Pendulum

[jaxenro]

The SSM debate is really about gays seeking social acceptance and approval. They think, and perhaps correctly although I doubt it, that if they get it into law as a few generations pass it will be acceptable. But they are simply going against human nature. You can't legislate biology into something it isn't anymore than you can command the tides to recede

[katherine the great]

West Virginia - mostly deer hunters in my area

How many of your 20 something's are armed?

Well our state just passed a law to allow guns in the classroom.  That is going over like a lead balloon.

[katherine the great]

Iran the the Shah had made great strides in liberalizing the treatment of women yet the Iranian revolution threw most of that out. That was only 36 years ago

 

I thought about that situation too.  That isn't likely to happen in the U.S. unless we are overthrown by the Taliban.  As a side note, I feel for the women of Iran-- That would be an very hard pill to swallow.

[katherine the great]

The SSM debate is really about gays seeking social acceptance and approval. They think, and perhaps correctly although I doubt it, that if they get it into law as a few generations pass it will be acceptable. But they are simply going against human nature. You can't legislate biology into something it isn't anymore than you can command the tides to recede

Homosexuality is biological.  It is relatively rare, but it is observed in the animal kingdom as well as in humans.  It may seem unnatural to you and me, but the fact is that is not unnatural to a small minority of people.

[california boy]

The SSM debate is really about gays seeking social acceptance and approval. They think, and perhaps correctly although I doubt it, that if they get it into law as a few generations pass it will be acceptable. But they are simply going against human nature. You can't legislate biology into something it isn't anymore than you can command the tides to recede

Only a straight person who has not been denied the right to marry the person they love would make such a statement.  You act as if marriage is not that big of deal for humans, ignoring the fact that in every society humans pair up and share their life together.  You don't have to be straight to want that and you don't have to want to have children to want that.  

[jaxenro]

Only a straight person who has not been denied the right to marry the person they love would make such a statement. You act as if marriage is not that big of deal for humans, ignoring the fact that in every society humans pair up and share their life together. You don't have to be straight to want that and you don't have to want to have children to want that.

Define marriage then. Not theologically but socially. Isnt it societies recognition and approval of the partnership?

Other than that what, exactly, is keeping you from pairing up and sharing your life together? You could still do do absent societies approval.

[jaxenro]

Clarification:

What I am saying is you can legalize SSM, you can criminalize discrimination, but you can't legislate social acceptance. It will, or won't, come over time. You can impose costs (fear of job loss, etc. ) on those that disagree with you, but you can't change the simple fact that for almost all of recorded history in all societies such unions were not recognized and that the countries that do today, although economically and militarily powerful, are a minority

[california boy]

Define marriage then. Not theologically but socially. Isnt it societies recognition and approval of the partnership? 

Other than that what, exactly, is keeping you from pairing up and sharing your life together? You could still do do absent societies approval.

 

 

And this is the argument that I feel is causing so many young people to diminish the importance of marriage.  After all, what is to keep them from just pairing up. Why do they need a piece of paper to show their commitment.  

 

History is filled with countless couples who have gotten married despite any approval from their family or anyone else.  Who you marry has little to do with the acceptance of others to that choice.  I can't think of many people who take a poll to see how many of their friends approve of who they marry.  

 

It is ironic that gays seem to believe in the importance of marriage more than those that want to deny them of that right.

 

Clarification:

What I am saying is you can legalize SSM, you can criminalize discrimination, but you can't legislate social acceptance. It will, or won't, come over time. You can impose costs (fear of job loss, etc. ) on those that disagree with you, but you can't change the simple fact that for almost all of recorded history in all societies such unions were not recognized and that the countries that do today, although economically and militarily powerful, are a minority

 

I have no gay friends who feels the need for those that want to discriminate against them craving approval for anything they are doing in their lives. The ones that need society to approve of their life choices are the ones that marry a woman and pretend they are straight.  I was that person for a very long time.  Now I could care less who approves of the choices I have made in my life.  It is just not worth living a life filled with dishonesty and deceit.  How people deal with me being gay is not my problem.  

 

From your posts, I don't really think you have thought much about what it is like being gay.  You are making a lot of groundless assumptions  to justify your position.  Have you actually talked to many gay men about some of your beliefs?  This idea of the reason gays want to marry is for society approval is nonsense.

[BlueDreams]

While there seems to be  a pendulum on some social issues, there has never been a pendulum when it comes to civil rights.  When slavery was abolished, the pendulum did not swing back into slavery again.  When women were given the right to vote, the pendulum did not swing back taking that right away from them.  When inter racial couples were allowed to marry the pendulum did not swing back to take that civil right away from them.  And when gays are also allowed to marry, the pendulum is not going to swing back and take that right away from them.

 

I would disagree with this. There most certainly have been pendulum swings in civil rights. The example of slavery is a good one. Yes, they were no longer slaves. And for a period of times the rights afforded them were large and expansive. A number would be in congress during reconstruction. But the pendulum definitely did swing back with the perpetuation of Jim Crow law, the diminishing of northern influence, and insidious cultural beliefs, customs and ideology that maintained expected practices between races. Large swaths of the black population were at best second-class citizens and at worse de facto slaves long after the civil war. Pendulum swings don't always happen with every social phenomenon, though...that I would agree with.

 

I'd say more, but I have to run.  Busy day.

 

With luv,

BD 

[jaxenro]

CB a question, and please don't answer if it is too personal or makes you uncomfortable. Once you have won in the courts, which is where this might be heading, and have the right to marry in states which rejected it at the ballot box, where will you turn if it still doesn't give you the social acceptance you seek?

Did the SC end the abortion debate by striking down laws banning it? Do you think courts can legislate family approval?

Marriage is meaningless without social acceptance. You may gain legal rights

[jaxenro]

that we're denied you but many will still consider the marriage not legitimate

[Calm]

I'm not sure that I've heard the argument that blacks were better off anywhere after slavery. Just out of curiosity, does it go?

The claims I've seen were the whites in some areas were still able to get the same level of work out of them, but without the need to provide sufficient living standards (not that slave owners automatically did that, but there was financial incentive to do so as it cost them to replace slaves killed by neglect plus healthier slaves made for better workers). It didn't matter to them if a labourer died as it wasnt a loss of their property value, they would simply replace the worker with someone else with no penalty attached. Blacks who did not have enough resources to move to look for better job conditions would be forced to take the jobs no matter what.

I am not claiming that the blacks themselves preferred to be slaves, just that I have seen some historians argue that for a time after the removal of slavery there were not sufficient protections in place to control some of the abuses of slavery that carried on without the balance of the responsibility of being a property owner (as sick as that idea is, it is unfortunately real...some people will treat their property better than another human being because of the financial benefit of taking care of property).

Maybe I am misunderstanding your question and you are saying that it just wasn't in some parts they were worse off, but everywhere for a time? I had assumed you made a mistake and meant "worse off" rather than "better off" but perhaps I was wrong.

Edited March 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[katherine the great]

CB a question, and please don't answer if it is too personal or makes you uncomfortable. Once you have won in the courts, which is where this might be heading, and have the right to marry in states which rejected it at the ballot box, where will you turn if it still doesn't give you the social acceptance you seek?

Did the SC end the abortion debate by striking down laws banning it? Do you think courts can legislate family approval?

Marriage is meaningless without social acceptance. You may gain legal rights

Marriage is not meaningless without social acceptance and social acceptance does not only exist at the national level.  Many people still do not accept interracial marriages and such a couple who craves social acceptance will most likely settle in an area where they are able to establish relationships with like minded people and not in the deep south or Northern Idaho.  No matter where they settle, they can be assured of the legal benefits of marriage--just like everyone else.  Some societies disapprove of interfaith marriages.  Such couples will likely establish themselves among a community where they are accepted, but either way, they still enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.  Why wouldn't gay couples do the same?  I live in Boise, Idaho in a predominantly LDS neighborhood and we have a  gay couple in our midst (Richard and Don.)  I have never heard anyone say one bad thing about them.  My own son and his girlfriend double dated with Richard's nephew and they went to the home of Richard and his partner for gourmet dinner and had a great time.  Even though some of our neighbors strongly oppose gay marriage, I can't think of one of them who would hesitate to socialize with them.  They have extended themselves, they are wonderful neighbors and they do just fine.

[jaxenro]

There is a difference between socializing and social acceptance. Do all of your neighbors accept that this couple is married in the same way they are with their spouse? Do you equate it with your own marriage? Not that they would share dinner with them, or invite them to a barbacue, But accept their marriage as a marriage? I did not say that they would be shunned socially but that, deep down, they would not be accepted as being the same.

One of the main points the judge cited in overturning prop 8 was that civil unions, which provided all the same legal protections of marriage, did not provide the social acceptance that marriage did. His words not mine. So legal protection is not the goal.

So don't tell me how enlightened your neighborhood is that they eat with the gay couple tell me that they will eventually cease to be known as the gay couple

[jaxenro]

The simple fact that you labeled them the "gay couple" implies that you see them differently. Sorry.

[katherine the great]

There is a difference between socializing and social acceptance. Do all of your neighbors accept that this couple is married in the same way they are with their spouse? Do you equate it with your own marriage? Not that they would share dinner with them, or invite them to a barbacue, But accept their marriage as a marriage? I did not say that they would be shunned socially but that, deep down, they would not be accepted as being the same.

 

Who cares?  There will always be people who are unaccepting.  Gay people are just people with the same needs and wants as everybody else.  Do you really think that every gay person expects that every other person "deep down" will accept them as being the same?  As long as they have their civil rights, I doubt they really care that much.  I expect that they know they are in the minority, but also know that they are not "unnatural."

[jaxenro]

Who cares? There will always be people who are unaccepting. Gay people are just people with the same needs and wants as everybody else. Do you really think that every gay person expects that every other person "deep down" will accept them as being the same? As long as they have their civil rights, I doubt they really care that much. I expect that they know they are in the minority, but also know that they are not "unnatural."

Appearantly they do care. The whole SSM campaign is about being treated the same as everybody else

As I said I am sorry. It isn't easy to look in a mirror.

Edited March 18, 2014 by jaxenro

[katherine the great]

Being treated a particular way is different than expecting someone's innermost feelings to match that.  If someone feels like punching me in the face, I don't care.  If they actually do it, that is a problem for me.

[DJBrown]

Only a straight person who has not been denied the right to marry the person they love would make such a statement.  You act as if marriage is not that big of deal for humans, ignoring the fact that in every society humans pair up and share their life together.  You don't have to be straight to want that and you don't have to want to have children to want that.  

 

So why cannot a man and his adult daughter marry?  The answer certainly cannot be that their offspring could be affected through genetic inbreeding because the universal adoption of the gay lifestyle would result in human extinction in just one generation.

 

There is absolutely nothing to differentiate same sex marriage from father-daughter marriage if society bases its definition of marriage as simply two adults who love each other.

[jaxenro]

"Being treated a particular way is different than expecting someone's innermost feelings to match that.  If someone feels like punching me in the face, I don't care.  If they actually do it, that is a problem for me."

 

Or a Raegan said your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. And that is my point. They can legislate fair treatment, equal rights, anything they want but they can't change people's innermost feelings.

 

I am sorry for them. To most people they will always be known as the gay couple. They will always be different. They will never feel truly at home in a community unless they segragate and no one, myself especially, is advocating that. Many of them think that once they pass SSM legislation they will be just the same as everyone else and except for a few right wing religious fanatics in the deep South, everyone will accept them. But no, in their innermost feelings most people will still think of them as different and although they might not ever say it don't you think people can tell?

 

So in the end I don't think SSM will acheive for them what they crave, true social acceptance.
 

[katherine the great]

So why cannot a man and his adult daughter marry?  The answer certainly cannot be that their offspring could be affected through genetic inbreeding because the universal adoption of the gay lifestyle would result in human extinction in just one generation.

 

There is absolutely nothing to differentiate same sex marriage from father-daughter marriage if society bases its definition of marriage as simply two adults who love each other.

Incest is a cross cultural taboo.  The Westermarck Effect.

[jaxenro]

So why cannot a man and his adult daughter marry? The answer certainly cannot be that their offspring could be affected through genetic inbreeding because the universal adoption of the gay lifestyle would result in human extinction in just one generation.

There is absolutely nothing to differentiate same sex marriage from father-daughter marriage if society bases its definition of marriage as simply two adults who love each other.

Or a father - son if both are of age? No genetic issues there.

[katherine the great]

"Being treated a particular way is different than expecting someone's innermost feelings to match that.  If someone feels like punching me in the face, I don't care.  If they actually do it, that is a problem for me."

 

Or a Raegan said your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. And that is my point. They can legislate fair treatment, equal rights, anything they want but they can't change people's innermost feelings.

 

I am sorry for them. To most people they will always be known as the gay couple. They will always be different. They will never feel truly at home in a community unless they segragate and no one, myself especially, is advocating that. Many of them think that once they pass SSM legislation they will be just the same as everyone else and except for a few right wing religious fanatics in the deep South, everyone will accept them. But no, in their innermost feelings most people will still think of them as different and although they might not ever say it don't you think people can tell?

 

So in the end I don't think SSM will acheive for them what they crave, true social acceptance.

 

A population of people who don't accept gay marriage most likely don't accept homosexuality in general.  So, as long as a gay couple has their right to marry, they are still better off than they were without that right.

[jaxenro]

Incest is a cross cultural taboo. The Westermarck Effect.

SSM was always taboo too. What is the legal principle to deny it? Or situations like Woody Allen marrying his girlfriends adopted daughter?

[jaxenro]

A population of people who don't accept gay marriage most likely don't accept homosexuality in general. So, as long as a gay couple has their right to marry, they are still better off than they were without that right.

Are they? We will see in a few hundred years how it has played out