Homosexuality

Ahh, but there's the problem, really. If society were an organism, it would die. As a whole, the human race can be subdivided into many many "societies" which can be said to work independantly, each of which can be further subdivided ad infinitum, until "society" consists of a single person - you. When you get right down to it, even if you could define the bounds of a "society", we are all working for our own personal functionality, not to support a larger system. The fact that we all unconsciously follow a system of some sort that may or may not equate with the systems followed by other people in the "society", is due to culture being passed on to us - not on a macro level like the mothership telling us all to form nuclear families, but on a micro scale with individual parents telling individual children. So it really becomes a big game of telephone, and no one gets the same cultural background nor the same cultural ideals.

To say that "society" is an organism, you would have to allow for the fact that this organism can't keep track of all it's parts, doesn't know which parts belong to it, doesn't know what they are doing, and shares its parts freely with other oraganisms. Even if some parts seem to be working in harmony with others, it's most likely a coincidence.

There are general themes, sure, but those themes don't always serve to bring people together. Across America, there's a theme of freedom. This is held by liberals, conservatives, patriots, and protesters. You also have to take into account that all of this changes over time. I'm sure that one point there was a much more widespread trope which lead to the taboo against homosexuality here, but it's wearing rather thin in places now.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

The problem posed by homosexuals as a group is that they claim "rights" such as "child rearing" which the majority see as conditional upon on heterosexual pairing and subsequent natural biological processes. Concessions are made b way of adoption to those heterosexuals whose biological functions have been impaired, but not to homosexuals who have chosen to refrain from the reproductive process. This seems correct to me whilst heterosexuals constitute the majority.

How big does the majority need to be to form a consensus? If 75% of Americans were homosexual, would you be in support of homosexual marriage? What if 75% were not necessarily homosexual, but believed that homosexuals should have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals?

Quote:

The counterargument by homosexuals, that their activities are themselves based on biological causes does not seem to be sufficient grounds to constitute "involuntary impairment" and in any case such "biological factors" it could be argued could affect their transmission to their potential charges of "normal" parenting skills for onward transmission, or "normal" bonding skills. i.e expediency fails in the eyes of the consensus.

What evidence suggests this?

The only study of homosexual parenting that I have heard of found that having homosexual parents did not increase a child's chance of becoming homosexual.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

I have always assumed that tax concessions (etc) to married couples was based on the logic of promoting "the traditional family" as the seedcorn of society but perhaps I am wrong. If I am correct then your "discrimination" argument doesn't seem to hold.

I'm not sure why the state grants special rights and privileges to married couples. But even if you are correct -- that it is for promotion of the traditional family -- so what? That merely pushes the question back one step. Instead of asking "why are married couples granted these rights," we need to ask "is it right for the state to grant rights in order to promote the traditional family." You seem to assume that the state is justified in discriminating against "non-traditional families" on this basis, but I see no basis for that assumption.

fresco wrote:

As for "consensus" it is obviously best "informed" by references to "scientific argument". Nebulous concepts of "perversion" are less likely to hold sway than those of the biological or behavioural sciences. For the religious of course "perversion" is not nebulous and here we have the ludicrous situation of gay aspirants arguing that black is white.

Well, the consensus may be informed or uninformed. According to your position, I see no reason to distinguish between the two. If informed consensuses are more likely to take hold in a society, that simply means that we should expect, on average, to see them more often than uninformed ones. The informed and uninformed consensuses, however, would be due exactly the same deference.

0 Replies

Rufio,

"Structural dynamics" is far more complex than your analysis implies (see Capra).

Agrote,

Percentages and studies don't matter to the "average" individual. What matters is the "perceived consenus" and "perceived evidence"
and such perceptions are open to manipulation.

From my own point of view I think that "parenting" is mostly about "obligations" not "rights". Children are not appendages of adults or a fulfilment of adult needs. This of course may be a minority view but it certainly excludes for me the particular views of that other minority "homosexuals".

0 Replies

Joe,

The justification of a "democratic" state to would seem on rest on "consensus" !

<< The informed and uninformed consensuses, however, would be due exactly the same deference.>> ...can you expand on this a little.

0 Replies

Wow...a discussion in which I am in complete accord with Joe's reasoning...and his conclusions.

I knew it would happen!

0 Replies

Fresco

You passed over something Joe wroteand I consider that something to be significant. I'd be interested in whatever response you deem appropriate to his comments:

Quote:

I'm not sure why the state grants special rights and privileges to married couples. But even if you are correct -- that it is for promotion of the traditional family -- so what? That merely pushes the question back one step. Instead of asking "why are married couples granted these rights," we need to ask "is it right for the state to grant rights in order to promote the traditional family." You seem to assume that the state is justified in discriminating against "non-traditional families" on this

0 Replies

Sure fresco, but I think we can all agree that they're not nearly as simplistic as you propose. And you call me naive. Huh.

0 Replies

Frank,

It seems to me that in a democracy the function of the state "should be" to optimise the "well being" of its citizens. The problem is the definition of "well-being" and this is where "consensus" is utilised. A balance must be struck between freedom of the individual and the well being of the majority and the state in my opinion rightly tailors its policies to that end. Inevitably policy making may endup in the hands of fallible individuals, or those with whom we disagree, but hopefully "the democratic process" will be self correcting in the long run.

I therefore see no problem with a taxation policy which discriminates in favour of certain activities. Such policies are common in many countries including China which tries to control its population growth, and Singapore with car ownerhip. The UK gives tax credits against nursery fees for working mothers and free medicines and dental care for pregnant women. I may not agree with some of these but the principle seems logical.

0 Replies

So China is attempting to control its population, so that people don't starve. We are attempting to encourage heterosexual marriages..... so that there can be more population, and people do starve? I'm confused as to what neccessary function this fulfills.

0 Replies

Fresco

I appreciate your position on this...but Joe's comments went to the issue of "traditional" versus "non-traditional."

That was what I thought was interesting about what he asked.

The same ends you cite can be accomplished through "non-traditional families"...so I ask...

...what interests does the state have in not only promoting "traditional families"...but actually discriminating against non-traditional ones?

0 Replies

Sorry Frank I didn't address your specific point

"Traditional" seems to make sense from (a) the biological/procreation/subsequent caring perspective and (b) from the predictive/"devil you know" perspective. "Non traditional" is a loose cannon with unknown consequences. Why should "the state" promote possible instability ?

BTW Rufio,

Your comparison of China and the USA fails to take into account that The USA uses/commands 26 times per capita more of the earths resources than the poorest nations. "Freedom" and "rights" must be evaluated locally, and "choice" is perhaps a luxury bought at the expense others lack of it.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

The justification of a "democratic" state to would seem on rest on "consensus" !

Indeed it does. But what happens when one consensus contradicts another?

Let's say a society, by consensus, agrees that government should not discriminate among its citizens in the granting of rights and privileges. And let's say that society also decides, by consensus, that it wants to discriminate against some of its members. Which consensus controls?

That seems to be the situation we are facing here. On the one hand, you would have society adopt a rule that would allow discrimination based upon some sort of "biological" basis. Yet the same society has already adopted a rule about rules (a "meta-rule") that says that the government cannot adopt rules that discriminate among its citizens. Can that society, then, adopt a consensual rule that conflicts with a consensual meta-rule?

fresco wrote:

<< The informed and uninformed consensuses, however, would be due exactly the same deference.>> ...can you expand on this a little.

As I understand it, you contend that a society would be more likely to adopt, as its consensus, a rule that is well-informed as opposed to one that is not well-informed. That may be so, but then it doesn't really matter if consensuses are all due the same amount of deference. If the members of a democratic society are obliged to conform their actions to the consensus rule, then it matters not whether the members conform to a well-informed consensus or an ill-informed one: both are equally obligatory. As a result, it is of no consequence whether a consensus has a good reason or a bad reason as long as it's a consensus. According to your position, whether banning homosexual marriages serves a legitimate biological purpose or whether it is based on bigotry and hatred is irrelevant so long as a consensus can be reached on the issue.

0 Replies

Quote:

"Freedom" and "rights" must be evaluated locally

Your locale is differenet from mine. Does that mean out freedom and rights need to be evaluated differently?

We're straying from the main point, which was the structural/functional analysis of American culture to prove that homosexual unions are somehow wrong. Lets get back to that.

What purpose does encouraging ONLY hetereosexual unions serve in "society"?

0 Replies

Joe,

I of course concur that conflicts arise, and resolutions may be painful or even arbitrary.
However one assumes rightly or wrongly that the state takes all factors into account before legislating such that the chances of "uninformed consensus" in minimized. Thus your arguments about "obligation" and statusof "conensus"are theoretically avoided. Smile

Rufio,

Yes, IMO Feedom and rights are matters of local negotiation.
(Note that in Ancient Greece to which homosexuals might look for inspiration, slavery was institutional and womens rights were minimal)

Nobody has used the word "wrong". I am discussing "expediency" with respect to maintaining a stable society, with particular reference to homosexuals demands for "parental rights". It may be that for many homosexuals such demands are nothing to do with an actual desire to be a parent, but merely a posture adopted for the purposes of reification of their "normality".

0 Replies

I don't know about Greece, but according to my Latin textbook, in Rome women's rights were a lot less minimal than they were for a good part of US history, and slavery was relatively temporary.

Ok, we won't use the word "wrong". How is it functionally more useful for people not to have homosexual unions? Surely you're not saying that we need more children being born, when there are already too many in foster care, and with Bush gradually digging us deeper into our personal financial hell.

0 Replies

Rufio,

May I suggest that your response above needs a little quality control.

I'll take your reference to Rome to be a joke.

You need to establish why foster homes are full and whether this is symptomatic of the breakdown of "traditional marriage".

0 Replies

I don't know, fresco, perhaps the people who wrote the book made it as a joke, but I doubt it. Until rather recently here, women were still expected to become nurses and teachers when they grew up, and they are still being paid only $.75 on the dollar compared to men in the same professions. From what I understand from the book, women then still had the same kinds of power privelidges as men of the same class. Not that class stratification in Rome was equal at all. And slaves could buy their independance and be treated as full citizens, whereas even after the age of comparitively more brutal slavery has been over here for more than a century, descrimination against blacks is still pretty grim. Even if it wasn't really better, it at least wasn't worse.

Foster homes are needed because people don't want children they have, or because they can't take care of children they have. Some of them come from "untraditional" marriages, but as I understand it, a lot of them come from traditional marriages in dysfunctional homes. If your argument is that nontraditional marriages contribute to children in foster care, than how do homosexual unions contribute, exactly? Are they stealing children who would otherwise have had good lives and putting them into foster homes? I'm confused.

0 Replies

One thing these religious nuts ought to consider:

Traditional families foster homosexuality.

You can check it out. Almost all homosexuals come out of traditional families.

0 Replies

Because I'm sure someone's got a database of all homosexuals and where they came from and under what circumstances they came out. That's really not the point, anyway.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know