one.
    I'm really not sure what you mean by "profiling and promoting homosexuality." I am hoping for destigmatization, tolerance, and equal treatment at best. Acceptance would be grand. I personally don't wish for any of my nine nieces and nephews to turn out gay (for example).

    I'm also not sure what you mean by "other directedness of that kind." Could you clarify? Also "crazy expectations of others?" Do you mean expecting others to be tolerant? Or accepting?

    Now as a heterosexual in full possession of the facts, the statistical hard facts about homosexuality and heterosexuality, even allowing wide margins for those who do not self-report their orientation and counting people who are ambivalent or bisexual as homosexual the heterosexual orientation remains the majority.
    Heh. I've never met anyone who claimed that the majority of people are homosexual. Not sure what that has to do with the rightness or wrongness of anything.

    That's consistent over time and place, its not a result of cultural context, therefore to oppose "heteronormative" society simply does not make any sense to me what so ever, its liable to create the sorts of psychological stress, distress, duress and conflicts which homosexuals have struggled with but generalise it to every single individual in the population.
    Okay, you lost me again here. Earlier you seemed to be implying that a lot of homosexual suffering was self inflicted, because they were asking for approval they lacked from their families. Here it seems like you are saying that heterosexuals would have to suffer if homosexuals were more tolerated and accepted.

    Does that mean you see a future in which heterosexuality wouldn't be tolerated or accepted? Or in this case, would the suffering by heterosexuals be mostly self inflicted?

    Or are you saying that some possibility of straight people suffering like gay people currently suffer is too horrific to contemplate, so must be avoided at any cost (including gay people continuing to suffer that way)? I guess that's arguable from a strict utilitarian viewpoint, but that kind of logic can be used to allow all kinds of mistreatment of any minority.

    I personally am fine with heterosexuality being seen as the norm. I don't think anyone is arguing for that to change. What I think people want is society (or at least the legal system) having a tolerant, possibly accepting view towards homosexuality.

    I don't see how a win for homosexuality is a loss for heterosexuality. That's like saying black people gaining rights mean white people lose rights. I guess they do, but only the right to treat black people shabbily. Guess I see that an acceptable loss.

    I think people are intelligent enough to be able to conceive of two ways to be (or more) and see both of them as okay. I doubt we'd see a huge increase in gay people if being gay became fully accepted on every level.

    I admit, we might see a few people whose orientation was more in the middle sometimes act as non-heterosexuals. Personally, I think that'd be worth fewer suicides of gay youth and fewer gay people marrying people of the opposite gender (to the misery of both). If being gay would be so amazingly attractive that most straight people couldn't resist it... well, being straight must really suck.

    Now I say all this without for an instance harbouring any secret malice of thought or contempt or anything else for people I've never met or am unlikely to meet or anything else. I'm willing to clarify any of this but please dont teams of people unleash their politics or a vendetta or whatever.
    [later edit: Okay, I must have missed something here, because in your later posts you say you know homosexuals in your social circle. So not sure who the "people you've never met" are. Political extremists? Some other group? All the gays and lesbians you haven't personally met?]

    At 2% to 4% of the population, I'd be really shocked if you had never, ever met a homosexual. I do believe you that you don't know that you met any. Even if it's only 1%, have you really not met many hundreds of people in the course of your life? Of course it's possible, but it would really be incredibly statistically unlikely.

    So, if you'll allow me to try to sum up your arguments:

    • You don't like people manipulating language to political ends. (I can sympathize)
    • You don't like government legislating morality, especially a morality you don't agree with. (again, can sympathize, but see the legislation more about equal treatment rather than forcing everyone to agree... not up on every law in the UK, though)
    • You think the social utility of tolerating or accepting gay people is lower than the societal cost. (I find that strict utilitarianism can lead some troubling places)


    Feel free to correct me if my summation missed something.

    I don't see a lot here that's really a reason against gay marriage. specifically. I see a preference towards small, limited government, combined with irritation at linguistic manipulation plus a (unfounded, in my opinion) fear that accepting homosexuality will be a slippery slope to societal breakdown.

    (Normally I like to reply to multiple previous postings in a single posting, but this is already ridiculously long, so beware! I may post again.)

  5. #35
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I didnt say seperate but equal, I said equal but different. I dont come from the school of thought that uniformity or homogenising is egalitarian, infact those are the mainstay of anti-egalitarian arguments.
    So... not separate but still different? I guess if you could guarantee that both terms were exactly equivalent under the law, both now and going forward, I'm fine with that. As I said before, I'd be fine with the rights without the fuss.

    I can understand the wariness some people have about it because difference has been used as an argument against equality and implied a lack of parity in the past but I dont see it that way. Seperate but equal was apartheid wasnt it? I think it was also part of the US segregationists argument, I dont hold with that really but there are, in my experience, a lot of homosexual people who do, they prefer same sex clubs and venues, I can understand why and I'm not bothered by that.
    Well, the wariness is, I think, historically understandable.

    Well, you do realize that going to a gay or lesbian bar is just a question of practicality if you are gay or lesbian. Clearly you can see that one chances of meeting another gay/lesbian are vastly improved by going to a gay/lesbian bar? It's not a matter of excluding others, so much as maximizing one's own chances.

    Not sure what that has to do with anything political or legal, though.

    Its not even a matter of sympathy or support, people who dont care are mobilised by conservatives because they feel threatened, I'm not talking about full blown homophobia but people who are genuinely pissed at the insistence that they have to have a view, that they must be in one camp or the other and can not be apathetic. That's poking a sleeping tiger stuff there.
    I'm fine with apathy. I agree that they do have to sit though the debate, but I have to sit through all kinds of debates I'm not interested in. Not sure that's too heavy a burden for someone in any kind of democracy to bear.

    Now I've known or spoken with homosexuals who had pretty derogatory views about heterosexuals, describing them as "breeders" and displaying attitudes which ranged from dismissive to hostile. I've also met with the opinion stated over and over that no one is heterosexual, that its not natural and that everyone is either homosexual or bisexual or the confusion of sexual behaviour with sexual orientation, for instance if any straight man would simply try gay sex they would be gay. The sort of talk that were it in reverse, a heterosexual saying there's no such thing as homosexual etc. it would be considered bigoted or phobic.
    I agree that kind of thing isn't fair, but that kind of behavior is not uncommon regardless of the minority. People in the majority often are expected to hew to a higher standard of impartiality. One gay person can call another "faggot," or one African-American can use the n-word to refer to another without it being a big deal. Unfair, but there it is. Don't see it's unique to gay people in any way.

    As far as everyone being a little bisexual... I don't buy it in any significant sense, myself. If I were sufficiently heterosexually functional I doubt I would have come out, given my upbringing. I also hear straight men bragging that they could "turn any lesbian straight." Don't think that's indicative of much other than men like to talk big sexually.

    Now I DO challenge that when I hear it expressed, it doesnt make me popular a lot of the time because most of the time the people talking like that are used to being given a "fools pardon" by liberal minded heterosexual friends who want to show solidarity or excuse it as people letting off steam as a result of notional oppression (again, to be clear, I'm not saying that homosexuals are not oppressed but that these individuals I'm speaking off cant claim that, they travel in the same circles as me and are not any less or more discretionary about their orientation).
    Well, I don't find the conversations you described to be particularly remarkable or laudable. I'm also not sure you are necessarily aware of every aspect their subjective experience, nor am I. I have no idea how oppressed they feel and whether their level of feeling has any relation to reality. I've also talked to straight white males who feel incredibly oppressed in various ways (by women, by the government, etc), in ways that didn't seem justified to me.

    This is a difficult topic, made difficult by how incendiary its become, lots of people import their own experience or arguments with others into debates like this and I've got to say I appreciate your level headness about it all Seymour. Cheers.
    It is a difficult topic, and a very personal one. Thanks for acknowledging attempts to stay level-headed.

  6. #36
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Actually, I was hoping you would post more since you're usually well-read and have a better understanding of classical politics than I do.

    Could/Would you explain a bit more on how you think a true conservative would approach this issue, versus the classical liberalism that was addressed in the article?
    I know I'm probably going to regret this, but a good summary of such an argument can be found in M. Ali Lakhani's article "Towards a Traditional Understanding of Sexuality":

    Here's the part that deals with "gay marriage" specifically:
    The other alternative that has emerged in modernity as a challenge to gender complementarity is homosexuality, the exclusivismor disengagementof the genders in terms of their sexuality. Modernistic and secular societies are increasingly accepting homosexuality as a norm, to the point that some legal jurisdictions are now permitting same sex marriages. These developments are unacceptable to tradition in as much as they contradict both the revealed Law and the metaphysical order that underlies it. Temporal courts have purported to legitimize homosexuality on the basis of equal rights (note the term gay rights movement, which emphasizes the importance of predicating legitimacy on the basis of rights), but it should be borne in mind that rights are subordinate to principles. Thus, for instance, no claim based on the argument of equal rights could justify an incestuous marriage between consenting adults (a mother and son, for example), because their right to such a marriage is subordinate to the principle that incest is wrong. It is useful to bear in mind that etymologically, the term right is derived from the root rt (as in rite or the Sanskrit word rti) which denotes order. To claim a right therefore requires that one relate it to the metaphysical order of the universe. It is by virtue of such order that principles can be derived. Temporal courts that have purported to legitimize homosexuality and same sex marriage on the basis of equal rights, have missed the mark. Social acceptability cannot be the criterion for deriving principles. Truth cannot be sacrificed to the malleable views of the masses. Morality is more than mere pragmatism. Human norms (that is, standards that are merely of the human order and not derived from principles that are rooted in metaphysical structures) are not objective, but merely preferences, and are therefore no substitute for an objective morality rooted in transcendence. Objectivity implies transcendence: no system can validate itself from within. Thus, as we have argued earlier, traditional morality is based on the correspondence between metaphysical structure and ontological value.

    Applying this criterion of morality to homosexuality, we see that homosexuality is, by its very nature, opposed to the principle of sexual complementarity, which is vital to the traditional worldview. It constitutes the profanation of form by disassociating it from its eternal archetype. Further, it constitutes the isolation of one aspect of the archetypal polarities by its ignoring of, or, worse, opposition of the other. In the words of Whitall N. Perry,
    The homosexual error is, among other things, that of isolating one pole of a binary cognate and treating it as an absolute, which does violence to the imperatives of the cosmic order.
    To speak of the homosexual error should not be construed as a condoning of the legitimate grievances that homosexuals have regarding various forms of societal discrimination or abuse, which in themselves constitute an abrogation of tradition. However, though tradition demands tolerance and a compassionate understanding of the human margin, metaphysical truths are not subordinate to contingent needs nor the circumscriptions of political correctness. There is no right greater than that of Truth. What is at stake here is the very foundation of traditional order. The imperatives of the cosmic order mandate an equilibrium which results from the complementarity and union of the polarities inherent in the Supreme Principle. To violate those imperatives is thereby to invoke the disequilibrium that we are now experiencing in the modern world. Equilibrium within the lower order can only be achieved by reference to the higher order, which is the sole source of objectivity. We must take care not to subvert our spiritual purpose, for its effects reverberate not only here-below but throughout eternity.
    So basically here's an addressing of the issue from a more metaphysical perspective, but still lays the foundations for much of a conservative or traditional view on the issue.

  7. #37
    No moss growing on me Giggly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iSFj
    Enneagram
    2 sx/so
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    Well, yes and no. I think, as Sim also said, there's a generalized trend for SJs to be conservatives frightened by any sort of significant social change (isn't that pretty much dom or auxillary Si at work?) including - but not limited to - gay marriage.
    But this would be absolute and only apply to someone whose Si is at 100% use. The problem is that most people assume that all SJ use 100% Si just because they have a conservative view or two, but the problem is, that everybody has some sort of a conservative view, but they label it something else because it's "bad" to be labeled conservative for some deluded reason. I mostly just think people like to have a "bad guy(s)" to throw poo at.

  8. #38
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Giggly View Post
    But this would be absolute and only apply to someone whose Si is at 100% use. The problem is that most people assume that all SJ use 100% Si just because they have a conservative view or two, but the problem is, that everybody has some sort of a conservative view, but they label it something else because it's "bad" to be labeled conservative for some deluded reason. I mostly just think people like to have a "bad guy(s)" to throw poo at.
    I think that is a bit extreme in the other direction, honestly.

    One of the main problems I have experienced even with myself is just that the Si-dom's I know in my particular environment have been the more extreme types very entrenched in a traditional view of the world.

    The more I branched out, the more I had to readjust conclusions I had drawn; I realized I was running into Si-doms who were more open than I had anticipated. Usually they were people who were "military kids" or in similar situations, where they were forced to relocate and move around as a kid, and in the process what got ingrained into their sense of "right/wrong" and traditional values were concepts like diversity and openness.

    I think we will continue to see some exciting shifts in how Si-doms have been portrayed in the USA in the past (because for so many years, the culture was very homogenous and entrenched) to the current state of the culture which is far more diverse and open... diversity and openness will naturally become absorbed by Si-doms as "the way things should be."

    There is still a sizable chunk of Si-doms out there, though, who are products of that older entrenched generation and do not flex to the current state of the culture, and they're going to be around for another twenty years or so... although currently diminishing.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #39
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Continuing along and addressing from a more political perspective is Roger Scruton, a noted British conservative thinker and writer who has also written on the issue. Scruton I should mention is an atheist, or at the very least not very religious, which adds to the non-religious strands of conservative thinking.

    For the most part, the people of this country have gone along with the changes. They may not be comfortable with its more demonstrative expressions, but they are prepared to tolerate the homosexual way of life, provided it keeps within the bounds of decency, and does no violence to fundamental norms. However, this attitude does not satisfy the activists. For to tolerate is to disapprove. It is only when conduct offends you that you need to exercise your toleration, and the activists want people to treat homosexuality as normal. Through the slippery notions of discrimination and human rights, they have used the law to advance their agenda. Homosexuality is now treated by the law as a tendency comparable in almost every way to heterosexuality, so that any attempt to distinguish between people on grounds of their "orientation" whether as applicants for a job, or as recipients of a privilege is regarded as unjust "discrimination", comparable in its moral heinousness to discrimination on grounds of race or sex.

    This 'right' for gays is an injustice to children - Telegraph
    This in my view gets down to the real chase here. It's not enough to simply tolerate homosexuality, but one has to accept it as perfectly normal - or else you're a "bigot". I've noticed this kind of argumentation thrown at me a few times here, even trying to imply I cause homosexuals psychological damage simply for expressing my perspective.

    Yet refusing to see homosexuality as normal or seeing homosexual acts as immoral does not necessarily imply one has bigotry against homosexuals. As Lakhani argued above, one can even agree to many grievances that homosexuals have about social discrimination and still on principle be opposed to both gay marriage and homosexuality. It's not all or nothing here.

    The advancement of gay marriage seems to follow along with the purpose of advancing the social normalization of homosexuality than actual legal equality(which basically gays already have in every significant way).

    Now concerning the actual nature of marriage, Scruton has this to say:
    Marriage in a religious society is a religious event: not a contract between mortals but a vow before the gods. Such a marriage raises the bond between husband and wife from the secular to the sacred sphere, so that whoever breaks the bond commits an act of sacrilege. Civil marriage (as introduced in modern times by the French revolutionaries) has gradually displaced the religious institution, so that marriage is now conducted by the civil authorities, and the change in status is not ontological, like the change from secular to sacred, but legal. In effect marriage has become a contract and has gradually assumed the provisional and temporary character of all merely secular arrangements. This was not the intention of those who invented civil marriage. In taking over and secularizing the institution of marriage the state was hoping to confer fiscal privileges and legal guarantees that would substitute for religious sanctions, and so help to make our commitments durable. It did this from the belief that marriage is vital to the future of society. The state in effect lent its aid to traditional sexual morality, by privileging faithful union between man and wife. And it did so for the very good reason that the future of society depends on this kind of union.

    Now, however, the marriage contract is being enlarged to accommodate the permissive morality. Marriage is ceasing to be a sacrificial union of lovers, in which future generations have a stake, and becoming a transitory agreement between people living now. It is from this perspective that we should view the controversy over gay marriage.

    This is not really a controversy about the rights, freedoms, and life-chances of homosexuals. It is a controversy about the institution of marriage itself. Can marriage retain its privileged place in our moral thinking when so effectively severed from the process of social reproduction? Already the secularization of marriage has led to easy divorce, serial polygamy, and growing insecurity among children. But marriage in its fundamental meaning is a form of lifelong commitment, in which absent generations have a stake. If marriage can be celebrated between homosexual partners, then it will cease entirely to be anything more than a contract of cohabitation, and the legal and fiscal privileges attached to it will seem both unjustified and dangerous, so many openings to litigation. Lovers' quarrels, exalted into marital disputes, will be endowed with an intransigent bitterness, while transient crushes will be foisted on friends and colleagues as institutional facts. In effect, marriage, as the institution through which society offers its endorsement and support to the raising of children, will have ceased to exist.

    Roger Scruton on Sex on National Review Online
    Again, the point is made that the issue here from a conservative POV is not dissing homosexuals but protecting an institution that's vital to the long-term survival of any society, which involves the rearing and upbringing of children. A society that doesn't sanction this literally has no future. And just as I pointed out previously, Scruton notes how the value of marriage has basically been undermined over the past few generations, and gay marriage would amount to another nail in the coffin - hence the common argument that gay marriage is an attack on the family. I also noted the irony of gays claiming a right to an institution that continually losing its value, and which would lose greater value if they get their way.

    Hopefully this will suffice as a general summary of a conservative argument on the issue. I really don't have much intention of discussing this to any great extent - at least not here. Feel free to PM me if you want further clarification.

  10. #40
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    This in my view gets down to the real chase here. It's not enough to simply tolerate homosexuality, but one has to accept it as perfectly normal - or else you're a "bigot". I've noticed this kind of argumentation thrown at me a few times here, even trying to imply I cause homosexuals psychological damage simply for expressing my perspective.

    Yet refusing to see homosexuality as normal or seeing homosexual acts as immoral does not necessarily imply one has bigotry against homosexuals. As Lakhani argued above, one can even agree to many grievances that homosexuals have about social discrimination and still on principle be opposed to both gay marriage and homosexuality. It's not all or nothing here.
    I think the issue here is evidential; those who would accuse tolerant people of still being bigoted seem to feel that there is no tangible evidence that homosexuality is any more destructive to the maturation/development of people, that it's diversity rather than detriment. And so any continued claims that homosexuality should be restricted thus come off as personal bias, not objectivity... which is where the "bigot" claim most likely comes from.

    (Or, put another way, if you believe you are doing nothing wrong more than anyone else, and someone else tries to tell you how they're "tolerating" you out of graciousness, it's just kind of hard not to be offended by that... especially if you feel you were being accepting -- not just tolerant -- of them even though they have a different sexuality than you do.)

    It makes it all a real can of worms to sift through, doesn't it? I'm not sure how to keep it from getting heated, because we're dealing with someone's sense of self coupled with social judgment... it's touchy.

    But anyway, I appreciate you going out on a limb and presenting the more traditional conservative case for public scrutiny.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Make the Case for Your God(s)
    By Passacaglia in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-27-2016, 07:27 PM
  2. The Case for Reparations
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-09-2014, 09:58 PM
  3. The Case for Gamma
    By Kierva in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-15-2014, 10:14 AM
  4. The issue of gay marriage
    By Torai in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 318
    Last Post: 04-19-2011, 10:45 PM
  5. So what's really the big deal about Gay marriage?
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 12:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO