7
   

Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

 
 
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 02:55 pm
Dear Friends,

There's quite about, pro and con, regarding homosexual marriage and different aspects of it, so I may be duplicating with what I hope to post, but let's see.

My take is that we should, first of all --and whether we do or not-- try to solve the controversy over the acceptance/rejection of homosexual marriage factually, rationally and fairly.

My vote would be to permit homosexuals to marry, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such marriages.

My reasoning is that traditional marriage is an outgrowth of biology, anatomy, physiology, the obvious means by which Homo sapiens as a species is perpetuated and the fact that Homo sapiens has a sexual reproductive system rather than, say, a parthenogenetic or fissiparous one. This is in contrast to homosexual marriage, which abandons those norms and, instead, uses simple preference as normative. But if we use simple preference, how, in fairness, can we disapprove of bestial marriages, which also already take place?

I won't go any further for now. Let's see if anyone is interested in discussing the pros and cons of the controversy on the basis of the above.

Regards to all,

Jack Owens
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 11,364 • Replies: 212

 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 03:31 pm
If the point comes when when animals can give legal consent on any issue, bestial marriage will begin it's own debate.

Animals
R
T
0 Replies
 
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 03:57 pm
That doesn't get us very far.

I suppose the rejoinder would be that when homosexuals can mate sexually (meaning in a complementary manner), we can have a rational debate.

But talking about bestial marriages, just as each homosexual individual can say sexual complementarity is unimportant for marriage, I don't see why the individual bestialist couldn't justifiably say that lack of the animal's consent is not important; hers is.

URL: http://able2know.org/reply/topic-152731
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 05:55 pm
@jackowens,
Don't relly thing I grasp the point, but..

I don't really care about this marrige thing, however I don't think gay's should be unifyed by a priest because it contradicts the teachings of the bible, but by a judge/captain or mayor, those who are empowerd with the legal right to marrige people (don't know the exact english term).
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  4  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 07:45 pm
@jackowens,
Hello Jack. Welcome to A2K!
jackowens wrote:
I suppose the rejoinder would be that when homosexuals can mate sexually (meaning in a complementary manner), we can have a rational debate.

We are able to have a rational debate all while several infertile heterosexual couple continue to marry. Homosexuals need not be able to produce a child to enter into marriage. It's not like they are asking for some special exception here. They want to be able to marry a partner that can't have a child with them just like other couples that cannot bear children.

The debate on whether a couple must be fertile is already closed. Do you disagree? If not, what happens when a fertile marriage becomes infertile? Would the authority over the marriage (state, church, etc) void that marriage?

If you'd like to argue (seemingly you do) that if we can remove qualifications for marriage (i.e. - A gay couple can't have children, so that is the only reason they are dismissive of the role of child bearing to qualify a marriage) then any qualification such as consent can be removed.

Now, I demonstrated that our society (Read: USA) we do not require a couple to be able to have children already. Can you demonstrate that our society does not require consent?

A
R
T
jackowens
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 03:15 am
@failures art,
Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 6/10/10:

Quote:
"Welcome to A2K!"


Thank you.

Quote:
"Homosexuals need not be able to produce a child to enter into marriage."


The same is true of heterosexuals.

Quote:
"It's not like they are asking for some special exception here."


Yes they are. They're asking to have a sexual perversion institutionalized.

Quote:
"The debate on whether a couple must be fertile is already closed. Do you disagree?"


Yes.

Quote:
"Now, I demonstrated that our society (Read: USA) we do not require a couple to be able to have children already."


No argument.

Quote:
"Can you demonstrate that our society does not require consent?"


No, but I haven't heard that come up as a public controversy as is the case with homosexual marriage. I can demonstrate that in California sexual complementarity is required. Does that count?

Do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

Regards,

Jack
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 08:39 am
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:
My vote would be to permit homosexuals to marry, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such marriages.

I don't understand what you mean when you write "as long as others aren't obliged to approve such marriages." What does that mean? How could someone be "obliged to approve" gay marriages?

jackowens wrote:
But if we use simple preference, how, in fairness, can we disapprove of bestial marriages, which also already take place?

Bestial marriages? You mean like a woman marrying a snake? Why should that be a problem?
failures art
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 09:09 am
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"It's not like they are asking for some special exception here."


Yes they are. They're asking to have a sexual perversion institutionalized.

They are attempting to establish an equal "institution" in the literal sense of the word, but only to the degree that others (you and I) already have. In other words, they aren't asking for anything special.

It is the relationship that is institutionalized, not homosexual acts which you're referring to as "sexual perversions." Even if we agreed that these actions were perversions, the actions are already legal and practicable without marriage. The pursuit of equal rights on the matter of marriage is not to institutionalize perverse sexual acts, but to take equal social footing.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"The debate on whether a couple must be fertile is already closed. Do you disagree?"


Yes.

You're welcome to make this argument whenever you wish...

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"Can you demonstrate that our society does not require consent?"


No, but I haven't heard that come up as a public controversy as is the case with homosexual marriage. I can demonstrate that in California sexual complementarity is required. Does that count?

It does not. You introduced bestial marriage and later it was claimed that those who would pursue this could claim that consent is not required.

jackowens wrote:

Do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

The phrase seems to have some utility. I can see it's use as fitting for violent acts of rape. However, I've never really found the need to use it to describe things that are better left in literal and mechanical terms. If sexual perversions do exist, they are purely subjective.

A
R
T
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 12:31 am
@joefromchicago,
Dear joefromchicago,

In reply to your post of 6/11/10:
Quote:
"I don't understand what you mean when you write 'as long as others aren't obliged to approve such marriages. What does that mean? How could someone be 'obliged to approve' gay marriages?"

That's what the vote on Proposition 8 was about in California: whether the citizenry approved of homosexual marriage or not. I didn't approve of it so I voted "yes", to exclude/disapprove of the institutionalization of homosexual marriages. (I assume that you would have voted "no", to institutionalize them.)

jackowens wrote: "But if we use simple preference, how, in fairness, can we disapprove of bestial marriages, which also already take place?"
Quote:
"Bestial marriages? You mean like a woman marrying a snake? Why should that be a problem?"

Because people consider such marriages to be sexual perversions. Do you approve of a woman marrying a snake?

Regards,
Jack

jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 12:46 am
@failures art,
Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 6/11/10:

(Jack:) "They're asking to have a sexual perversion institutionalized."

Quote:
"In other words, they aren't asking for anything special."

I guess they wouldn't be considered to be asking for anything special if you don't believe there are sexual perversions.

jackowens wrote: Do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

Quote:
"The phrase seems to have some utility."

That doesn't seem to be very decisive.

For my part, subjectivity/objectivity aside, I say that I believe that there are sexual perversions. Yes.

And you? Can I get a "yes" or "no" from you?

Regards,

Jack
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 07:53 am
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

Dear joefromchicago,

In reply to your post of 6/11/10:
Quote:
"I don't understand what you mean when you write 'as long as others aren't obliged to approve such marriages. What does that mean? How could someone be 'obliged to approve' gay marriages?"

That's what the vote on Proposition 8 was about in California: whether the citizenry approved of homosexual marriage or not. I didn't approve of it so I voted "yes", to exclude/disapprove of the institutionalization of homosexual marriages.

Now I'm really confused. You'd vote to permit homosexuals to marry (as you said in your initial post), but you won't vote to permit homosexuals to marry when it comes to actually voting on such a measure. How can you support homosexual marriage in the abstract but not in the concrete?

jackowens wrote:
(I assume that you would have voted "no", to institutionalize them.)

Well, I don't really approve of any state-sanctioned marriage, so I don't know.

jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"Bestial marriages? You mean like a woman marrying a snake? Why should that be a problem?"

Because people consider such marriages to be sexual perversions. Do you approve of a woman marrying a snake?

Sure. Why not? As long as it's a purely religious ritual without any civic implications, I don't see why anyone should be concerned about it.
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 05:38 pm
@joefromchicago,
Dear joefromchicago,

` In reply to your post of 6/12/10:

Quote:
"Now I'm really confused. You'd vote to permit homosexuals to marry (as you said in your initial post), but you won't vote to permit homosexuals to marry when it comes to actually voting on such a measure. How can you support homosexual marriage in the abstract but not in the concrete?"

I'm not talking about an actual vote to approve/disapprove of private ceremonies, whatever form they may take. I haven't heard of that coming up as a controversy. The vote I'm talking about is in regards to whether or not we (the community) want to make those private ceremonies, whatever they happen to be, whether two people of the same sex marrying or some one marrying an animal, a part of marriage as our current cultural institution.

Quote:
"Well, I don't really approve of any state-sanctioned marriage, so I don't know."

If we prescind that, separating the state --meaning the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary-- from the general citizenry, would you approve of community-sanctioned marriages, making a distinction between commuunity-approved and community-disapproved of marriages?

(Jack:) "Do you approve of a woman marrying a snake?"

Quote:
"Sure. Why not? As long as it's a purely religious ritual without any civic implications, I don't see why anyone should be concerned about it."

How do we decide if anyone should be concerned about it?

It sounds like you don't believe there are such things as cultural institutions consisting of a cluster or framework of commonly held values that the commuity uses in deciding what should be done organizationally to provide order when facing important decisions that we, as a species, encounter going through life. Marriage, the family and the criminal justice system are three.

Regards,

Jack

failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 07:15 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 6/11/10:

(Jack:) "They're asking to have a sexual perversion institutionalized."

Quote:
"In other words, they aren't asking for anything special."

I guess they wouldn't be considered to be asking for anything special if you don't believe there are sexual perversions.

jackowens wrote: Do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

The question is immaterial to the issue. As I had previously explained to you, a marriage is not a state giving licence to any sexual act. Consensual sex is already legal between people of the same gender. The institution that is to be recognized is the relationship, which is more than simply a sexual one. If homosexuals wanted their sexual habit to be institutionalized, marriage would have no effect on it. You've convoluted the topic.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"The phrase seems to have some utility."

That doesn't seem to be very decisive.

For my part, subjectivity/objectivity aside, I say that I believe that there are sexual perversions. Yes.

And you? Can I get a "yes" or "no" from you?

Regards,

Jack

Sure. I'll say yes. Sexual perversion exists. This forces no hand of any sort. What's your point? This means nothing in a conversation about MARRIAGE.

Additionally, "for your part," you cannot put subjectivity aside let alone both subjectivity and objectivity. That statement means nothing.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 07:26 pm
Jack - I'm additionally interested in your response RE: "obliged to approve."

A
R
T
Khethil
 
  5  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:00 pm
I still can't quite figure any good reason to prohibit homosexual marriage.

Marriage is a commitment between people to spend their lives together, living in mutual support. In many (most?) countries, it carries with it certain legal allowances as well. That it evolved - in some cultures - as a way to enhance the family unit within the context of procreation is interesting, but it needn't apply. Restricting it to male/female couples only serves to show them how much society won't accept and/or doesn't care about their bonds.

The argument against homosexual marriage is empty; as if it would somehow encourage gayness. Those that are gay aren't going to be changed by it, nor would it encourage those who aren't already disposed to such an orientation. The same number of people who choose to procreate would still do so - just as they have. Disallowing the recognition of these commitments increases but one result: Hurt.

In any case, If people care and love enough to make this kind of commitment and ask for society's recognition of it, I can't imagine any good reason to not grant it. I don't care if its male/female, male/male, female/female or male/female/male/female. It's about commitment and how their society recognizes and benefits from that commitment.

So no, you'll get no argument out of me.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:35 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:
I'm not talking about an actual vote to approve/disapprove of private ceremonies, whatever form they may take. I haven't heard of that coming up as a controversy. The vote I'm talking about is in regards to whether or not we (the community) want to make those private ceremonies, whatever they happen to be, whether two people of the same sex marrying or some one marrying an animal, a part of marriage as our current cultural institution.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. It seems to me you're saying that you would support gay marriage, just not gay marriage ceremonies. I can't fathom why you'd make that distinction.

jackowens wrote:
If we prescind that, separating the state --meaning the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary-- from the general citizenry, would you approve of community-sanctioned marriages, making a distinction between commuunity-approved and community-disapproved of marriages?

I have no idea what a "community-approved" marriage might be outside of the political context. I will say that I have no problem with religious sects setting their own rules for who can get married within the faith and who can't. For instance, I don't object to the Roman Catholic church prohibiting divorced persons from marrying in the church. Likewise, if the Catholics want to deny the sacrament of marriage to gay couples, I can't imagine why anyone outside of the Catholic church would even care. When it comes to the government choosing to recognize some marriages and not others, however, I have a big problem.

jackowens wrote:
It sounds like you don't believe there are such things as cultural institutions consisting of a cluster or framework of commonly held values that the commuity uses in deciding what should be done organizationally to provide order when facing important decisions that we, as a species, encounter going through life. Marriage, the family and the criminal justice system are three.

There are all sorts of cultural institutions, but they don't trump civil rights. If the state discriminates against a class of persons for no good reason, then it doesn't really matter if it has the majority of cultural institutions behind its discrimination -- it's still discrimination.
Butrflynet
 
  3  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:48 pm
@jackowens,
Quote:
My vote would be to permit homosexuals to marry, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such marriages.



If a young hetero couple elopes against the wishes of their family, and the family expresses their disapproval and acts on it by ostracizing the couple from family activities, does that make their marriage illegitimate?
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 03:24 am
@failures art,
Dear failures art,

In reply to your posts of 6/13/10:

jackowens wrote: Do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

Quote:
"The question is immaterial to the issue."

As far as I know there are only two ways to object to homosexuality as far as institutionalizing it goes: a) on a religious basis, calling it a sin; or b) on a secular basis calling it sexual perversion. Obviously I'm not going to get away with calling homosexuality either a sin or by calling it repugnant. That leaves me with the only alternative that I know of: calling it a sexual perversion, and I believe that those who call it a sin would not object to calling it a sexual perversion. So let's see whether the question of homosexuality being a sexual perversion is or is not material, shall we?

Quote:
"You've convoluted the topic."

I believe that your assertion points up the need to put a flooring under our discussion. Here's what I suggest as a first plank:

A. Since there must --and I emphasize must-- be an error in contradictory propositions, we must have test-criteria for identifying it (or them). To get away from subjectivity, I suggest that we limit those test-criteria to fallacies and contradictions, nothing more. In other words, neither you nor I will be accused of being involved in an error unless it be a fallacy or a contradiction. And, regarding fallacies, the word is all too frequently used loosely. Fallacies have names. If the accusation of being guilty of using a fallacy is made, a) the name of the fallacy and b) how it is being applied will be given. Otherwise the only test-criterion of error will be contradictions.

Quote:
"Sure. I'll say yes. Sexual perversion exists. This forces no hand of any sort. What's your point? This means nothing in a conversation about MARRIAGE."

Are you saying, then, that you're in favor of institutionalizing sexual perversions, marriage being a cultural institution?

Quote:
"I'm additionally interested in your response RE: 'obliged to approve.'"

I mean if one wants to be ethical, according to Gay Liberation ideology, one is obliged to approve of homosexual marriages.

If I've missed anything you consider important, catch me the next time around.

Regards,

Jack

Bella Dea
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 06:47 am
Why does this discussion even come up?

I've seen more bad heterosexual marriages than I can count. Let the homosexuals be as miserable as the rest of us, I say.

In all seriousness, what people do in their bedroom is none of your (or my) business. The only difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples is their bedroom behavior.

If you're going to get into sexual perversions, you're going to be spending a lot of time stoning just about everyone you know. We're all freaks.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 08:11 am
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

jackowens wrote: Do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

Quote:
"The question is immaterial to the issue."

As far as I know there are only two ways to object to homosexuality as far as institutionalizing it goes: a) on a religious basis, calling it a sin; or b) on a secular basis calling it sexual perversion. Obviously I'm not going to get away with calling homosexuality either a sin or by calling it repugnant. That leaves me with the only alternative that I know of: calling it a sexual perversion, and I believe that those who call it a sin would not object to calling it a sexual perversion. So let's see whether the question of homosexuality being a sexual perversion is or is not material, shall we?

The question is not whether to object or approve of homosexual relationships, but whether or not those relationships may have equal footing with heterosexual ones.

Neither an argument from sin nor sexual perversion applies here. Since sin is a religious argument which cannot seek validation under law, and sexual perversion is a standard in which is not defined...

Here's a link to the definition of paraphilia (sexual perversion): http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sexual+Perversions

It cites the DSM-IV, and nowhere will you find homosexuality listed as a sexual perversion. I might add that you WILL find multiple references to sexual practices in which one partner does not consent.

You are going to need to decide if you wish to discuss the act of marriage, or the more general topic of homosexuality. If you simply wish to make an argument against the social acceptance of homosexuality, by all means, go nuts. However, if you mean to assert that homosexuals may not marry because it institutionalizes their sexual practice, you've made the topic ambiguous. Homosexual may have sex without marriage (like heterosexuals), marriage is not a requisite status for intercourse.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"You've convoluted the topic."

I believe that your assertion points up the need to put a flooring under our discussion. Here's what I suggest as a first plank:

A. Since there must --and I emphasize must-- be an error in contradictory propositions, we must have test-criteria for identifying it (or them). To get away from subjectivity, I suggest that we limit those test-criteria to fallacies and contradictions, nothing more. In other words, neither you nor I will be accused of being involved in an error unless it be a fallacy or a contradiction. And, regarding fallacies, the word is all too frequently used loosely. Fallacies have names. If the accusation of being guilty of using a fallacy is made, a) the name of the fallacy and b) how it is being applied will be given. Otherwise the only test-criterion of error will be contradictions.

The error is in your tailoring your argument against gay marriage by arguing against butt-sex and scissoring. Marriage is the institution, and straight couples becoming married isn't required to promote heterosexual sexual relationships. You're over-sexualizing the institution.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"Sure. I'll say yes. Sexual perversion exists. This forces no hand of any sort. What's your point? This means nothing in a conversation about MARRIAGE."

Are you saying, then, that you're in favor of institutionalizing sexual perversions, marriage being a cultural institution?

Non-sequitur.

Legalizing gay marriage; granting homosexuals the SAME rights as heterosexuals in marital unions does not institutionalize sexual perversions.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"I'm additionally interested in your response RE: 'obliged to approve.'"

I mean if one wants to be ethical, according to Gay Liberation ideology, one is obliged to approve of homosexual marriages.

If one wants to be ethical and obliges principles of equality and freedom in which they no doubt enjoy and want defended, then they support homosexual's rights to marry, even if they find it abhorrent. Much like the freedom of speech, ethically we are guided to defend the right of hate speech, because we state that our own values are to let speech (even unpopular) to be permitted in the public square. You may not wish to promote homosexual relationships, but if you accept the rights given to you by the state and value those rights and value the equal application of rights amongst all citizens, then you MUST accept that homosexuals marrying is a part of protecting your own rights. If you don't believe in these things (far be it from be to project), then simply share your opinion in honest terms: That you believe homosexuals to be less entitled than you and that you do not object to asymmetry in application of laws.

The support of homosexual marriage does not require a subscription to Gay Liberation theory. It requires ethical honesty. You are not required to approve of any marriage, and no marriage pends on your approval. If Gay Liberation theory says this (I think you've misinterpreted), it is wrong. Just as wrong as say... thinking homosexual require public consent to exercise the same rights in their relationships as straight couples.

A
R
T
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2021 at 11:24:22