The crux of the gay marriage issue is immutabilitiy or not

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by LA Ute

I posted this earlier but you did not respond. It's an honest, good-faith question:

If (when?) gay rights activists finally succeed in establishing that homosexuality is immutable and is just like race, won't that place the U.S. government in the position of viewing a great many-- perhaps most-- traditional faith communities as bigotswho are at odds with the law of the land? Won't churches who oppose same-sex marriage be equated with Southern churches in the 50's who taught that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will?

I'm not talking about the faith community you loathe most (the Mormons). Think about Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Conservative and Orthodox Jews, and the African American Christian churches you view with such amazing (racist?) condescension. ( I believe you said their members just need a little education to understand the true civil rights issues involved in gay marriage, didn't you?)

Seriously, won't that raise some truly difficult issues for people of good will to work out? As you ponder this question, try not to jump to some of your favorite words, like "obvious," to describe your own views. You might not have as great cause to be certain as you think.

I'm sorry I missed this. Thanks for reposting.

You raise several points. First, I don't loath religions. People who know me best know I'm actually passionate about them. I appreciate that 95%+ of human history could be called religious history, and a case could be made that we Westerners owe all to Christianity. Sadly, that is not a predominant outlook among Mormons, which is one of my problems with LDS faith. Just as I live outside my parents' house and continue to love them, I live outside any religious sect and continue to love religion. I am sensitive also to my debt to Mormonism, as well as its shortcomings.

Second, addressing your comment, "If (when?) gay rights activists finally succeed in establishing that homosexuality is immutable and is just like race, won't that place the U.S. government in the position of viewing a great many-- perhaps most-- traditional faith communities as bigotswho are at odds with the law of the land?" People call all the religions you listed a lot of negative names, including sexist, paternalistic, supersicious, harborers of pedophiles, etc. It doesn't change their legal status.

The Civil Rights Act does not apply to religions, nor are they governed by the Bill of Rights. No federal judge ordered Mormons to give blacks the priesthood. The IRS never threatened to revoke the LDS Church's tax exempt status if it did not give blacks the priesthood. If you hold the courage of your convictions, why do you care if people think your church is bigoted once the day comes when sexual preference being a civil right is widely accepted? Was Prop. 8 about trying to stay mainstream? Your "difficult questions" just allude to some of the disingenous fear mongering that was a staple of the prop. 8 campaign.

Third, I stand by what I said about blacks voting overwhelmingly in favor of prop. 8. You are confusing condescention and racism for holding accountable for bad acts and treating all races equally. I am saying the explanations given by blacks for their votes for proplistion 8 are backward, just as I say it about Mormons who are predominantly white. I am treating whites, Asians, blacks and Hispanics the same in this judgment. That is the opposite of racism.

I am holding the vast majority of blacks who supported Prop. 8 accountable for denying civil rights to California gays, as I am blind to the fact they are black (the pollsters disclosed the black demographic supporting the measure, not me, and the Washington Post wrote an article on the subject). Giving them a break on this for being black is what would be condescening and racist. It is also a fact that blacks have had less educational advantages in our country than whites. I do think that that showed in the proposition 8 election. I note that of the blacks who voted for proposition 8 there were a disproportionate number of single mothers. I wonder what the percentage of high school diploma holders was among them?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

Ooooh, GOOD one, SU. But why stop there? How did they define "registered voter" say, 500 years ago? 2000 years ago?

Oh! The definition of registered voter has changed! So why not marriage?

Heck, they gave blacks the priesthood!

Tex, you know I respect your intelligence. This may be your least intelligent post ever, if you truly disagree with me.

By the way, anyone with even a passing interest in linguistics knows the dynamic nature of language. Isn't language the thing that most distinguishes us humans from the rest of the animals?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by LA Ute

Great Britain defines it as male-female. Elton John is reportedly very happy and satisfied with his civil union.

France, that bastion of refined culture and civilization whose approval all American liberals crave, also defines marriage as man-woman. Unless I am mistaken, they also allow civil unions.

The French and British say, like California does, that marriage means the union of a man and a woman. Like California, those two nations say gay unions can be legally formalized and given all the rights of traditional spouses. (See California Family Code Sec. 297.5. It's a very clear statute.)

Unlike many Californians and at least one resident of the State of Washington, neither the French nor the British governments seem to equate recognition of only man-woman marriage with bigotry.

You can try to make it a civil rights issue all you want, but that is a diversionary tactic. The question is, what does "marriage" mean?

Peace and love,

LA Ute

One more question for you. Why does the LDS Church oppose civil unions in places it can successfully oppose them, like Utah?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Tex, you know I respect your intelligence. This may be your least intelligent post ever, if you truly disagree with me.

By the way, anyone with even a passing interest in linguistics knows the dynamic nature of language. Isn't language the thing that most distinguishes us humans from the rest of the animals?

Funny how people keep identifying my "least intelligent post ever." I must be getting progressively less intelligent.

I don't understand how a change in one word constitutes a reason to change another. Shall we change the meaning of the word "sun"? Why not start calling the moon a second sun, eh? Heck, we changed the word "voter" ... why not?

Or the word "blue"? Why not start calling red things blue? Then we can say the Cougs wear blue, and the Utes wear "blue"! Gooooo BLUE!

There's dynamic linguistics for ya.

[SeattleUte]

Let me add to my point about color blindness, it's the Prop. 8 supporters who are now citing blacks' votes as some kind of vindication. That opportunism requires some kind of principled response.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Let me add to my point about color blindness, it's the Prop. 8 supporters who are now citing blacks' votes as some kind of vindication. That opportunism requires some kind of principled response.

Advocates for gay marriage such as yourself ignore that the current desires are in fact a process of normalization, not the recognition of innate rights existing since the dawn of time.

Marriage is a social convention, created by tribes to ensure children were cared for. Over time, the state saw a revenue stream, as did the prevailing churches, so these entities imposed upon society the legal requirements to convey some societal benefits. During this process culture began to associate certain realities surrounding this mix of authority, natural protection, and social construct.

Non-procreative unions would not have been noticed in times when society was struggling to provide. But history records no significant movement relative to gay marriage until the Netherlands in the 80s or 90s. Why? History is replete with efforts to overthrow unnatural oppressions, such as slavery, suffrage, physical abuse, deprivations of liberty and of free speech.

Why no historical movement for gay marriage?

If the homosexual sex drive is immutable, does that necessarily mean, the drive to couple is immutable, or is it learned? It seems that society taught mankind to marry and to couple, because men would have been happy to copulate and leave. So the cultural impulse to marry is NOT immutable, but in fact learned.

So even if much or most of homosexuality is genetically related, which appears to be the case, why is it compelled that society must convey a cultural condition not endemic to the immutable characteristic?

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Advocates for gay marriage such as yourself ignore that the current desires are in fact a process of normalization, not the recognition of innate rights existing since the dawn of time.

Marriage is a social convention, created by tribes to ensure children were cared for. Over time, the state saw a revenue stream, as did the prevailing churches, so these entities imposed upon society the legal requirements to convey some societal benefits. During this process culture began to associate certain realities surrounding this mix of authority, natural protection, and social construct.

Non-procreative unions would not have been noticed in times when society was struggling to provide. But history records no significant movement relative to gay marriage until the Netherlands in the 80s or 90s. Why? History is replete with efforts to overthrow unnatural oppressions, such as slavery, suffrage, physical abuse, deprivations of liberty and of free speech.

Why no historical movement for gay marriage?

If the homosexual sex drive is immutable, does that necessarily mean, the drive to couple is immutable, or is it learned? It seems that society taught mankind to marry and to couple, because men would have been happy to copulate and leave. So the cultural impulse to marry is NOT immutable, but in fact learned.

So even if much or most of homosexuality is genetically related, which appears to be the case, why is it compelled that society must convey a cultural condition not endemic to the immutable characteristic?

Good post.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Advocates for gay marriage such as yourself ignore that the current desires are in fact a process of normalization, not the recognition of innate rights existing since the dawn of time.

Marriage is a social convention, created by tribes to ensure children were cared for. Over time, the state saw a revenue stream, as did the prevailing churches, so these entities imposed upon society the legal requirements to convey some societal benefits. During this process culture began to associate certain realities surrounding this mix of authority, natural protection, and social construct.

Non-procreative unions would not have been noticed in times when society was struggling to provide. But history records no significant movement relative to gay marriage until the Netherlands in the 80s or 90s. Why? History is replete with efforts to overthrow unnatural oppressions, such as slavery, suffrage, physical abuse, deprivations of liberty and of free speech.

Why no historical movement for gay marriage?

If the homosexual sex drive is immutable, does that necessarily mean, the drive to couple is immutable, or is it learned? It seems that society taught mankind to marry and to couple, because men would have been happy to copulate and leave. So the cultural impulse to marry is NOT immutable, but in fact learned.

So even if much or most of homosexuality is genetically related, which appears to be the case, why is it compelled that society must convey a cultural condition not endemic to the immutable characteristic?

Why is this relevant? Your argument would work equally well in defense of prohibitions against inter-racial marriage. Democracy is a social convention. So is property ownership. Civil rights is all about granting equal access to civilization's benefits. The immutability question arises only in the context of deciding whether homosexuals fall into a class of persons deserving special protection by the Bill of Rights sections of federal or State Constitutions because they are being denied a benefit based on a characteristic they can't change and they didn't choose.

You have a short historical perspective. The "historical" movement for equality of humans in terms of fundamental rights across all races and genders is itself recent.

Ultimately, this is about what's right or moral, I agree. Which is why I wish the anti-gay marriage people would stop with their lies, their fear mongering and junk science and just stick to a statement about morality. I don't know if the federal Constitution's Bill of Rights guarantees a right to marry someone of your own gender. Probably not, but I think it should. What is truly an abomination, a desecration, however, is to amend a Constitution's "Bill of Rights" to explicitly eliminate an individual liberty, and on religious grounds.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Why is this relevant? Your argument would work equally well in defense of prohibitions against inter-racial marriage. [Point 1] Democracy is a social convention. So is property ownership. Civil rights is all about granting equal access to civilization's benefits. The immutability question arises only in the context of deciding whether homosexuals fall into a class of persons deserving special protection by the Bill of Rights sections of federal or State Constitutions because they are being denied a benefit based on a characteristic they can't change and they didn't choose.

You have a short historical perspective. The "historical" movement for equality of humans in terms of fundamental rights across all races and genders is itself recent.

Ultimately, this is about what's right or moral, I agree. Which is why I wish the anti-gay marriage people would stop with their lies, their fear mongering and junk science and just stick to a statement about morality.[and gay advocates never engage in like kind exchanges?] I don't know if the federal Constitution's Bill of Rights guarantees a right to marry someone of your own gender. Probably not, but I think it should. What is truly an abomination, a desecration, however, is to amend a Constitution's "Bill of Rights" to explicitly eliminate an individual liberty, and on religious grounds.

Bullshit. Interracial marriage has existed for as long as there have been marriages. Some cultures such as Jewish cultures forbade it probably to avoid diluting the tribe to lose authority over the tribe, and other tribes encouraged it for political purposes or for purposes of subjugation.

Immutability is used as a legal concept constructed to create distinctions for conveying certain rights. There is nothing inherent or immutable about it as a legal concept. It was used to fend off, why distinctions in legal rights should not be used for broad traits, such as gender or ethnic origin. Race itself is a social construct, and probably makes no sense including it as an "immutable" characteristic, when it's a social construct itself. We have construct upon construct.

And if people wish to discuss it in "moral behavior" how society ought to treat people, I'm okay with that.

But people will argue ethically by what has also occurred historically, and so the circle will continue.

Why not preempt the debate by recognizing "marriage" in reality was a social construct, which we may redefine or undefine as we please. And if the cultural attributes attached to marriage create so much friction, why not continue to think outside the box, and have everybody reject it? It was a stupid, revenue raising compromise to have the state sanction unions.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am not sure we have a consensus. But we certainly don't have a consensus that immutability is irrelevant.

We have been rehashing the old "is gay a choice" question. And rehashing... and rehashing....

You know when creekster told you fuck off the other day? He had been reading one too many threads on this topic. It pushed him over the edge.



Of course. Only an idiot would compare homosexuality to pedophilia.

Just to clarify, I didn't actually say that, although I conceded that was the sentiment behind my actual statemnt.

I did sort of go over the edge on this stuff. As a result I have sworn off threads that have to do with 1. the cause/source/origin/nature of homosexuality and 2. Prop 8 or gay marriage. This explains why I have posted so little the last day or two.