Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[james0246]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

To which the common rebuttal is: Are we to expect humans to behave like mere animals?

There are plenty of "natural" anti-social tendencies that a "normal" human being is expected to suppress. For example, science increasingly suggests that human beings do, in fact, have a predisposition towards polygamy. In fact, if you think about it, it makes perfect evolutionary sense.

Yet in most societies today, bigamy and polygamy are outlawed. Why should that necessarily be the case, since it is arguably "natural" for human beings to have multiple partners?

Perhaps cheyannew can comment on this?

Bigamy and Polygamy are outlawed because the set-up naturally supresses women (Men attain dominance, whereas Women become subservient). But, I am sure you realize this...

Anti-social tendencies are criminalized when said tendencies harm other citizens, or could result in harm to other citizens. So, even if they are "natural" (which is not always a general case - many antisocial behaviors are caused by societal pressures, genetic (etc) problems, and a variety of other symptoms that need not actually correlate to the "average" human (in other words, antisocial behaviour can often be particular to a person or even a small group, but not necessarily anything larger than said small group)), if they cause harm, then they are bad.

Homosexuality (and same sex "marriage") cannot really be comapred to antisocial tendencies since homosexuality seems to produce no real (known) harm.

[Zu Ra]

Yeah we liberals are being totally hypocritical and snooty . Refusing to accept time honored traditions of society and morality . An interesting parody was written along these lines by Jen T titled The Militant gay Movement


http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...y_movement.htm



<< Language is a little NSFW be warned >>

[Irkalla]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

And it's funny how the big bad wolf acts like the victim all the time. Their hypocrisy knows no limits.

Yeah, very hypocritical. Besides, the big bad wolfs agenda is not really a matter of "morality", it's a matter of economics.

@Zu_Ra excellent parody

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Zaseka

Yeah, very hypocritical. Besides, the big bad wolfs agenda is not really a matter of "morality", it's a matter of economics.

@Zu_Ra excellent parody

I could write an entire book relating to the hypocrisy of the Vatican and religion in general, but that's for some other time. You make a good point. Economics comes before morality for them. I kinda wonder where the charity money goes

And yeah, the parody's awesome. The way it's written almost reminds me of anonymous

[Irkalla]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I could write an entire book relating to the hypocrisy of the Vatican and religion in general, but that's for some other time. You make a good point. Economics comes before morality for them. I kinda wonder where the charity money goes

And yeah, the parody's awesome. The way it's written almost reminds me of anonymous

Well, money is power. And power makes up the morality, and there we are. Not only limited to religious institutions though, secularized governments too.(as if that really exists) Where Vatican got the initial wealth, I think we all learned that in history class But that is a topic for another thread.

As ravers would say P.L.U.R

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Purple Library Guy

Those against homosexuality ultimately are of the opinion that it is simply bad because it is. They have no ethical basis for that opinion--it's not that homosexuality is unfair to anyone, or harms anything, or generally has any qualities ethically distinguishing it from heterosexuality. It's just because. It's an axiom, an assumption, not a conclusion.

This is the answer, and this is precisely why I cannot take the opposing viewpoint seriously or respectfully.

Until they're able to provide a valid moral reason why I shouldn't be able to marry another girl, I'm going to pretty much just treat them like the real-life forum trolls they are.

[Irkalla]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

It is pretty clear actually. Even if polygamy is illegal, the dominant side of that supposed relationship is still allowed to satisfy himself/herself with the help of one. No restriction on the "one". However, if you start comparing it to a homosexual relationship, what is considered is not allowing even that "one".

So if I understand this correctly, what is bothering you, is the fact that in a homosexual relationship there is not only dominant x submissive sex, but rather there is "flipping" too?(in other words, there is no vagina meets penis scenario) And therefore, one would be deprived of being on the dominant side all the time? Please tell me that I'm wrong, I don't want my evil senses to be triggered here.

[RadiantBeam]

Originally Posted by Zaseka

So if I understand this correctly, what is bothering you, is the fact that in a homosexual relationship there is not only dominant x submissive sex, but rather there is "flipping" too?(in other words, there is no vagina meets penis scenario) And therefore, one would be deprived of being on the dominant side all the time? Please tell me that I'm wrong, I don't want my evil senses to be triggered here.

I was always under the impression that plenty of "flipping" happened in a heterosexual relationship, as well, not just dominant x submissive sex. Or am I wrong?

[Irkalla]

Originally Posted by RadiantBeam

I was always under the impression that plenty of "flipping" happened in a heterosexual relationship, as well, not just dominant x submissive sex. Or am I wrong?

Yes, that is exactly my point.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Zaseka

So if I understand this correctly, what is bothering you, is the fact that in a homosexual relationship there is not only dominant x submissive sex, but rather there is "flipping" too?(in other words, there is no vagina meets penis scenario) And therefore, one would be deprived of being on the dominant side all the time? Please tell me that I'm wrong, I don't want my evil senses to be triggered here.

I wonder how you managed to get all that information from that content....What I meant to say is, the polygamist can still marry one to have some kind of relationship. It is not like the dominant side would be completely forbidden to have a relationship that is still acceptable by the society and the laws. So, the person would still have a choice.

However, when you consider the homosexual couples, in some societies, not even a small part of that would be allowed. Unless you consider platonic relationships as sufficient....

[Irkalla]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

I wonder how you managed to get all that information from that content....What I meant to say is, the polygamist can still marry one to have some kind of relationship. It is not like the dominant side would be completely forbidden to have a relationship that is still acceptable by the society and the laws. So, the person would still have a choice.

However, when you consider the homosexual couples, in some societies, not even a small part of that would be allowed. Unless you consider platonic relationships as sufficient....

Okay, I might have just discovered our problem here. Your sentence as it is makes no sense. However, if a change the dominant word into submissive, then it makes more sense. Am I onto something here?

[Zu Ra]

Think its just a minor type which made a major difference . This is what I assume FlipSkuul wanted to say ^^

It is not like the submissive side would be completely forbidden to have a relationship that is still acceptable by the society and the laws

Edit :



Just struck me, the term which should have been used was Top / Bottom w.r.p. to same sex couples

[Sazelyt]

I am talking about the side that is in needs, if the need is indeed a nature-triggered one. In a polygamy relationship, I am referring to the dominant side with that need, which is typically the male side. So, even if you forbid the person to not have any kind of polygamist relationship, since the society would still be allowing a heterosexual relationship, he can continue to have this at least on a minimum level, that would still be accepted by the society. And that means, he can still be able to marry a woman.

However, if you consider a homosexual relationship, when you forbid the relationship on any kind of level, you would also be denying the person any kind of relationship that matches his/her natural instincts.

Is this better, or still not clear?

[Zu Ra]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

In a polygamy relationship, I am referring to the dominant side with that need, which is typically the male side.

Less to do with needs more to do with position of women in society . Biologically women are known to have a greater libido and drive then men . Hence the word multiple .

EDIT :

Originally Posted by cheyannew

But that's not terribly relevant to the current discussion, so we're getting a bit sidetracked.

oops my bad there . Point taken and noted ^^

[cheyannew]

We already (or I already) briefly went over the whole "polygamy USED to be male dominated" thing; thankfully the newer polyamoury movement means more equality, etc. But that's not terribly relevant to the current discussion, so we're getting a bit sidetracked.

[RadiantBeam]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

I am talking about the side that is in needs, if the need is indeed a nature-triggered one. In a polygamy relationship, I am referring to the dominant side with that need, which is typically the male side.

I'd have to disagree with your statement here. I've seen plenty of relationships where the female side was the dominant one with that particular need.

[Irkalla]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

I am talking about the side that is in needs, if the need is indeed a nature-triggered one. In a polygamy relationship, I am referring to the dominant side with that need, which is typically the male side. So, even if you forbid the person to not have any kind of polygamist relationship, since the society would still be allowing a heterosexual relationship, he can continue to have this at least on a minimum level, that would still be accepted by the society. And that means, he can still be able to marry a woman.

However, if you consider a homosexual relationship, when you forbid the relationship on any kind of level, you would also be denying the person any kind of relationship that matches his/her natural instincts.

Is this better, or still not clear?

First part of your post = complete common sense, I also accept that the man side is typically, but not always, dominant in a hetero relationship.
Second part of your post = That's what we are all trying to prove in this whole damn thread! And yes, I finally fully understand what you are saying. And I agree. Basically, you were comparing why it's acceptable for polygamy to be illegal as opposed to homosexuality which would go against ones nature. In the polygamy case, it's just "luxury"

[Sazelyt]

I am glad that we cleared the misunderstanding. I was starting to think that I was losing it...

[Irkalla]

Lol no, I was too much on the defensive mode so I was looking at all the possible bad case scenarios more than anything else + the fact that it's 3 am here Sorry for the trouble ^^

[TinyRedLeaf]

I'm heading back to the grindstone so, again, I have limited time to develop my points.

Originally Posted by james0246

Bigamy and Polygamy are outlawed because the set-up naturally supresses women (Men attain dominance, whereas Women become subservient). But, I am sure you realize this...

Anti-social tendencies are criminalized when said tendencies harm other citizens, or could result in harm to other citizens. So, even if they are "natural" (which is not always a general case - many antisocial behaviors are caused by societal pressures, genetic (etc) problems, and a variety of other symptoms that need not actually correlate to the "average" human (in other words, antisocial behaviour can often be particular to a person or even a small group, but not necessarily anything larger than said small group)), if they cause harm, then they are bad.

Homosexuality (and same sex "marriage") cannot really be comapred to antisocial tendencies since homosexuality seems to produce no real (known) harm.

We come back full circle, to the definition of "harm". As I have already pointed out, the law recognises various kinds of "harm", not just physical ones, but also intangible ones where "damage" is not so easily assessed.

Are you absolutely sure that bigamy or polygamy "naturally" suppresses women? Or is that just your unspoken assumption talking? What if the parties involved in a polygamous relationship have all consented to such an arrangement? Where then is the "harm"?

What business, then, is it of the State to prohibit such a marriage relationship, if it is the decision of mutually consenting adults? After all, where there is "consent", presumably there is no "harm" being caused, is there?

Now, consider suicide. Why do most, if not all, legal systems regard suicide as a crime? What "harm" is being caused? Is the person attempting suicide "harming" other people? His act of taking his own life "harms" no one but himself. He makes a conscious choice to take his own life, for reasons only he would fully comprehend. Why then should the State step in to prevent this act of "free will"?

What "harm" is being caused to third parties through the act of suicide? There is the trauma inflicted on the individual's family and friends, but why should their emotions and feelings override the desire of the individual to end his own life?

So, again and again: Define "harm". To those who would argue for homosexual relationships and same-sex unions, of course you would see no "harm" in such arrangements. But to those who fervently believe that the very concept of "marriage" defines only the union of a man with a woman, they see "damage" being inflicted on a "sacred" cultural institution. Can they therefore sit idly by while such change is being called for in the name of "progress"? "Progress" for whom?

Originally Posted by Purple Library Guy

When I used the phrase "natural justice" that wasn't really the sense of the word "natural" that I was using. But it did reflect my fairly firm belief that concepts such as justice are not culturally relative in any real sense.

Are you absolutely sure? For example, if justice were to be based on "fairness", to what extent can we come up with "natural laws" that are universally fair to all people? Even in the case of "killing", for example, there are exceptions where taking someone else's life is considered acceptable. But is that necessarily being "fair" to the person who would be killed?

As someone else has also pointed out, there are different kinds of "natural law". The most natural law of all would be the "law of the jungle", ie, "might makes right". But I think we would all readily agree that such an ethical system would be completely incompatible with "civilised" life.

The idea of "natural law" stems from the unspoken assumption that there are concepts that are "universal" to all men, values that transcend "cultures" and "beliefs". If only such "laws" were so easy to identify. Even if such "universal" laws do exist, it is clear that each individual perceives them differently, because he sees them through the prism of his own cultural/ethical environment.

In other words, we cannot escape from the simple reality that, no matter how hard we try, our views of what constitutes "natural law" is necessarily affected by our culturally-inspired moral views. We cannot escape the fact that at least some degree of cultural relativism does indeed apply to the concept of "justice".

So, in cases where there are different contenders as to what makes "natural law", when there is no consensus over what is more "universal" than the other, what then should a society do? Again, as I've said before, the "fair" thing to do would be to put the matter to a vote. And, if the majority votes to define "marriage" as the union only between a man and a woman, can we still insist that society is "all wrong"?

Originally Posted by Purple Library Guy

Depends what you mean by "tearing apart society". Starting a program of assassination? No. Refusing to shut up, and saying flat out that the law is wrong? Certainly.

I recently attended a seminar on the ethics of journalism, and the professor who conducted the course put us through an interesting thought experiment.

Suppose a reporter chances upon an explosive scoop. He found a whistleblower who could potentially tear apart the reigning government. But, in breaking the story, the newspaper runs the very real risk of being sued to kingdom come, effectively destroying the company in the process.

Should the reporter and his editor still press ahead, at all costs, in the name of "social justice"?

That might seem like the most obvious answer, since we would then be staying faithful to our journalistic "duty" to speak the "truth". But then, does the reporter also not owe a "duty" to his colleagues, who are not privy to this top-secret scoop? If, by breaking the story, he also breaks the rice bowl of his colleagues, through no fault of their own, could he not also be deemed to have failed his "duty" to another group of people?

Is such a situation necessarily a "false" dilemma? It is easy to say, from the comfort of our armchairs, that the journalist should pursue the higher ideal at all costs. But what if we are faced with a situation of a flagging economy, where jobs are hard to come by, that if the reporter renders his colleagues jobless, there is a high chance they would not be able to feed themselves or their families? Does the reporter not then also have a duty to ensure that such "harm" does not befall his colleagues?

These are all matters that must be seriously considered. It is one thing to question other people's assumptions, but do we also question our own? If there is ever a day when you feel that your beliefs are above reproach, that is precisely the day when you should be worried about your assumptions.

There is always room for doubt, even for your own beliefs. Never, ever, be so arrogant as to think otherwise.