Gay Rights

[Dire Bare]

I think it's more of a matter that if you're going to insist Marriage is a religious institution then the government must refuse to recognize it. period. Jerks can't have their cake and eat it too. Basically, if you're going to insist that some folks can't get married, then nobody gets to be married.

Which is an argument that some jurisdictions are now using to avoid complying with the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. They aren't issuing ANY marriage licenses at all!

And since marriage is most definitely a legal status and a civil institution, this is problematic for everybody who lives within those jurisdictions. Well, everybody who wants to get married, religious or not.

 

[Dire Bare]

So, now that same sex marriage is legal will the gay rights activist now work on getting Bigamy legalize? What about polygamy? And those who wish to marry in the family? Or was it not really about marriage equality for all,but just for them?

Aw, heck! I might as well address the incest issue as well. Why not?

To equate gay marriage, or even polygamous marriage, with incest is disingenuous at best. Manufacturing constructed outrage at worst.

The most quoted reason why incest is not a great thing is procreation. If two people commit incest and have a child, that child has a slightly higher chance of inheriting recessive genetic traits, often negative recessive genetic traits. If a society allows and condones incestual relationships, then over time the recessive trait issue becomes more pronounced, like the classic problems with European nobility.

However, part of the argument against gay marriage is that marriage is all about procreation and gay people can't procreate! Well, within their marriages, anyway. Part of the argument FOR gay marriage is the acknowledgement that, no, marriage isn't actually all about procreation, but is rather a legal contract between two adults sharing resources. Procreation is an important part of marriage, but you can be married without procreating at all . . . plenty of folks do it, both straight and gay! So that would seem to give the OK to the idea that two close family members can get married, if having kids isn't part of the agenda. Of course, writing a law to allow incestual marriage only if the couple agreed to not having kids probably wouldn't work out all that well.

But there are more reasons than simply procreation to discourage incestual relationships in society. The science isn't completely solid on the subject yet, mostly because incest isn't a popular research topic (for obvious reasons)! But the little science that has been done seems to back up "common sense" that incestual relationships, even fully consensual ones, are often psychologically damaging to those involved. We are wired to psychologically see a difference between our close family members and everybody else when it comes to sexuality and procreation. There are outliers, there have been incidences of adult, consensual, incestual relationships that have seemed perfectly healthy (to the claims of the participants and outside observers), but those seem to be very few and far between. Then there is the documented phenomenon of siblings separated at birth, meet later in life not knowing they are siblings, and being STRONGLY attracted to each other . . . there needs to be more science done on this unpopular topic!

Personally, while I think fully legalizing gay marriages and polygamous marriages is the right thing to do, I feel that legalizing incestual marriage is a bad idea . . . based on science, not on ideology. However, I wouldn't criminalize adult, consensual incestual relationships, I just would not give them the stamp of approval from society with legal marriage.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Polygamous marriages probably won't get legalized in the USA. They raise too many extremely knotty legal issues.

 

[Ryujin]

Polygamous marriages probably won't get legalized in the USA. They raise too many extremely knotty legal issues.

Not to mention fiscal issues.

And when it comes to gay marriage and people who truck out the "reproduction" claim, I would point to the number of straight couples who now seem to need various forms of intervention, in order to procreate.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And- as is always pointed out as a counter to that claim- the number of marriages that occur between hetero couples for whom procreation is medically improbable or impossible due to medical conditions or age, or is unlikely due to their worldview or personal desires.

 

[Talmek]

Have you read the entire thread yet? It's long, but (mostly) civil and we've already gone round on this one. Your position seems similar to Bullgrit's.

My response to being uncomfortable with displays of flamboyance, is, well, this:

While I admit that I have not read the entire thread, I must say that reading your post almost seems like because Bullgrit's stance and mine are similar that I should not bother responding to the thread. Is this how you meant it to come across? As we all know, written communication is notoriously difficult to derive inflection from, so I'm asking for my own understanding.

Secondly - flamboyance is not where I have an issue. I've taught my children that public displays of affection beyond a closed-mouth kiss can be considered low-class and rude/offensive to others. This is for their benefit regarding how they will go along in the rest of their lives until adulthood, where the decisions that they will make will reflect upon them. While I can be tolerant (not attacking, verbally or otherwise) I can absolutely have prejudice against those types of behavior in a public setting. I can also say that this IS applicable regardless of sexual preference.

Basically - keep those types of things behind closed doors (hetero or homo - makes no difference) and respect the request for tolerance...both ways.

 

[Dire Bare]

While I admit that I have not read the entire thread, I must say that reading your post almost seems like because Bullgrit's stance and mine are similar that I should not bother responding to the thread. Is this how you meant it to come across? As we all know, written communication is notoriously difficult to derive inflection from, so I'm asking for my own understanding.

Not at all! I wasn't trying to shut down your response, only pointing out that it's already been addressed in the thread. It would further the conversation more if you responded to what has already been discussed, rather than starting the conversation over again.

Secondly - flamboyance is not where I have an issue. I've taught my children that public displays of affection beyond a closed-mouth kiss can be considered low-class and rude/offensive to others. This is for their benefit regarding how they will go along in the rest of their lives until adulthood, where the decisions that they will make will reflect upon them. While I can be tolerant (not attacking, verbally or otherwise) I can absolutely have prejudice against those types of behavior in a public setting. I can also say that this IS applicable regardless of sexual preference.

Basically - keep those types of things behind closed doors (hetero or homo - makes no difference) and respect the request for tolerance...both ways.

Pride parades are rarely about PDAs (Public Displays of Affection), although certainly you'll see it at some of them. Pride parades are all about flamboyance and expressing yourself in a very loud and colorful way that's hard to miss. I believe the mantra is "We're here and we're queer!"

You certainly have a right to your opinion and how to raise your kids, but why should the participants of a pride rally or parade care? In other words, why should my choices on how to express myself be limited by those who are made uncomfortable? Why should I care?

 

[Talmek]

Not at all! I wasn't trying to shut down your response, only pointing out that it's already been addressed in the thread. It would further the conversation more if you responded to what has already been discussed, rather than starting the conversation over again.



Pride parades are rarely about PDAs (Public Displays of Affection), although certainly you'll see it at some of them. Pride parades are all about flamboyance and expressing yourself in a very loud and colorful way that's hard to miss. I believe the mantra is "We're here and we're queer!"

You certainly have a right to your opinion and how to raise your kids, but why should the participants of a pride rally or parade care? In other words, why should my choices on how to express myself be limited by those who are made uncomfortable? Why should I care?

My only response would be to care out of common courtesy/decency and mutual respect. If that's not enough, well then it's a lost cause.

 

[Umbran]

My only response would be to care out of common courtesy/decency and mutual respect. If that's not enough, well then it's a lost cause.

It is one event a year, easily avoided if it offends your sensibilities.

Here's the thing about the right to freedom of expression - sometimes, you actually get to exercise it. If the respect really is mutual, then you should not begrudge them the occasional space and time to exercise their rights. Allowing such spaces is part of the cost of a free society. Or, to put it another way - part of the cost is that you do *not* have the right to never be exposed to that which you don't like, or feel is improper.

Mark Twain had a fine quote that applies:

"Temperate temperance is best. Intemperate temperance injures the cause of temperance, while temperate temperance helps it in its fight against intemperate intemperance. Fanatics will never learn that, though it be written in letters of gold across the sky.
- Notebook, 1896"

Which is to say, if you try too hard to keep things repressed, stuffed in a box, you injure the cause of keeping it in the box.

 

[Talmek]

It is one event a year, easily avoided if it offends your sensibilities.

Not...exactly one event a year. Based upon a quick google search (http://www.gaypridecalendar.com if you're interested) I found quite a list of events, some with entire months of the year. To be clear I don't realistically believe that an entire city would be brought to bear for an entire month enduring behaviors that I mentioned previously; but let's be accurate in our statements for the purpose of public behavior (and this argument, it seems).

Here's the thing about the right to freedom of expression - sometimes, you actually get to exercise it. If the respect really is mutual, then you should not begrudge them the occasional space and time to exercise their rights. Allowing such spaces is part of the cost of a free society. Or, to put it another way - part of the cost is that you do *not* have the right to never be exposed to that which you don't like, or feel is improper.

You are dead-on in the statement that they deserve the right to peaceful assembly, the time allowed to exercise said right and the right to protection from harm in their exercise; the Westboro Baptist Church has demonstrated their rights numerous times (as abhorrent as they are). This is not to compare the LGBT community to the WBC, simply to use an example of first amendment protections as afforded in the Bill of Rights. However, we are talking about two different topics - constitutional rights vs. a respectful request for decency and mutual respect.

Mark Twain had a fine quote that applies:

"Temperate temperance is best. Intemperate temperance injures the cause of temperance, while temperate temperance helps it in its fight against intemperate intemperance. Fanatics will never learn that, though it be written in letters of gold across the sky.
- Notebook, 1896"

Which is to say, if you try too hard to keep things repressed, stuffed in a box, you injure the cause of keeping it in the box.

I'm also a fan of Twain, and in sharing this will leave this conversation with this thought:

"All you need is ignorance and arrogance, and your success will be assured."