A rational argument against free sexuality, anybody?

[M2VIIDS]

I STILL haven't found a single person who can rationally argue that gay marriage should be illegal. Anybody wanna try to play devil's advocate, or to give me a single reason why homosexual people or lesbian people shouldn't be allowed all of the benefits of marriage. You can argue for or against, I honestly don't care. I'll start.

"Honestly, it makes no difference to me what sexuality people have. My opinion on sexuality is the same one I have on religion. Do whatever the hell ya' want, just don't drag me into it."

 

[Stella_Omega]

The prop8 proponents couldn't either, when they tried to argue in front of the California Supreme court. The best they could do was say that "it was always like this and that's why it should stay like this." despite arguments proving that it hasn't always been like this.

But somehow... we are no closer to basic human rights now than we were the day after we WON THAT CASE.

http://prop8trialtracker.com/

My opinion on sexuality is the same one I have on religion. Do whatever the hell ya' want, just don't drag me into it."

Well, funny you should say that, since the people who believe that gay marriage is sinful and should be illegal-- ALSO believe in religion's right to drag you right into it.

what a coincidence!

 

[marieR19]

I've been honestly interested in this debate for years. I love debating this kind of stuff with people, but from what I've seen most anti-gay-rights people aren't able to debate their side effectively at all. I've posted in multiple forums that I belong to, curious about any logical debateable reason against gay rights... And no one can hold up to any sort of poking or questioning.

Even the people who quote the Bible flounder and don't know what to say when I quote it back to them, explaining how it's just as much of a sin to wear cotton, eat certain foods, do many things that they do without thought.

 

[lustatopia]

OK, I'll play devil's advocate since no one else here is willing to shit outside their sand box.

Disclaimer: I support gay marriage, whatever that means. But I see it as an oxymoronic cultural compromise by a conservative gay culture that lacks the imaginative will to create new, far more flexible institutions of their own.

The main rationale behind NOT supporting "gay marriage" is that marriage is the institution of procreation, heterosexuality and family, therefore of nation building and political power.

Historically whatever people are demographically growing will eventually achieve hegemony over those in decline. So marriage is all about protecting the realpolitik power that children and families bestow upon the nation.

For instance, it is a fact the American colonies expanded across the Appalachians by the sheer reproductive force of the Scotch and Irish settlers and other frontiers people who regularly had families of ten or more kids for generations much to the despair of the Spanish, French and British colonists and American Indians who had to concede the frontier to the American population explosion.

Marriage as the institution of reproduction is unique and vital to the continued health of any nation which wishes to survive into the future. Naturally, social conservatives are loath to alter the definition of marriage to include groups who wish to appropriate the most fundamental institution of procreation to achieve social equity while ditching its original purpose.

I wonder if Stella would be cool with Southern Baptists demanding to run a big float in the next Gay Pride Parade not to celebrate the true meaning of Gay Pride but for their own ideological purposes couched in terms of inclusion and equity? Likewise, many Americans suspect that the Gay community isn't interested in reinforcing the traditional meaning and values of marriage but is motivated by self-interested ideological purposes at odds with the spirit of the institution.

Ironically, Many gay-rights proponents wish to appropriate the institution of heterosexual reproduction as a symbol of equality even while lambasting the het world as the oppressive, hegmonic "other." Why philosophers of gay-sex theory would wish to imitate the oppressive gender-based value system of mainstream het culture is a question that should be consider. It's as if freed slaves in the deep South wished to be allowed to keep their own slaves rather than be done with the whole institution. Psychologically this seems like a cultural fetish, a clinging on to a past that never was, a failure of imagination.

It's the older - perhaps creatively exhausted - Gay Conservatives socially delaying how an emerging gay culture works out its own institutions of security, political power, sexual unions and traditions of love. Although, I'm aware they don't see it that way.

There is a radical post-20th century argument that gays don't need the het marriage tradition any more than fish need bicycles. What they do need require is equal recognition under the law for their committed relationships.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You won't get me to debate for the pleasure of debate. Debating human rights for gay folk is not a pleasure to me, it's an unfortunate skill that I've been forced to acquire as a result of my desire to simply live my life.

I'd rather kiss a girl, or build a dildo, pet a dog, dance at a friend's wedding, cuddle a baby, or drive a car.

Or to quote;
I get in fights with people. They say, “I don’t support gay marriage because it goes against my religious belief.” I say, “Well, fuck you, then.” That’s my answer to everything. I’m sick of explaining to people why we deserve equality. I jump ahead to the “Fuck you, then” argument.

Margaret Cho

 

[Little Bird]

"It destroys society!"

I have no idea how, but that's the common argument.

 

[marieR19]

That's a very interesting post, lustatopia, and thank you for playing devil's advocate!

But even the whole "marriage is for reproduction" arguement doesn't hold up under debate. The majority of people who have thrown that one at me won't, for example, argue that infertile couples or hetro-couples who simple don't want children should be stripped of their rights to marry. What about people who try for years to have children and never can? They aren't putting children out there, aren't contributing to the reproduction-cause, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry either, right? The reproduction arguement, like most anti-gay arguements, stands fine when people shout it from the rooftops, but doesn't stand up so well under logical debate.

 

[Etoile]

10 foot pole, etc.

 

[TallOne]

Continuing to play devil's advocate. It would cost the government money. In tax, social security, etc benefits. So it does have an impact on other people's lives(their tax money). The presumption being that the majority of heterosexual couples pay back these benefits by producing future generations of taxpayers. I don't think exceptions break the rule of the reproduction argument.

It's a rather unjust/inhumane argument, but it counters the "it wouldn't affect you" argument.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You know Amy has two little girls. Cittykat22 is a single mother.

Elton John and his partner are raising a little boy, born via surrogate.

I have a daughter and a son.

Anyone who thinks babies can only happen when a man and a lady get married needs a talking to about the birds and the bees.

and fuck you, then.

 

[TallOne]

Right but that comes at great expense and intentional effort. Doesn't just happen by accident.


Looking at it as a numbers/money game the way politicians certainly are.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Right but that comes at great expense and intentional effort. Doesn't just happen by accident.


Looking at it as a numbers/money game the way politicians certainly are.

Most gay people's children come about because a dick got inside a pussy, just like everyone else's do.

 

[TallOne]

How about this? Statistically speaking married heterosexual couples have more children than long term(would be married) gay/lesbian couples.



Personally I think the government should just not recognize marriages. And let you designate anyone(and multiple people at that) to automatic inheritance/hospital visit/etc benefits.

 

[eddie03]

The one thing that the people here playing devils advocate have proved in this thread is that they are more informed on the issue then 95% of the people that are against gay marriage. I get so tired of hearing the same thing over and over, "It's against the bible".

What part of separation of church and state don't they understand? If you bring up that then most of the people I encounter will then say, "Well this is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles". Um no it isn't! Our founding fathers weren't what could be called good christian men. Then I will tell them that Thomas Jefferson even went so far as to rewrite the Bible to remove what he felt were the fictious parts.

The next arguement then goes to the "In God we trust" on money. Please people, the first coin to have that on it also had the Roman Goddess Libertas on it as well. Hey if the US were such a 'Christian nation' why is there only pagan symbols on our money? Why aren't government buildings of a more Christian church design when in fact they are more pagan in nature? Sorry to go on such rant and I don't hate Christians but I'm tired of watching American politics being drug down and sidelined over religous non issues such as this.

Equality is what it is, people should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation. The Bible needs to be taken completely out of the debate, period! I mean just because the bible endorses slavery doesn't make it a good idea either... (Leviticus 25:44 among many)

 

[Etoile]

Blah blah infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married blah blah. Oh right, exceptions don't break the rule. Well why not? If that really were a sound argument, they most certainly would break it. Thus, the argument fails.

 

[TallOne]

"Well this is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles". Um no it isn't! Our founding fathers weren't what could be called good christian men.

Yeah, those folks that haven't read any history. Most of the founding fathers were deists at best if not just outright atheists who couldn't 'come out of the closet' at the time. Many were rather vocal in condemning Christianity.

 

[TallOne]

Blah blah infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married blah blah. Oh right, exceptions don't break the rule. Well why not? If that really were a sound argument, they most certainly would break it. Thus, the argument fails.

In pure logic, sure. But we're talking about statistics, budgets, probabilities that go into what the politicians really care about, money and power.


There isn't a leg to stand on when talking about humanity/equal rights as far as opposing it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In pure logic, sure. But we're talking about statistics, budgets, probabilities that go into what the politicians really care about, money and power.


There isn't a leg to stand on when talking about humanity/equal rights as far as opposing it.

Ask those people how they feel about spending money on public schools, childcare and health. Point out that every child born adds a financial burden to the public coffers. Point out that taxpayers get to reduce their taxes because they have children. Children cost public money.

You will find that "rational argument" never wins the day when you're up against ignorant, emotional irrational people.

 

[lustatopia]

So far no one here has answered to the central criticism of gay marriage.

Marriage is primarily an institution devoted to fertility and heterosexual reproduction as well as monogamous sexual conservatism. It provides a cultural template for gender-based roles in society and in practice enables the demographic basis for the projection of nationalistic hegemonic political power. But the gay culture isn’t a celebration of any of those values; it’s a liberation movement against traditional gender-based identity.

What the gay community is REALLY interested in is that their relationships be afforded the same equal protection under the law as the institution of marriage. There are legislative and even cultural ways to achieve this equality without taking on the baggage of marriage.

Yet gay culture is aggressively seeking (for various questionable socio-psychological and economic motivations that would be interesting to explore in detail) to appropriate an ancient and archaic institution, gut its shell of its relevant social values and meaning, which the gay community holds in contempt, then use the carcass of the marriage institution as an ad hoc device to achieve the illusion of gay equality.

Why anyone in the gay community would not instantly understand why this whole process of cultural appropriation is perceive as crude vandalism to social conservatives who are both spiritually and emotional invested in the values of heterosexual marriage isn’t clear to me. Although, some here claim that social conservatives lack the rhetorical skills to effectively communicate their tribal values cross-culturally. But I would posit, on the contrary, that the gay community isn't listening for the complexity of concern beneath the “other’s” veneer of simple symbols.

“It’s aginst da Bible,” is interpreted by those who believe they are intellectual superiority to be a self-evidently ignorant position. But just who is so blinded by cultural bigotry here that they are unable to afford the same kind of respect for the deeply held concerns of the “other” that they justly demand for their own values?

It’s the great paradox of our age.

On one hand we have the traditional het cultural institution of marriage, which, by definition, is intolerant to alt sexuality. On the other we have gay culture, which, by definition, is the very pinnacle of enlightened tolerance and cultural inclusiveness . Yet ironic, this enlightened, tolerant gay culture seeks to co-opt an archaic institution of gender-bias and sexism and by doing so must be intolerant of the original values of that institution. The end result demeans us all with hypocrisy and brutal intolerance all around.

As Maragret Cho so elegantly states to people whose cultural values she doesn’t share: “Well, Fuck you then.” As if that somehow is an intellectually superior position than, “Da Bible is aginst it.” Both are symptomatic of cultural bigotry but only one is also intellectual degeneracy.

One evening while in a remote desert camp of an indigenous Australian tribal people I thought myself so clever for bringing back from an afternoon hike a rather common goanna, a kind of large lizard, the desert people loved to eat. But, I was shunned by this particular clan whose country was new to me. Finally, an elder came over to me and said, “Our totem is goanna, it’s aginst our totem to hurt the goanna, mate.” Oops. Fortunately, I had the goanna alive in a canvas sack, which I gave to the elder to release.

The gay community should give the het tribe back their marriage totem alive, before they hurt it. We need to do some dreaming and find own totems and not go around stealing other people’s totem. Otherwise, we’re no better than those who would steal something from us.

I think that’s what the tribal elders would have advised us to do.

To treat other people’s ancient values and beliefs with same kind of respect that we would like our emergent values and beliefs treated to.

 

[Etoile]

"Marriage" has nothing to do with procreation. You don't have to be married to procreate. Marriage is a legal institution, nothing more and nothing less. It is NOT a religious institution. It has nothing to do with it. There is no reason to get married unless you want the legal benefits that come with it.

Yet gay culture is aggressively seeking (for various questionable socio-psychological and economic motivations that would be interesting to explore in detail) to appropriate an ancient and archaic institution, gut its shell of its relevant social values and meaning, which the gay community holds in contempt, then use the carcass of the marriage institution as an ad hoc device to achieve the illusion of gay equality.

ROFL.

 

[lustatopia]

"Marriage" has nothing to do with procreation. You don't have to be married to procreate. Marriage is a legal institution, nothing more and nothing less. It is NOT a religious institution. It has nothing to do with it. There is no reason to get married unless you want the legal benefits that come with it.



ROFL.

So... for the gay community it's all about a legal contract with the state so they can secure benefits, eh?

Then why insist on appropriating some one else's anachronistic tradition with all the cultural baggage that entails when all you really want is a legally binding contract with the state?

Since it's all about securing legal entitlements a more rational course would be to advocate for legislation to create a flexible commitment contract designed to fit alternative relationship situations perhaps based upon existing forms of business contractual arrangements between you and your partner(s) and the state. The terms could be negotiable within a standard form and the contract could be up for renewal every, say, 2, 4 or 20 years or whatever.

This would legally resolve equity issues in ALL alternative relationships, not just gay couples. For instance, two or three older retired people living together and supporting each other even though they aren't in any sexual relationship could use the new contractual template to secure the same legal benefits as other people in committed relationships are allowed.

The Christianists, Islamist, Jewish and others who negotiated their traditional marriage relationships with the state long ago could preserve their old social contracts while the state develops a new template for interfacing with emergent forms of alternative relationships.

A win/win for everyone and it's multiculturally respectful too.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I like your rational solution there. How will we get society to accept it?

How will we convince couples, that they have the same status under this contract as a married couple would?

How can we convince hospitals, schools, the IRS, people's families-- that this state is viable and respected?

can we make this happen before some of us die of old age minus the protections and responsibilities that are commonly thought of as "spousal rights?"

See the problem is, human societal needs are not expressed or symbolised by the same kind of "rational" notion that you are thinking of-- you seem to mean "logical," but the human organism has a different paradigm to deal with. "Logic" is a handy tool for certain things. It isn't a substitute, in human needs, for empathy, connection, status, tribal identity, rivalry and cooperation (for good or bad) that form the real base for what so many of us do.

 

[M2VIIDS]

Calm down people, this isn't an anger-release thread.

Hey there everybody!! I'm the creator of this thread, despite the fact that I'm not on here as much as the rest of you... Ironic, can ya' say. I just wanted to make a few comments on this thread, its purpose, and its direction. I'm a little paranoid, so just don't take anything offensively, because I don't want to get this thread to shut down or anything.

I created this thread for the purpose of better understanding both sides of an issue, and from what I'm seeing here on the second page alone shows that this is about to get out of hand. Anyone who can't keep a cool and level head while posting here shouldn't post. I don't want this to become a troll thread, or something along those lines. I don't want everyone to end up just throwing insults back and forth...

But I must say that I am very glad with how this thread is going so far. It seems that we're questioning, that we're playing devil's advocate, and that we're trying to debate the issue rather maturely. But, let's try to do something to keep this all organized. We're going to end up debating marriage and the like with different topics that I want you all to include in the title of your post. "Pro" or "Con" of free sexuality and marriage, and then subtopics like "Social", "Economic", "Government", "Religion", "Psychological", etc. Let's keep this thread more organized, so that we can actually understand what we're arguing. I trust you all to be organized and mature about this debate, but I want no sassing anybody else, or for anybody to get out of control in either defense or offensive.

I don't have anything against any of you, and you've all done pretty well in setting up a good stage for all this!~ I'm grateful to all of you. But, I feel it'd be best for me to actually give special thanks to those of you playing Devil's Advocate though, as I understand that in such a thread as this, you'll all earn a lil' bit of scorn. I'd especially like to thank Lustatopia, for "stepping out of the sand box to take his shit", and TallOne, for the same reason. I'd also like to thank Etoile, eddie03, and Stella_Omega for developing some rather sound arguments of their own to defend free marriage.

Thank you kindly for for understanding my points, and please continue to help this thread advance us towards a greater understanding of each other, through this thread.

Sincerely,
...​

Creator of this Thread​

 

[Cicca_Jai]

prop 8 in cali... a wonderful example.

I was living in Cali for prop 8 and the big vote.
I rallied with the GBl community, I however am 100% straight.
Here was my thinking.
80 years ago it was not ok to marry outside your race. Why I have not a clue but meeh.
Today, people are up in arms about letting two loving people enter into a contract, again why?
They have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us!
I would be ticked if my neighbors decided that I was less human because I married a forigner, let people do what ever it is that makes their boat float so long as they A are not stuffig it down my neck and B so long as they are not harming anyone.
When some teatottling p.o.s. barbie doll asked me why I dare stand up for "them" I simply said for "the same reason it is your right to have those fake tits my dear personal choise."

To the people who asked me how I would feel if it were my son all I have to say to them is "I love my child gay bi or something in between."
if we all just loved one another a bit more the world would be a much better place indeed. I do not think there is anything right or wrong with it it is what it is. and last I looked I was not God. It is not my place to judge. what is right for me is not going to be right for someone else.

 

[Stella_Omega]

fuck you, then.

M2VIIDS, you sound kind and well-meaning but...

patronising as all fuck.

Be careful with that.

You're curious? Fine. But this is MY LIFE that you're being curious about. And I have to fight for MY LIFE every fucking day. Just remember that when you start worrying about people keeping cool heads.

As of this month I am fifty five years old and have had decades of practice in mustering arguments against stupid fucking idiots. They still win, and not because of their rational arguments, but merely because there are so unbelievably many of them. Maturity? Dude, you have no idea how mature I am.

But I'm pretty much with Margeret Cho these days. The debate is never ending, never winnable, and never rational. No rational argument in the known universe will make an impression on stupid fucking idiots. it's far easier -- and no more destructive -- to say "OK, fuck you then." I don't worry about hurting anyone's feelings when I say that, or losing a possible ally, because I know that they are not and won't ever be an ally anyway. By now? They would have already changed their mind. They've already heard the arguments. Seriously.

We don't need to "practice rational arguments."

They
Don't
Matter.

Also, "anger" will never freeze a thread at lit. If you don't believe me, take a look at the general board where the trolls top post against each other and disrupt each and every thread with perfect impunity. There are no moderators for tone here. If you want to control people's voices and enforce "maturity" you need to find a different forum.