Apologies from the US to the UK

Posted by: Russ on 17 April 2013

To all my friends in the UK, of whatever political stripe, I offer the apologies of at least this American for the failure of the individual who poses as president of the United States not sending an official representative to the funeral of PM Margaret Thatcher. Without regard to whether one agrees with her politics, (as the Chosen One certainly does not), this is an unforgivable failure to act--on a par with insulting the Israeli PM. If anyone doubts Obama's motives for sending back the bust of Sir Winston, this should tell the tale for you. I can understand and respect the opinion of anyone who might disagree with me that Mrs. Thatcher saved your economy from the ravages of runaway socialism. But for Obama to slight the UK in this way--is an abomination. I would like to say that the majority of Americans still agree with me, but the way my own country is going, I fear that may not be the case. How sad that someone--anyone--could be such a political tool as to avoid all semblances of statesmanship.

Russ

Posted on: 22 April 2013 by tonym

Originally Posted by Russ:

I am sorry I do not agree that their protections as to marriage rise to the same level as that of blacks, Sir, but blacks clearly and most definitely have any control over being born black. There is a huge difference. Russ

So, you apparently choose to believe that gay people make a conscious choice to be gay. I suppose you also subscribe to the idea that they are "ill" and can be "cured" of their gayness.

That's utter rubbish.

Posted on: 22 April 2013 by PureReader

@totemphile
Notwithstanding the probability that my views on child adoption are not shared by other members of this forum, I will complete my comment I started further up!

I will start with quoting a sentence written by forum contributor Hook. "And a growing number of gay men can and do successfully adopt and raise children". Well, do we really know this? I don't believe so (whereas I am specifically referring to joint adoption of unrelated babies and infants by male homosexual couples, by which they are deprived of the (IMO unique) expression of parenthood provided for by a mother within a mother + father + child family structure.) In fact, do we know whether children who have two female primary caregivers but no relationship with a father (including non resident) are at a disadvantage compared with children who have a mother and a father? Personally, I think we know very little, at least on a scientific level.

The scientific approach:

Firstly, to my knowledge scientific data is inadequate. I don't think there is a single quality representative scientific study out there which has looked into the former. There are a large number of sociological-psychological studies which have attempted to study outcomes of children who have had 2 female but no male primary caregiver , 2 female + 1 male non-resident primary caregiver, 2 male + 1 female non-resident primary caregiver. Some of these studies include small numbers of children who have 2 male caregivers and no mother or only a short relationship with a mother from birth, but these numbers are to my knowledge too small for proper scientific conclusions.
Sadly, it appears that all sociological-psychological studies referred to above have in general been devised according to the lowest acceptable methodological standards possible. The psychological sections of most of these studies rely on a minimum of diversity of methodology, are based on self-assessment by the children of their situation and on the parents assessments of their own parental competency, and the use of projective tests and other methods of depth psychology as also the use of standard methods to scrutinize credibility has for some reason been avoided (possibly cost factor). Basically what these studies are trying to tell us is that: If we avoid using the best psychological methodology available and can't measure any negative effect of father deprivation, then we will assume there is no negative effect! That is completely unscientific. In fact in 2012 a Professor at the Univ. of Louisiana, took a closer look at 59 of these studies and concluded that not one of them complies with the minimum requirements and standards of quality modern scientific studies! [link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...ii/S0049089X12000580 Loren Marks, 2012]
Also the possibility that ideological convictions may have flowed into the design and implementation even of peer reviewed studies related to this topic should be taken into consideration.

So in all honesty, I think even the question whether deliberately depriving children of the relationship with a father is disadvantageous to their life / development or not, has not been adequately addressed by science. But nevertheless, at least there is some data of sorts available with regard to these children. This implies that if it were deemed necessary to allow the adoption of unrelated children by same-sex couples, then lesbian couples must have precedence. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that every society should do its level best to provide each child that is in need of adoption with a mother and a father. Sadly this is not everywhere the case.

Other sources:

I personally believe that children with different personality types may react to being deprived of a father (ditto being deprived of a mother) quite differently. Some may not be affected, whereas I believe others may be seriously affected. In this context I would like to mention what I believe to be a very honest report by a young man who grew up with two female primary caregivers ("two moms"), who says, although he had a good relationship with both and loves both of them, he was seriously disadvantaged by being brought up in this specific kind of family structure. [link: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/ ]

My personal view based on experience as a part time teacher and generally quite a lot of experience with children of various ages:

I am convinced that there exists in children a congenital intuition to relate to a female and male primary caregiver. An unconscious, archetypical desire. I think this exists in children of all ages, and can for example easily be observed in children up to about 10 years of age of single mothers. I find it is quite evident that such children relate to adult males differently than children who have a good relationship with both a mother and a father. They will seek more guidance, are happy to look up to a trustworthy adult male, seek fatherly attention, have the tendency to bond with that male and may find it difficult to separate. A rather extreme example from personal experience to illustrate what I mean:
I used to sit in a certain area of a park near my home every other afternoon. One day a young girl who I had never seen before of about 5 years of age came up to me and started giving me her credentials. "My name is .... I live just round the corner at... my mother is just now sitting at the other side of the park, come, lets go over to her" . I could sense great intensity within her, probably because she was putting all her effort into supressing any insecurity. Then she looked at me and waited, as if it was upon on me to take the next step. I had said nothing so far. I told her I was sitting rather comfortably at the moment and would rather not get up. She accepted politely and said goodbye. I didn't know the mother, but she was observing her child carefully at visual distance. From that day on this girl would visit me (in the park) every time she saw me. It was purely on her own initiative and her mother was not in anyway telling her daughter to do this. If she had her school bag with her, she would open it beside me and show me every utensil she had, seeking some kind of confirmation from me. She had an intense desire to share almost anything with me, and was evidently trying to lay the ground for a trusting long term relationship. After a while she brought her little cousin over to meet me or her best friends. This went on for about a year and her mother allowed it to happen, sensing that her daughter was following a natural innate desire. I learnt later that the relationship between mother and daughter was extremely good, but it was nevertheless not enough for the child. She wanted an alternative, a additional adult to relate to, who was missing in her household, and she had chosen me as the substitute. And she had chosen a male. I am convinced analogous behaviour can be observed in the behaviour of all children of single mothers, but rarely in such an open and direct way, but in a more subtle way. Most children would hardly have the chance to behave like that girl, because naturally as a rule mothers will normally call there children if they get to close to an unknown adult male. I learnt that the mother had decided not to intervene because she had heard that I have a good reputation in the neighbourhood, was a former teacher, and she sensed the need of her daughter. Also I happen to be a very child friendly person, so the girl herself probably felt she had chosen the right person to be her special adult friend. It didn't stop there. She tried to find all kinds of excuses to get me to take part in her social life. She invited me to parties, requested me to accompany her and her mum and friends if there was an outing and also tried to find all sorts of excuses to visit me at home, e.g. she offered to help me tidy my flat! Of course I didn't let myself in for any of these requests. Then the mother started a relationship which a nice young man. He soon moved in with her, and once he built up a trustworthy relationship with the girl, the focus of the girls attention shifted from me to her mothers new partner. She finally got what she was looking for: a true substitute father she could live with together with her mother, which is of course much better than some guy in a park! Her rather unique behaviour towards me of earlier days disappeared.

Many single mothers, at least those that are sensitive, observant and honest, know about this kind of natural desire of their children. I've spoken with many, and most can perceive that their children seek a substitute father. Nobody teaches these children to behave in this way. It is quite obviously innate.

Should not children, according to their desires or needs, have the possibility, in their freedom, to relate to a either a trustworthy, loving male caregiver or a trustworthy loving female caregiver, in the familiar environment of their own home?. Should we not strive to create situations so that they have this freedom and can enjoy this freedom, just like we adults enjoy our analogous freedom (more on this below)? I believe we should, as far as possible. And I believe deliberately depriving children of such freedom is an expression of lack of respect for the dignity of children, unless there is truly no alternative.

So, do we really want to intentionally deprive certain infants of the freedom of experiencing relationship diversity in their youngest years from birth onwards regarding the most natural and necessary relationship children can have - namely that with a parent, who is nurturer, role model and friend all in one? I believe this is a matter of morality and basic human rights of children, and is analogous to certain of our own rights and freedom as adults, which we not only take for granted, but would be prepared to defend before the courts in our own personal interest. Enjoying relationship diversity, which includes having male and female best friends, relatives, colleges, neighbours, pupils etc is a fundamental freedom. It's fundamentally important because we have the capacity to do so, the capacity to enjoy this diversity. Its part of the essence of life. And we wouldn't accept it any other way. If we were told our best friends must all be male, nobody would accept such an interference.
Since there is seldom a lack of females and males, we may not be aware of how important the perception, interaction and communication with both sexes actually is for the wellbeing of human beings generally, especially respect to those types of relationships which we consider to be fundamentally important. A simple experiment can help: Listen only to male vocalists for two weeks. No female vocalists. Without exception. Also no songs with female background singers. Should be no problem for a typical naim forum member, who will have a nice large collection of great songs performed by male vocalists. So there should be no lack of selection. But, I am pretty sure after 2 weeks anybody would have enough of it. It gets pretty boring to perceive only male voice. Because we love diversity. And one of the most fundamental and important categories of diversity is gender specific differences. And even though this experiment only applies to acoustics, it shows the effect of deprivation of perception of one aspect of the female being. We miss the tender voice of a female vocalist. So, it's fundamentally important and fulfilling to have the freedom to communicate with and perceive males and females either holistically or on various levels of perception (acoustic, visual, tactile).

In fact even infants have this capacity. Many mothers say that their babies can differentiate between the gender specific characteristics of their mother and father from about 6 months. And they enjoy these differences. They explore and investigate them. Of course infants love diversity of perception. 0-4 year olds are, apart from love, primarily interested in what their senses perceive directly: Acoustically (frequency, different sounds, tonal qualities, e.g. mothers feminine soft speech and singing, fathers masculine rougher, deeper voice), visually (colours / forms / also feminine and masculine appearance, forms and movement patterns), tactilely (skin texture, e.g. mothers soft breast, dad's hard chest) and olifactorically. At this age there is no mental activity. It's about enjoying "input" directly, discovering the basics of the world via senses, not through thought or concept. Yes, we hang nice pictures or multi-coloured objects over the cot and try to stimulate the infants senses - let it experience all sorts of diversity through its senses, but nothing is more important, interesting and defining for an infant than what it perceives directly from its parents. And the world of infants of this age consists primarily of their parents, because they focus their attention to a very high degree on their parents. Perception of the parents is prefered over all other perceptions. What ever is learnt directly from them is learnt best.

So the diversity of the gender specific characteristics of the parents is an immensely important source of diversity of perception for infants. Simply because it is what they perceive naturally and by necessity. Same-sex parents cannot offer children this kind of diversity within the intimacy of the defining parent-child relationship.

That's just a few points. Of course something unique and positive can be said about the way each age group of children relates to fathers and mothers, not just that little that I have tried to articulate regarding infants, but I will stop now. Interestingly the website of the US government offers some information on certain aspects of this topic.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/p...rhood/chaptertwo.cfm (quote: "Involved fathers bring positive benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring")

KR

Posted on: 22 April 2013 by Russ

Tony: I believe that some gay people are ill and some are not--just like the straight population. And if I believed the "rubbish" that you attribute to my thought, then would I be for allowing them to adopt?

Hook: The last thing I will say is to ask you this--just for thought: you, like I, believe that people should be able to act as they wish with regard to sexuality--without fear of government interference--including presumably the examples I have given in other posts and this, of polygamy and even what once would have been called "incest". So, again, not arguing that gay marriage will soon be legalized-once a clear majority of the country wants it to happen-- I just want to know where you think society should be forced to draw its lines (as it always must draw them.) if a parent and adult child decided to engage in sexual relations, and demanded that their state and nation issue them a marriage license, would you support that?

Best regards,

Russ

Posted on: 22 April 2013 by Hook

Hi Russ -

I see you posted a few times. I try to respond to your first two posts here, and then answer the question you pose about "drawing lines" in a second post to follow later.

First of all, please note I did not call you any names. Re-read my post if you think otherwise. I have always tried to follow the practice of challenging the post, and not the poster. For example, you'll note that I said " bigotry in any form is indefensible" and that DOMA " was a bigoted law", but I never called you "bigot".

Second, you said " gays who know me also know that I disagree with them on some points--but have the integrity to allow some disagreement without becoming hysterical". I certainly hope that you were not implying that I was hysterical in my response.

Third, you said that " your implication that I supported or would have supported laws against miscegenation is based on complete ignorance." I never said that. I said was that the last time I heard this "domino theory" in relationship to changing marriage law was in 1967. I said that this "is the exact same argument being used by you and others to promote fear of and discrimination towards gays today". I did not say or imply that in 1967, you would have come down on the wrong side of changing marriage law. I stated explicitly that I believe you are on the wrong side of changing marriage law TODAY.

Fourth, you said that " the majority of Americans now oppose gay "marriage"." That is incorrect. Last month's Pew Research poll showed there is slightly more support for same-sex marriage than opposition to it, with 48% in favor and 43% opposed (with a 4% margin of error). By contrast, in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a 57% to 35% margin. This suggests a strong trajectory towards ending the discriminatory laws you've referenced. The only question is whether or not they will be struck down as unconstitutional before they are repealed by popular vote. As I said before, young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage, so this outcome is inevitable.

Lastly, you said that "I personally believe that for the most part being gay is a choice". In fact, this is the pillar upon which all of your other arguments are built. Later you say " I do believe that those gays who tell me they do not have a choice fervently believe that. And maybe they do not. I simply do not know and neither, with respect, so you." To be frank, if you had not interjected your moral judgement of being gay as "deviant", I would have tended to concede that there is an element of choice to being gay (and I will explain exactly what I mean by that later). But once you took a negative stance, and once you started with the tired old domino theory of moral collapse and needing to draw the line, I had no choice but to vehemently disagree with you. I do not believe that changing marriage laws to recognize gay marriage will have any more negative effect on our moral fabric than did changing our marriage laws to allow interracial marriage. I also see no reason for you to become offended by this analogy. Civil rights are civil rights, and all Americans, regardless of race, creed, color or sexual orientation, should be treated equally under the law.

But I agree with the architects of DOMA in just one regard: marriage law needs to be consistent throughout the US. It is untenable for a gay couple to be married in one state, and then move to another state only to have that second state not recognize their marriage.

To back up a moment, please also note that I never said that I believe being gay is simply or strictly a matter of genetics. I believe that all aspects of human behavior, including sexual orientation, are determined by a complex set of biological, psychological and sociocultural influences. Also, scientific research over the past several decades has shown that human sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. So, to reduce any form of sexual orientation to a simple "choice" strikes me as a very gross oversimplification.

In 2010, a group of geneticists in Korea altered the sexual preferences of female mice by removing a single gene linked to reproductive behavior. Without the gene, the mice exhibited masculine sexual behavior and attraction toward female mice. Those mice who retained the gene (called fucose mutarotase) were attracted to male mice. Now, of course this is a long way from showing that there is a causal link between to sexual orientation in human beings, but it does given me (and hopefully others) food for thought...

To begin with, I completely agree with Tony. I find the religious right-wing programs that sanction the kidnapping of young gay men and "deprogramming" them (usually with parental consent) abhorrent. My own state representative's husband is in that ugly business, but they try to keep it very quiet. Why? Because it never works. These poor kids come out the other end of the process psychologically damaged. But again, what if there was an opportunity for genetic alteration, and it was known to work...and there were no negative side effects?

If scientists do someday discover a "gay gene", then should people be offered an opportunity to change of their own free will? My own opinion is yes, they should. But, I also believe that people have the right to engage in any behavior that they choose, so long as their actions do not harm others, and I believe that gay sex and gay relationships do not cause harm to anyone. Therefore, people who are gay have the right to remain that way. I believe, and research agrees, that there are a large number of primarily heterosexual people who, for whatever reason, choose also to engage in homosexual acts. My guess is that those people are more strongly influenced by psychological and sociocultural determinants. But it could turn out their brains are wired differently. You are correct -- nobody really knows for sure right now.

I actually think that people who support gay rights need to be a little careful about portraying gays as having no choice at all. If and when sexual preference can be genetically altered, then people who support gay rights won't be able to strictly rely on this argument. I get a bit uncomfortable when the far left says that gay people should be protected from discrimination because gay people have no choice but to be gay – it sounds too much like an argument that is an apology for homosexuality. It sounds too much as if homosexuality is a disease for which there is no cure. Also, there is an element of homophobia in this argument: the implication that gay people would become straight, if only medical science could offer them a cure! “Gays can’t help being that way” is too reminiscent of the old view of homosexuality as a psychiatric illness for my tastes.

Which brings us back to the argument over marriage. After 35 years with Mrs. Hook, I continue to believe in the institution strongly, and I think that the more people that are happily married, the better. I can not think of one single reason why I would want to keep gays from openly celebrating their monogamous commitment, and having that status recognized in all 50 states as a full-fledged marriage. And I do *not* want that to happen because some people feel sorry for them, or because society thinks that “gays can’t help being that way”. That would reduce gay marriage to the equivalent of building a wheelchair ramp next to the entry stairs. It would put an asterix next to all gay weddings, and I think that would be a terrible shame.

As I've said before, my view is that that ALL people have the right to engage in any sexual behavior that they choose, as long as their actions do not harm others. I believe that gay sex and gay relationships do not cause harm to anyone, and that people who are gay by virtue of their biological makeup have the right to remain that way. I also believe that primarily heterosexual people who also choose to lead a gay lifestyle, have a perfect right to do so. In fact, the whole concept of "Gay Pride" is based on the idea that homosexuality is not something that anyone feels "trapped" by -- it is both who they are and what they want to be.

Hook

Posted on: 22 April 2013 by Hook

Originally Posted by Russ:

...

Best regards,

Russ

Russ -

For now, I will assume that by "drawing the line", you mean creating laws to prohibit behavior that society deems harmful to individuals or to society at large.

Also, this is the second time you've used incest as a test case. Earlier, you said:

"...Consider, for example, the laws forbidding a marriage between two people which would constitute incest--say between a mother and son. The rationale behind these laws of course is to prevent incest. However, where no such rationale exists--as between father and son--should the law of the land permit "marriage" for such a couple?"

The answer is no, and that is because inbreeding is not the only reason we prohibit incest. There is also a victim in this crime: the child. You are correct, incest is harmful to society at large because inbreeding leads to a higher probability of genetic disorders. But we also prohibit incest because it is considered a form of (or at least an indicator of past) child abuse. The boy who falls in love with his mother did so because the mother encouraged it to happen from a young age. That is wrong, and it shows a obvious disregard for the well-being of the child.

Generally speaking, I am very wary of laws regarding victimless crimes. Homosexuality, for example, was for many years a felony. But between two consenting adults, there simply is no victim...so where is the crime? Fortunately, in 2003, the Supreme court struck down all remaining sodomy laws in the US. It finally became obvious that these laws were simply an attempt by a few to legislate morality on behalf of the many. Fortunately, as a nation, we've now decided to place a higher value on individual liberties.

Hook

Posted on: 22 April 2013 by Russ

Hook: Thanks for your considered and long respone.

I stand corrected and apologize. Others used the word "bigoted"--you did not.

I did not mean to imply that you are in anyway hysterical--any more than I am certain you meant to imply that I support DOMA (I believe it is a matter for State determination) or that I ever felt or stated that marriage between persons of different races should be outlawed. My own state was one of the last to do away with the miscegenation laws my own opinion was that it was insulting and vicious legislation.

Nor do I think the legal system should enter our bedrooms. How many times do I have to say that? I simply think that, given 6,000 years of recorded history, society should be given some leeway on being forced to enter the word "Marriage Certificate" at the top of a document finalizing a committed, legal, civil relationship between people of the same sex. Just that. No more.

Having been trained as a lawyer (God will forgive me if you don't ), I have a tendency to look at social matters and relationships in terms of their constitutionality and how legislation would be framed. (I for example, would have taken the bold step of insisting on reading or having my staff the entire package of the "Affordable Care Act." That's just me--I think in terms of definitions and limits. But I will say one last time on this thread:

1. I support civil unions.

2. I support the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt children, if otherwise qualified. I, like many gays who do wish to adopt, understand the importance of sex-oriented modeling for kids.

3. I do not know (and in fact no one knows) whether there is a genetic element to same-sex preference. I suspect there is an element but certainly not complete genetic determination. I happen to be an alcoholic. My father was. My grandfather and one of my uncle's were. My son was a dope addict who, by deciding to change, brought me along with him. It certainly seems there is a genetic element to alcoholism, but I can damned well guarantee you it is a highly complex set of circumstances that determine whether one is going to drink or not.

4. I support the right of every human being to have sex with whatever number of fellow human beings they want, of whatever race, color, creed, national origin, or whether they prefer Naim or JVC! As with monogamous heterosexuals, I hope against hope that they will do so in private. Whether that is to be considered "Marriage" (and so labeled) by a given legal jurisdiction, is a matter, not of religion--but of the rule of the majority. I would ask you to consider your implication that, because a given law is imminent, people who oppose it should give up their opposition and get the hell out of the way. They still are entitled to their opinion and their loyal opposition.

5. I do not believe gays are "sick" or that they should be "deprogrammed". You are absolutely correct that the religious right is way off base in advocating and doing this. I also oppose classes in school trying to "help" children decide whether they are gay or not.

Not you, but It is the immature, not-too-bright person who sees any disagreement whatsoever with a particular agenda or set of beliefs and automatically labels the holder of those disagreements as holding every belief attributable to everyone else.

6. You ask whether I would support gay marriage if one of my children were gay. How do you know that one or more is not? I will only say that if that were the case, I would hold my principles and tell them to their face that I support civil unions. I assure you I would not set double standards for my own child or children.

7. My experience with gay men and women whom I know is very similar to yours--some incredibly fine individuals as well as a few total losers (my words--not yours). But mostly great folks. Unlike some people (again, not you) I do not coddle any group with whom I respectfully disagree on any point. With gays and lesbians, I agree far more than I disagree. Again, that is why I believe so strongly, with you, that many of their persuasion would--and do--make fine parents.

8. As to your statement that "...civil rights are civil rights...", consider this: Civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, assembly, right to keep and bear arms, etc., these apply to all citizens and many non-citizens. Although the Constitution does not specifically say so, this of course includes the right to marry. If any person, of any race, gender, IQ, or any other method of dividing up the human race, were not permitted to "marry" that would be a violation of basic civil liberties. If a gay man or lesbian were denied the right to marry, it would be the same. But the basic civil liberty of entering into "marriage" would not be violated so long as marriage were defined as between one man and one woman. Nor would it be a violation, under current law, if marriage, as traditionally defined, were not permitted to one who is already married. So what we are talking about here is not denying a basic civil liberty, (i.e., marriage) but rather carving out a new definition of what we are going to call marriage--a new definition if you will. This may well happen, and indeed as I have hinted at before, the current laws forbidding polygamy or bigamy may be abrogated by redefinition as well. This may seem to those who support gay marriage as a niggling point, but it is fundamental to Constitutional discussion.

Finally, I will discuss my "offensive" language with regard to what happens during gay sex--the physical aspects. No, I am not disgusted by anal intercourse--whether between or among heterosexuals or homosexuals--so long as I am not being requested to engage in it--by either sex. That is just me. Sorry if that is disappointing to some who would like to believe that a non-supporter of gay marriage is not a complete bigot, but there you are. I have had gay men and women tell me that the thought of having sex with a member of the opposite one is in fact disgusting to them--and that is OK, I am sure, because we heterosexuals are somewhat immune from hurt or criticism. I would submit that had I merely left my description to that of vaginal sex, some folks would have been yukking it up and posting jokes. In any case, I will say again that I tend to speak vividly in order to make points and am rarely deadpan serious in any of my threads. So if anyone wants to take me serious on that point--go have your fun. (again, not referring to you, Hook--you are very considerate in your analyses.

Best regards,

Russ

Posted on: 22 April 2013 by Marou

Russ, you're wrestling valiantly with a problem that Hook is solving for you - give in to the inner good guy which it must be clear to almost everyone on this forum is crying to get out.

Posted on: 22 April 2013 by Don Atkinson

Originally Posted by Russ:

society should be given some leeway on being forced to enter the word "Marriage Certificate" at the top of a document finalizing a committed, legal, civil relationship between people of the same sex. Just that. No more.

I would ask you to consider your implication that, because a given law is imminent, people who oppose it should give up their opposition and get the hell out of the way. They still are entitled to their opinion and their loyal opposition.

I haven't fully followed this thread because it got a bit long-winded and Russ does tend to bang on and on, but....

I agree with most of what he said in his post above, and in particular the two bits that I abstracted above.

" marriage" should be the word reserved for that legal state of union between a man and a woman. Others forms of union should be recognised by some other word. Legal rights and obligations of "marriage" and "this other form of union" could well be the same if and when possible.

It would be absolutely abhorant if we had to give up opposition to each and every imminant or new law. The converse is that we would still be living in the Dark-Ages or some other intollerable past.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 22 April 2013 by Russ

Not struggling, really, Marou. I'll admit I'm not very smart, but I do fancy myself intelligent enough to develop informed opinions on what constitutes good and bad on my own. I do thank you, though for your concern and advice.

Don: "Banging on and on" pretty much says it and I do have to plead guilty on that. I once made a marathon post to a canoe-racing website and someone posted: "Wow, that's 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back!" I replied: "I know what you mean--it took me 5 minutes to write the damned thing." Lord knows I am pretty graphic--and I do that to make a point. I honestly do want gays to be able to engage in sexual activity without being arrested or beaten up. What used to be called "sodomy" both in the Bible and in the laws of many states, was indeed outlawed--and in my view, wrongly so. But so long as the State does not interfere with the private behavior of gay couples and does not, further, prevent their entering into legally protected relationships with regard to contracts of insurance, property, etc, I do not believe that calling their relationship "marriage" rises to the same level of Constitutional protection as, for example, preventing black citizens from voting. If the State were to prevent gays from voting, that most certainly would be the same case.

Hook: I had not seen your most recent post prior to "banging on and on" as Don so appropriately puts it.

I mentioned incest and polygamy more than once because there are interesting parallels with the gay marriage question.

I agree with you with regard to victimless crimes. I also concur that there are more complex reasons for forbidding incest than just the sanctions against it based on the possibility of genetic defects. However, I cannot accept that there are no situations where a mother or father can just legitimately fall in love with and become physically intensely attracted to one or more of their adult children (and vice versa) without coercion on the part of the parents. the "kids" in this case, are most certainly consenting adults. And where this indeed happens, by your own rationale, the state should do nothing whatsoever to interfere with their sexual enjoyment of each other--or preventing them from marrying if they so choose. Or, in the alternative, if the test is whether there was coercion between an older parent and a younger adult "child", then shouldn't the same legal test be applied in situations where an older man or woman enters into a sexual relationship (or even marriage) with a younger man or woman one generation removed? If the state automatically assumes coercion between a parent and adult "child" wishing to marry and have sex--if in short, it is willing to make its way into their bedroom, should it not also be permitted into the bedroom of a fifty-year-old man who marries a college boy?

Here is what I submit, Hook: the idea of a man or woman marrying their own kid, whether adult or not, is just as disgusting--dare I say "morally shocking" as you think I am with regard to gay sex. I suppose Marou will be advising both of us to relax and listen to our inner good guys! The fact is that gay relationships have been taboo in the huge majority of societies for millenia. And gay marriage has not been recognized in any of them. It has ever been the same with incest. Both have offended the conscience--to use a quasi-legal term. The law does have to draw lines.

Best regards,

Russ

Posted on: 23 April 2013 by Kevin-W

Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:

Why?

Posted on: 23 April 2013 by digger628

Originally Posted by Kevin-W:

Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:

Why?

Posted on: 24 April 2013 by Russ

Kevin and Digger, -2 Society agrees in an implicit manner as to the norms it sanctions. Frequently those norms are codified into law. For at least 6,000 years, societies have defined marriage as Don suggests. It is not a question whether society should prevent sexual activity--we all agree in that. It is rather about changing a definition if millenia standing. I

Posted on: 24 April 2013 by Kevin-W

Originally Posted by Russ:

The length of time a group of people have thought something has no bearing on its veracity. For most of human history (10,000 years maybe) slavery was seen as acceptable. Most people now think that it is not, thank goodness.

The question is, Russ, is not whether you like gays marrying or not, or whether you approve of homosexuality, but whether or not you believe that everyone is equal before the law.

Either everyone is equal before the law, or you believe that some or not. Why don't you just tell us whether you believe this is true (or at least something every society should aspire to) or not.

And if not, why not.

Posted on: 24 April 2013 by Russ

I assumed the comparison with slavery would arise, Kevin--and your drawing the analogy is not entirely without merit--it makes the very valid point that not all norms (or laws, or sanctions) are moral. Dare I extend your example of slavery to say, the ever favorite example of Nazi Germany? First, (and I suppose I will have to make the point for the fourth or fifth time) I agree--no, TI get your attention--I AGREE that sodomy laws, along with deprogramming kids who say they are gay--or holding events at school to "help children decide" whether they are gay--is reprehensible. As bad as the institution of slavery or the extermination of the Jews? Well, I will let you decide that. Second, (and this too will involve repeating myself which I am more than willing to do), I fully AGREE that all persons should be allowed to enter into "marriage", however a society may define that institution. If, as In 40 states of the US. That means a relationship between one man and one woman, then u believe it violates Equal Protection to forbid a black to marry a white, a retarded person to marry a member of the opposite sex, or similarly for a handicapped person--or a Muslim--or any other human being. I do NOT agree that a given society's failure to extend the definition of "marriage" to include multiple spouses, same sex couples, (or any of many other combinations I can imagine) rises to anywhere near the level of atrocity of owning another human being. Now, who says I am so dead set against gay Marriage? What I oppose is ANY group trying to force society to to change its rules where a majority of the citizens are against those rules ASSUMING NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION EXISTS IN THE STATUS QUO! (I capitalize here, not to yell at you, but for heavy emphasis. When Justice Scalia asked the Solicitor General (Who was arguing that disallowing gay marriage was a violation of the Constitution,) just where in the Constitution he found that--the SG asked the Justice where he found the provision against slavery, Scalia pointed out that it was in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Yes, as I said to Hook, and again, I repeat myself, I believe it is the purview of the states to define marriage. Not the Federal government. Thus, leaving aside the argument that DOMA is bigoted, i think it is invalid. And as Hook points out, the fact that the youth of America strongly favors the altered definition of marriage will render it inevitable. But it should be beneath the dignity of those who favor the redefinition of marriage to label those who disagree as bigots or homophobes. Best regards, Russ

Posted on: 24 April 2013 by Russ

In my third paragraph, I fat-thumbed a typo. "u believe" should read "I believe". It does change the meaning somewhat!

Russ

Posted on: 25 April 2013 by Kevin-W

Russ

You are either confused or dissembling; or maybe you are just one of life's wafflers.

i don't want to know about Nazis or the holy bloody US Constitution.

All I want to know is, do you believe that people are, or should be, all equal before the law?

Simple, one word answer: yes, or no.

So do you?

Posted on: 25 April 2013 by Russ

Kevin, Funny, but I had pictured you as one capable of entertaining complex thoughts patterns and arguments. But you ask for a simple yes or no answer--which clearly identifies you as either a graduate of Harvard Law School organ afficianado of Perry Mason. So just for you, the answer is "Yes, all people should be equal under the law. And in 40 states the law currently defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Beat wishes, Russ

Posted on: 25 April 2013 by Don Atkinson

Originally Posted by Kevin-W:

Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:

Why?

Because it defines a potential state of pro-creation. This is not possible in a same-sex relationship.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 25 April 2013 by Don Atkinson

Originally Posted by digger628:

Originally Posted by Kevin-W:

Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:

Why?

See above

cheers

Don

Posted on: 25 April 2013 by Prubast

Thankfully Russ' "Majority" will soon be a minority and then hopefully we can all embrace an inclusive society where everyone is equal and free to practice what they believe, irrespective of race , gender, colour, creed or sexuality - even if that means Gay people who have a faith and want a religious union!

Get over it mate, times are a changing and you're a dying breed. That's me done with this shite, I'm off back to the music room to check out some new tunes

Posted on: 25 April 2013 by Russ

Prubast: I respect your opinions. But please do not tell me to "get over" anything. Not speaking about the definition of marriage here, but I have done more to promote inclusiveness in so many important ways than most people ever dream about. I do not mention it because it would be self-serving. Whether gays marry or not is up to society and will cost me nothing one way or another. The only stake I have in this question is that I think there are up and down sides to almost every question. I wish you well.

Russ

Posted on: 27 April 2013 by Kevin-W

Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:

Originally Posted by Kevin-W:

Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:

Why?

Because it defines a potential state of pro-creation. This is not possible in a same-sex relationship.

Cheers

Don

Well Don there are a number of lesbians with children who might disagree with you there.

Also, what about married couples who choose to remain childless? Our marriages in which one or both partners are infertile? Are they not married?

Also you say (presumably of marriage) "it defines a potential state of pro-creation". Sez who? Whose definition is this? And why do you presume that it is, or is even to be, universally accepted?

Posted on: 27 April 2013 by Kevin-W

Originally Posted by Russ:

Russ, you really need to have the courage of your convictions and stop dissembling and resorting to low-quality attempts at insults. You're not going to wiggle or waffle your way out of this.

You say that everyone should be equal before the law, so what is your problem with gay people getting married? If one group of people should be able to get married, why not everyone? Why don't you just tell us....

Not that it's particularly relevant, here, but if it's good enough for 10 States in the US, what about the other 40?

And also, you have got to stop being so US-centric. There is a world outside America you know. A lot of these countries are very enlightened and progressive, and far more advanced than the USA in many respects, particularly in matters of social policy.

Posted on: 27 April 2013 by Russ

I have tried to explain it to you. I will do so one last time. When the majority of the citizenry of any state determines that they wish to define marriage in a certain way, I may or may not agree with it--or may be indifferent. In the case of gay marriage:

1. I most definitely support legal status for the relationship in the form of civil union.

2. If--no, when--any given state decides to call that marriage--because a majority of its citizens believe it should, then in that particular case, I am pretty much indifferent what it is called--though many of the minority will not be.

3. The citizens of the rest of the World, so much more enlightened, progressive and advanced than the U.S.--especially those in Greece and Portugal, may--and will do what they pleases under auspices of their own particular countries' sovereignty.

Now, without meaning to insult you in any way, I have to say that you do not seem to share the enlightenment and advanced status of most of the rest of the world in not being able to comprehend what it means to have equal protection under law. So back to the unenlightened, backward United States, I ask you to "...just tell us":

If a state decides to define marriage as legal and protected between a parent and adult child--would you support that?

If a state decides to define marriage as legal and protected between more than one woman and more than one man--let's say, all at the same time--no limit--what is your position? Don't dissemble or waffle.

Posted on: 27 April 2013 by Don Atkinson

Originally Posted by Kevin-W:

Well Don there are a number of lesbians with children who might disagree with you there.

Also, what about married couples who choose to remain childless? Our marriages in which one or both partners are infertile? Are they not married?

Also you say (presumably of marriage) "it defines a potential state of pro-creation". Sez who? Whose definition is this? And why do you presume that it is, or is even to be, universally accepted?

Hi Kevin,

In a union between man and woman there is the potential for procreation. That is what I said. Not mandatory, not always possible due to infertility etc. Never the less the potential.

In a union between two women or two men there is no potential whatsoever. They can adopt, have relationships (direct or indirect) with people of the opposite sex ie outsite the declared union, but there is no potential whatsoever within the union.

My view is that because of this uniqueness, a unique adjective (descriptor) is appropriate for the declared union of a man and woman. Because of historical association, "marriage" is IMHO, the appropriate descriptor. Same sex couples, with all the other legal rights of hetrosexual couples, should invent a different descriptor for their union.

There are always going to be a few exception, eg couples who choose to remain chilldless, or discover with modern clinical assessment and therefore know they are infertile. I would not deny these opposite-sex couples the use of "marriage".

I don't understand your last paragraph, so can't comment -apologies.

Cheers

Don