Is, "Hetero", innate and natural?

[amicus]

As the, 'Gay' thread, is exclusive, with dissenters deemed unwelcome, I thought to at least express the normality of our society, rather than intrude on the hallowed ground of androgynous ambiguity.

A small self evident observation that anyone can make, since reproducing the species requires both genders, and since our species has survived and flourished, ergo, heterosexuality as normative.

Culture and society have always played a role in sexual choices; even the last female at the Bar looks good in a drunken state.

Women trailing a flock of offspring are seldom the ones appearing on the front page of Modeling magazines or wearing a Miss America crown; but somehow procreation triumphs.

To generalize, 'most' people are not concerned with the sexual choices of others unless they trespass surveyed turf.

"Most' people tolerate teen-aged public displays of intimacy as they are seeking mates and staking claims and because it is, with family and friends, a 'social affair'.

'Most' people turn away in revulsion at a public display of same sex intimacy.

One might suggest that the human need of companionship is a stronger drive, or an equal one, to a choice of sexual intimacy.

The 'history' of same sex relationships is a long one and even the animal kingdom is thrown in as a support group to justify contemporary sexual behavior.

The 'Sexual Revolution', said to have started with Playboy Magazine, somewhere back in the 50's, has greatly changed how society views the sexual habits of themselves and others, Perhaps, as many think, it was a long time coming as the emancipation of women and the quest for equality is not yet a century old and has a long, long, long history.

It is viewed, by some, as a 'civil rights' issue, right alongside Women and Blacks and other minorities in America; some do not see it as that, but as a private matter, best left out of politics and the courts.

Unfortunately, it has not remained private, as activists have insisted on absolute equality throughout all the institutions of society, and campaigned and lobbied to include that particular life-style in the mainstream.

There is also an area of change in the professional arena that requires presentation and commentary and I refer to two posts of the 'gay' thread as an opening gambit:

"...Trust me (and the AMA, APA, AP Assoc., Amer. Psychoanalytic Assoc., AAP and the NASW), you are working on a faulty premise..."

(Safe Bet)

"...SAFE BET
All the organizations you cite, tagged homosexuality a mental disorder until 1980..."

(JBJ)

It troubles many, (and examples are within the other thread), that school age children are being influenced, or challenged, concerning their sexual identity, by both peer pressure and social acceptance, and by the overall professional and educational role models within the educational institutions.

Considering heterosexual behavior as a societal norm and thus of value, even a 'good' thing, should be the rational conclusion of anyone objectively meditating the issue.

Legal Abortion, as a result of a 1973 Scotus decision preceded the reversal, as cited above, of many medical associations, from aberrant and mental disorder status, to simply a lifestyle choice.

Although the adherents in their exclusivity on the 'gay' thread, deny that anyone should view homosexual behavior as aberrant, 'most' people easily recognize a valid premise when they see one.

Well, there, I guess I'm done with that. You need not post in agreement, not necessary, but for those who share this point of view, know that others do also and, I suspect, are in the majority here, they just remain silent so as not to incur the wrath of the activists.

And, I have no one on Ignore, feel free to quote as you will; my understanding of this forum is that it welcomes and protects the right of free speech regardless of how many wish to censor it.

Amicus

 

[slyc_willie]

From a strictly genetic point of view, in that a man and a woman are required to produce offspring, then of course, heterosexuality is the "natural" and preferred path. Human beings as well as the majority of animals on this planet are genetically designed to require one female and one male to reproduce. That's the simple answer.

But sex isn't only about reproduction. It's also about pleasure, intimacy, escape, domination, and/or a physical expression of emotional love. And in that regard, because of the wide range of use for sex, I see no reason to think that homosexuality is also natural. After all, homosexual sex can fulfill all the needs which heterosexual sex provides, save only one.

As far as propagation of the species is concerned, even if all three possible sexual orientations (heterosexual, homosexual, and asexual) existed in equal quantity among the human species, 33% of heterosexual humans would be more than enough to keep the species going.

 

[amicus]

Hello again and thank you Slyc, for your response to my overly long introduction; some things just cannot be covered in a few paragraphs.

Your reply is logical, of course, and your presumptions and conclusions follow suit. However, logic is only productive with a valid premise and the results can be variable in terms of conclusions.

"Pleasure" & "Propagation" Your two points, and I call upon you to scroll back in history and note that both have almost always been under societal controls, regulations and taboo's'.

As I tried to emphasis in my OP, 'most' people, at least in this day and age, are not concerned with the sexual proclivities of their neighbors; they are most content to leave well enough alone, the old, 'don't talk, don't tell', attitude taken by the US Military to deal with the problems of same gender relationships in a controlled circumstance.

But when the 'gay pride' becomes activist and intrudes upon others, then society does take notice. When the 'normative' more's are challenged and people feel threatened by things they do not understand nor appreciate, then perhaps a movement has gone too far?

I sense the 'high-water mark', has been reached and is now receding, or that the pendulum has reached apogee and is about to swing the other way.

I did not want to intrude on the other thread, but, as I noted, I thought the opposite view should also have voice and I tried to offer it.

One can also appreciate the 'possibility' of genetic tendencies, as it is unproven. One can also appreciate that humans, in isolation from the opposite gender, might well turn to each other.

But....and it's a big one...sex is many things, as you said, it is also a very deep psychological experience that may last a lifetime. It is not pleasant to think that some school age children, exposed to the rhetoric that homosexuality is merely an alternative life style, experiment...and then find that for the rest of their lives they regret the choices made.

There is also the legacy of forty years of 'behaviorist' psychology, that in essence preaches that there are no absolute moral boundaries save injury to another. Moral indecision or ambiguity are both injurious to the human psyche, as it is, requiring a 'knowledge' of right and wrong and how to judge human behavior in moral terms, those of right and wrong, good and bad.

In the absence of a moral code, anything goes, and I think we have a society, at least at the upper intellectual levels, that is wrapped in the throes of indecision.

Thanks again for your reply, it may be the only one...and again, I am not preaching, merely offering an opposing viewpoint to the other thread.

regards...

ami

 

[slyc_willie]

I hope you don't mind, old friend, that I parsed your reply to address a few points you mentioned. I try not to take anything out of context, so excuse me if inadvertently do so.

1) "Pleasure" & "Propagation" Your two points, and I call upon you to scroll back in history and note that both have almost always been under societal controls, regulations and taboo's'.

2) I sense the 'high-water mark', has been reached and is now receding, or that the pendulum has reached apogee and is about to swing the other way.

3) But....and it's a big one...sex is many things, as you said, it is also a very deep psychological experience that may last a lifetime. It is not pleasant to think that some school age children, exposed to the rhetoric that homosexuality is merely an alternative life style, experiment...and then find that for the rest of their lives they regret the choices made.

4) In the absence of a moral code, anything goes, and I think we have a society, at least at the upper intellectual levels, that is wrapped in the throes of indecision.

To each in turn:

1) Pleasure and Propagation have always been, and will always be, subject to societal controls as far as their acceptance -- and not practice -- is concerned. In notable societies in recorded history, homosexuality and bisexuality have been not only accepted, but even endorsed. Alexander was in love with his general. It was common amongst imperial Roman men and women to take lovers of the same sex without fear of societal rebuttal. Even as recently as Feudal Japan, it was known that men would often find pleasure with other men (kabuki).

Our society, until recent decades, was very taboo on the subject of homosexuality. It's just the opposite swing of the pendulum from the examples I cited above. Neither side is morally more correct. It's all about social preferences.

2) True, the 'high-water mark' may have been reached. There has been lately an aggressive push for acceptance of homosexuals in "normal society." Some advocates are almost in the realm of preachy extremism. That's nothing new. Advocates for a woman's right to vote sometimes resorted to drastic measures. The movement that resulted in the Volstead Act was preachy and aggressive as well. Malcolm X was a very controversial figure for some of the things he endorsed or suggested -- but it got him heard, and people thinking.

This is a very tumultuous time for the proponents of gay and lesbian rights. The pendulum will swing widely before it reaches a stable tempo.

3) Children and adolescents will make many choices, the majority of them painful in some way, as the grow up. Things will happen to them. We can't try to protect them from every little thing, because that will result in overly dependent adults used to living a sheltered existence. I don't want to see my daughter hurt in any way, but I know she will be. She'll be confused by her own sexuality as it emerges. She'll make bad choices. She'll be taken advantage of at some point, by a boy, another girl, perhaps both in turn or maybe even at the same time. I can't stop that.

But what I can do as a good parent is let her know that her mother and I are there to listen to her, to advise her, to share our own stories from our distant pasts. Because that's what good parents do. Adolescent pain is like an assassin's bullet: it will hit them, sooner or later. It's how we, as parents, assuage the wound made that makes the difference in our childrens' lives.

4) In the absence of a moral code, anything goes, and I think we have a society, at least at the upper intellectual levels, that is wrapped in the throes of indecision -- Amicus

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Ami. What we have is a society unsure as to whether it will accept the presence of gays and lesbians. There is resistance to it which clashes against the insistence of those in the community who demand everything hetero couples are already given. Personally, I don't think there's much of an argument, in that it will eventually be legislated that homosexual couples are every bit as entitled as hetero couples. If our culture is to progress forward and embrace every possibility, then we cannot turn our backs on anyone.

I just want to end with that I didn't think you were being preachy, Ami. Hell, I almost never do.

 

[amicus]

Slyc:

"...But what I can do as a good parent is let her know that her mother and I are there to listen to her, to advise her, to share our own stories from our distant pasts. Because that's what good parents do. Adolescent pain is like an assassin's bullet: it will hit them, sooner or later. It's how we, as parents, assuage the wound made that makes the difference in our childrens' lives..."

~~~

I am going to gently take issue with you here.

Children are not born with a moral 'barometer', to tell them what is right and wrong, good and bad. They learn, on the way through life those values that exist to tell us when we make beneficial decisions.

The percentage of home schooled children, as I understand it, has risen a great deal as the moral environment concerning gender equality and drugs has permeated the public school system.

I, personally and intellectually hold that it is the obligation of parents to provide that moral foundation for their own children. I do not think we can merely teach them to be, 'tolerant and respectful' of others when the variety of, 'others' is as wide and dangerous as it is.

I speak for myself only when I say that I wanted my boys to be boys and my girls to be girls, and I raised them accordingly. Out of five girls and three boys, none has any doubts concerning their sexuality or their roles in life as a man or as a woman.

I can perhaps empathize with the terrible frustration a parent might feel when they fail to provide a moral base for a child and then fail to understand what they have created.

And yes, they will suffer through it anyway, I know that well, as well as I know there comes a point when you can only listen and be sympathetic. But, nature did not intend us to be, 'friends' to our children, it prompts us to move them out on their own, to reward them for good things and chastise them for bad things.

Your comments seem always to draw a little more out of me than I usually offer, more personal than theoretical...for some reason....?

ami

 

[slyc_willie]

Slyc:

~~~

I am going to gently take issue with you here.

Children are not born with a moral 'barometer', to tell them what is right and wrong, good and bad. They learn, on the way through life those values that exist to tell us when we make beneficial decisions.

The percentage of home schooled children, as I understand it, has risen a great deal as the moral environment concerning gender equality and drugs has permeated the public school system.

I, personally and intellectually hold that it is the obligation of parents to provide that moral foundation for their own children. I do not think we can merely teach them to be, 'tolerant and respectful' of others when the variety of, 'others' is as wide and dangerous as it is.

I speak for myself only when I say that I wanted my boys to be boys and my girls to be girls, and I raised them accordingly. Out of five girls and three boys, none has any doubts concerning their sexuality or their roles in life as a man or as a woman.

I can perhaps empathize with the terrible frustration a parent might feel when they fail to provide a moral base for a child and then fail to understand what they have created.

And yes, they will suffer through it anyway, I know that well, as well as I know there comes a point when you can only listen and be sympathetic. But, nature did not intend us to be, 'friends' to our children, it prompts us to move them out on their own, to reward them for good things and chastise them for bad things.

Your comments seem always to draw a little more out of me than I usually offer, more personal than theoretical...for some reason....?

ami

Maybe that's because I've never attacked you, Ami. Nor do I wish to do so. There are many who find fault with you, calling you sexist and prejudiced. All I see is a man who sometimes says bluntly when others would prefer a more diplomatic reply. At the least, you are unapologetically yourself, which I like. I figure there is some common ground between us.

I agree that parents are the most responsible for the moral foundation of their children. But you have to admit that the culture in which you came of age is not the same as exists now. Take that for better or worse as you prefer; I'm not one to fault your upbringing or preferences, nor how you raised your children. I am merely saying that the way things such as sexuality are concerned have changed dramatically.

I and the SO will do everything we can to give Little One a firm foundation of trust and openness. I hope that she will remember that foundation as she travels the rocky road of puberty.

And if she comes to a self-realization someday that she prefers women?

As long as she is honest to both us and herself, I'll stand by her. I'm no longer overly concerned with continuing my family line. I have cousins who have done that already.

 

[AchtungNight]

This is shaping up to be an intriguing debate, I wish you both luck.

For my own words on the subject, I will say that I am straight but pro-gay rights. I feel no homosexual urges myself, don't really understand them. I know that I like to watch and read about lesbians; however whenever I hear a femi-nazi lesbo say "this body's for girls only", I can't help but feel an emasculated desire to cuss out the selfish bitch, tell her exactly how her hateful sexist attitude makes me feel and where she can painfully shove it. I can totally understand why some people want to cast stones on homosexuality if they feel the same way. At the same time, I have seen all the evidence Slyc has mentioned in support of same-sex relationships that exists in nature and history, not to mention from people I know in real life and online, and I can't ignore that same-sex relationships have the ability to make folks happy. For many people out there, they are the best thing. They can be strengthening, enticing, pleasurable, fulfilling, etc. I can't understand how because I'm not wired gay or bi, but I feel every bit the same way with the girl I love, so I guess imagination can do the rest. It is also obvious that whoever originally claimed God is against them had to be high on something I don't ever want to come close to imbibing. It's not good to promote lies and deny truth, so I won't. Having a sexual orientation outside the commonly accepted norm does not make you any less of a human being, nor should it diminish your rights in any way. That's always been my opinion, even with earlier caveats expressed herein. My gay stepbrother and bisexual sister would hate me if I believed otherwise, and I'd hate myself too. So I think positive and accept things as they are.

Good luck with the debate, y'all. I'm on Slyc's side, probably will remain there, but I expect Amicus to make things interesting at least.

 

[amicus]

I will do nothing more than wish you all the very best in guiding that new young life, however you decide to do it.

I will, however, challenge you on a point, aside from the current personal tone of the conversation.

"...I am merely saying that the way things such as sexuality are concerned have changed dramatically..."

I offer that human nature has not changed at all.

Nor has human sexuality, in the absolute sense of the word.

Asian children have been sold in the sex slave market for generations; Saudi and Iranian women do not enjoy the innate freedom that we offer our citizens.

There are a thousand more examples one could offer concerning things 'changing dramatically', that really don't change at all. The treatment of Asian children and Muslim women is as wrong today as it was a hundred or a thousand years ago.

Against almost total disagreement on this forum, I have presented a case for, 'absolute morality', as a progression of ethics, morals and philosophy that I hold are innate to the nature of man.

I cannot speak for, nor do I have, 'empathy' for ghetto life in Warsaw in 1940, or the slums of Brooklyn or the Barrio's of Los Angeles. I can not and will not accept as 'normative', the restricted lifestyles that many live with, tolerate or have imposed upon them, nor will I accept those aberrations as functional within the norm of human activities.

I would not have survived in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, I barely survive even in this, 'free' society, without having my fundamental ethics challenged daily by the acts of a government I despise.

And it is not the current administration of which I speak.

Geez, how'd I get all the way over here? heh.

My point to you was that human values never change, just our perception of them varies with time and place. Those of us who think and write down our thoughts usually have a reason for doing so. I am far removed from establishing my own foundation, it has served me well. I can only hope to share that with whomever will listen.

regards again

ami

 

[amicus]

Hello, AchtungNight Lech Master from Austin...a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

"...Good luck with the debate, y'all. I'm on Slyc's side, probably will remain there, but I expect Amicus to make things interesting at least..."

~~~

Well, I try......

I am not much of a social person and not one much for sharing life experiences, or anecdotal references, although it does happen now and then.

My understanding and please correct me if I am wrong, is that those who dabble in basic issues, philosophy and such, should attempt to remain 'objective', above and apart from everyday life and concentrate on the fundamentals. I mean, it's nasty work, but someone has to do it?

"...Having a sexual orientation outside the commonly accepted norm does not make you any less of a human being, nor should it diminish your rights in any way. That's always been my opinion, even with earlier caveats expressed herein..."

Of course you realize that, "only in America", can you really say that and have it mean something?

I say that, knowing that I will be called out about how certain European nations deal with homosexuality, drugs and prostitution, but in referring to human rights, as outlined in our basic documents, it is only here that the real question of human and civil rights can be discussed and worried over and have meaning.

American society has always been basically a monogamous, heterosexual society that values family, fidelity and loyalty. We push at the boundaries now and then, what with the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of women, we even banned alcohol for a while, but discovered that was a stupid move and we fixed it.

We also don't mind the presence of 'Bohemians' in our midst, they are usually the ones we try to teach our kids not to grow up to be. (

The term bohemian, of French origin, was first used in the English language in the nineteenth century to describe the untraditional lifestyles of marginalised and impoverished artists, writers, musicians, and actors in major European cities.)

I use the term to include prostitutes, drug addicts and homosexuals as untraditional lifestyles, marginalized and on the fringes of mainstream society.

Most of those populating this forum can be included in the, 'bohemian' definition, and as such, are on the fringes of American society.

Tolerance for such activity can be a virtue until those tolerated act like the Camel with his nose in the tent...and you know where that leads.

Gay activists have head and shoulders in the tent and seem hell bent on occupying the bed and, I think that is a bit much.

I do appreciate you comments and I know I should have addressed them in a more specific manner, but when my fingers start pecking away, I never know what the result will be.

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Slyc, Achtung, this link was provided by John-the Author, on the other thread and I found it so in tune with my thoughts that I must apologize, but lift the link anyway and hope that either or both of you will find some value in it.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp?pg=1

"...The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage
It isn't going to work.
by Sam Schulman..."

And I thought I was being long-winded with my introductory piece...!

I would like your opinions on the piece if you have time and choose to read it.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Two significant points are lost in most debates about homosexuality.

The first of these is: Society organizes itself however it damned well pleases, inspite of the judges and perfessers and preachers. Napoleon said it best when he corrected a critic of his Russia Campaign. "I didnt want to march 1200 miles to Moscow, I wanted to go across the Channel to England. But my army didnt want to go to England, it wanted to go to Moscow, and we went to Moscow."

Robert E. Lee ran into the same problem at Gettysburg. He didnt want to fight there, his army did.

Ultimately the Soviet Empire failed to enforce its will becuz The People didnt want it.

Your better angels only delay destiny for a brief while. (DEE ZIRE feel free to use this quote).

Second Point: Society often ordains conduct it has no stomach for, like violence. Cops and soldiers are in the violence business. And their violent conduct is circumscribed and limited and managed. Society allows that violence is sometimes necessary to impose the social will or defend life and property.

And it follows that we have renegade cops and soldiers, and nearly everyone pushing the envelope in opposition to the spirit of the ordained behavior.

 

[JamesSD]

Homosexuality has a genetic component. There also seems to be a natal environmental component as well; perhaps capable of being influenced, but certainly not the "choice" of the unborn child. I think we can all agree there is far more pressure for someone of homosexual leanings to be straight in practice than the converse. In the face of prejudice and repression, there are STILL people whose attraction to the same sex overwhelms any desire to be "normal". Almost every gay man tries to be straight and has sex with women as a teen or college boy. Most who end up gay find it unsatisfying.

All legitimate sexual research has found that the majority of people do not fit neatly into "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in terms of desire. Female sexuality seems especially fluid, although there's some evidence that this may be more due to modern sexual freedom rather than any innate difference. A woman who sleeps with a woman once is experimenting. A man who sleeps with a man once is often labeled gay.

Homosexual behavior is hardly new to the modern era. In the time of the ancient greeks, the love (including sex) between an older man and young man who just came of age was viewed as a higher form of love than that between a man and a woman. Achilles died in battle as a result of losing his "shield bearer" and lacking desire to fight following the loss of his young lover. The romans, often viewed as the pinnacle of classic culture, had orgies where practically anything went. Even in the most repressive of muslim countries, homosexual behavior between men occurs. So now we have both biological and cross-cultural anthropological evidence that homosexual desire is "natural" in at least some individuals.

Of course, one could argue that in some individuals the desire to have sex with pre-pubescent children, goats, or trees is "natural" in that they desire it and don't necessarily choose their desire. These acts (excepting the benign tree-fucking) are wrong because they inflict duress on a person or animal unable to give consent. These "natural" desires are wrong because they cause harm. However, the desire between two consenting adults is not morally wrong.

Pressuring those with homosexual desire to form heterosexual diads and breed is perhaps the most cruel thing imaginable... to their children. It's far more destructive to society to have men and women realize they've been suppressing their homosexual urges for years of marriage rather than giving them the freedom to be who they are and not enter into unions basically predicated on a lie.

There was a time not so long ago when interracial marriage was viewed as unnatural, and it's not hard to see the parallels to gay marriage. Although the greeks and romans had it right when it comes to acceptance of homosexual behavior, it seems it's taking us, the theoretical intellectual children of the classical era, a long time to catch up and crawl out of our caves. We lag behind most of the Western world as well. Time will tell how long it takes to fix these issues.

 

[Dragonlipz]

I will do nothing more than wish you all the very best in guiding that new young life, however you decide to do it.

I will, however, challenge you on a point, aside from the current personal tone of the conversation.



I offer that human nature has not changed at all.

Nor has human sexuality, in the absolute sense of the word.

Asian children have been sold in the sex slave market for generations; Saudi and Iranian women do not enjoy the innate freedom that we offer our citizens.

There are a thousand more examples one could offer concerning things 'changing dramatically', that really don't change at all. The treatment of Asian children and Muslim women is as wrong today as it was a hundred or a thousand years ago.

Against almost total disagreement on this forum, I have presented a case for, 'absolute morality', as a progression of ethics, morals and philosophy that I hold are innate to the nature of man.

I cannot speak for, nor do I have, 'empathy' for ghetto life in Warsaw in 1940, or the slums of Brooklyn or the Barrio's of Los Angeles. I can not and will not accept as 'normative', the restricted lifestyles that many live with, tolerate or have imposed upon them, nor will I accept those aberrations as functional within the norm of human activities.

I would not have survived in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, I barely survive even in this, 'free' society, without having my fundamental ethics challenged daily by the acts of a government I despise.

And it is not the current administration of which I speak.

Geez, how'd I get all the way over here? heh.

My point to you was that human values never change, just our perception of them varies with time and place. Those of us who think and write down our thoughts usually have a reason for doing so. I am far removed from establishing my own foundation, it has served me well. I can only hope to share that with whomever will listen.

regards again

ami

Just when I think that there's hope for you, Ami, you go and reaffirm my opinion of you as a misogynistic, inbred troll.......thanks, lipz

 

[amicus]

JamesSD:

"...There was a time not so long ago when interracial marriage was viewed as unnatural, and it's not hard to see the parallels to gay marriage. Although the greeks and romans had it right when it comes to acceptance of homosexual behavior, it seems it's taking us, the theoretical intellectual children of the classical era, a long time to catch up and crawl out of our caves. We lag behind most of the Western world as well. Time will tell how long it takes to fix these issues..."

~~~


Thas your story and you're stickin' to it...no surprise there.

Why you and many more, seem to think that mainstream society will ever become 'bohemian' in nature, is beyond me; the artistic world, the intellectual's world, exists only because it is supported by mainstream blue collar workers who could care less whose ass you penetrate.

Not smart enough to be true intellectuals pursuing Veritas in their field, and too smart to join the herd, these psuedo intellectuals become Hedonists, pleasure seekers who are never and can never be satiated no matter the degradations they experience.

Peruse the link I filched from the other thread and address the subject of that piece; I would like to see your response to the 'failure of homosexuality', and how you deal with it.

Amicus

 

[slyc_willie]

Slyc, Achtung, this link was provided by John-the Author, on the other thread and I found it so in tune with my thoughts that I must apologize, but lift the link anyway and hope that either or both of you will find some value in it.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp?pg=1


And I thought I was being long-winded with my introductory piece...!

I would like your opinions on the piece if you have time and choose to read it.

Amicus

Okay. You asked, I read.

Mr. Schulman makes a very good case regarding marriage as a kinship system. His four main points -- that marriage exists to safeguard a woman's sexuality, that the kinship system defines whom one can and cannot marry, that marriage changes and defines the sexual nature of a married couple, and that marriage defines the boundary between childhood and adulthood and sets the stage for the next generation -- are all viable and persuasive arguments. I also find them to be very narrow.

The article concerns itself with defining marriage as more of a social contract, a set of social laws that shapes and controls a relationship, rather than a romantic act (which Mr. Schulman denigrates quite obviously). That's all well and good if you adhere only to conservative principles of marriage.

Many of the citizens of this country are obviously not conservative. Why should marriage be constrained to a single value system? There's no legislation that says every American must be Catholic, that every American must only speak English, that every American must belong to a single political party. Those are all left to each individual, because they are choices made based on personal philosophy, belief, experience, and of course, the influence of previous generations. So why this insistence to define marriage under only one set of rules?

Personally, viewing marriage under Schulman's kinship system definition makes it look more like a business deal than anything else. It reminds me of the notions of arranged marriages during feudal regimes and the like, in order to secure land and produce "better" offspring.

I thought we were more enlightened than that by now.

I'm not going to stomp on your views, Ami. But regarding this issue, I definitely do not agree with the philosophy put forth in that article. It works for some, no doubt about it. But me, I'll take my romantic marriage over any other kind, for better or for worse, through good times or bad.

 

[amicus]

Fair enough, Slyc; I asked for an opinion, you gave it, and I thank you.

I thought the author of the piece gave a seldom perceived perspective on 'marriage', in that it is a fairly new institution, concerning freedom of choice, but an age old one that is presented as societal and moral in nature.

It rather does take on the aspect of a 'business arrangement' and perhaps the young, who should not be on this forum anyway, might be discouraged from entering into a marriage contract, for, as described, basically enslaves the male to support the 'kinship' family, backwards, current and forward for the rest of his life. And without venturing outside the bonds of monogamy.

I imagine any liberated female reading that piece would have her hackles rise at the thought of needing protection and support from the males in the kinship group, I mean, after all, there is always the apparatus of government to provide when the male is not bound to servitude, eh?

I did, however, appreciate the logic used in illustrating why 'gay marriage' must, by definition, fail, which has been my opinion all along, that it is just a faddish trend of the moment.

In your third paragraph you note that not all American's march to the same drum beat and I agree with that, but, we do adhere to some basic principles and tenets that apply to all, and marriage, being defined as between a man and a woman, is one of those principles.

As with the thread discussing the new scotus nominee, the concept of subjective values, non objective approaches to Justice and Marriage, seems to be at the root of it, as often happens.

It is often said that we are a nation of laws and that those laws are to be applied objectively, without prejudice or privilege pertaining. That being so, one must then, 'define' those laws under which we function and either submit to them or attempt to effect change.

There are no current laws restricting same sex couples from any activity they wish, except marriage and perhaps the adoption of children into a same sex or plural marriage. It becomes a matter of judicial concern when those extended rights begin to involve the general population, as they already have.

And, I want to state that I, of course, have my own personal subjective opinions concerning these issues, but in discussing them, I do try to remain apart and objective in my surmisal of all the aspects and history of the issue.

Appreciate, as always, your well thought out comments.

Amicus

 

[slyc_willie]

I did, however, appreciate the logic used in illustrating why 'gay marriage' must, by definition, fail, which has been my opinion all along, that it is just a faddish trend of the moment.

To be honest, I considered that as well, that the idea of gay and lesbian marriage was about a collective ego that desired the right to marriage "just because." But I really do feel that, to the majority of gay and lesbian couples out there, the right to marry anyone they choose therefore gives them the same benefits that a hetero couple should receive, as far as joint ownership, insurance, etc. Of course, that also means they fall prey to the same pitfalls, in that a messy divorce is a messy divorce.

I fear that the extreme arm of gay and lesbian rights often colors the view most outsiders have of homosexuals. Really, all they want is to be just as banal and "normal" as the rest of us. Or so I hope.

As always, I enjoy sparring with you, Ami. But it's that time of night and I must hie me to bed.

Be well.

 

[DeeZire]

4) In the absence of a moral code, anything goes, and I think we have a society, at least at the upper intellectual levels, that is wrapped in the throes of indecision -- Amicus

I would agree with this statement, but in the context of the "financial instruments" that took down our economy. What kind of moral code would allow such irresponsible behavior?

On the issue of homosexuality, I think the moral code we should honor is to ourselves: we need to do what fulfills us, not what fulfills the expectations of others. As long as we don't harm others while fulfilling our needs, who has the right to condemn what we do?

Granted, we all have a duty to our society, but claiming that society would crumble if homosexuality ran rampant is absurd. If we were to base all our actions on the approval of society, we'd still be owning slaves.

It is in the best interests of society that we don't allow inequality to impede the freedom of those members of society who stray from the "norm". As an advocate of individual freedoms, Ami, I would think you would have to cede this point.

We don't all follow the same path in the pursuit of happiness (which is supposed to be an American ideal, BTW.) If the existence of gays threatens your own moral code, that's your problem, not theirs.

 

[amicus]

]I would agree with this statement, but in the context of the "financial instruments" that took down our economy. What kind of moral code would allow such irresponsible behavior?

On the issue of homosexuality, I think the moral code we should honor is to ourselves: we need to do what fulfills us, not what fulfills the expectations of others. As long as we don't harm others while fulfilling our needs, who has the right to condemn what we do?

Granted, we all have a duty to our society, but claiming that society would crumble if homosexuality ran rampant is absurd. If we were to base all our actions on the approval of society, we'd still be owning slaves.

It is in the best interests of society that we don't allow inequality to impede the freedom of those members of society who stray from the "norm". As an advocate of individual freedoms, Ami, I would think you would have to cede this point.

We don't all follow the same path in the pursuit of happiness (which is supposed to be an American ideal, BTW.) If the existence of gays threatens your own moral code, that's your problem, not theirs[/I].

~~~

You make some excellent points and at the same time attempt to challenge my concept of life, liberty and the pursuit, as defined by our Constitution and Bill of Rights and the thousands upon thousands of statute law precedents that began before the first President was ever inaugurated.

As an example, I think the government and the laws, have no business controlling, regulating or taxing alcohol, tobacco or any recreational drug. Yet most of the people feel otherwise and continue to vote down any attempt to legalize even marijuana.

For some reason, (we can argue over why), governments everywhere consider the 'hard' drugs as too dangerous to allow citizens to partake thereof.

It isn't that homosexuals present a threat to society by simply being homosexual; it is when the 'activists' of the movement, a tiny majority, insist on being viewed as 'mainstream America'. They are not; they are fringe area dissidents that confront conventional and traditional ethics and morals of this particular society.

Same sex couples need no permission to live together and what they do behind closed doors is their business. To make a nasty comparison, the Church, behind closed doors, has its' own moral premises as displayed by homosexual priests who violated children. But what they did had an impact on society at large and so too does the increasing clamour to be included at all levels of society from school teachers to military personnel.

It is a controversial issue, although the advocates, such as your post, declare it is simply a matter of equal rights under the law, it is far more than that and it seems I need to remind you, there is more than one viewpoint on this issue, not yours alone.

My presentation happens to be the majority one in this nation at this time, yet you and others treat it as if it did not exist.

The link included in Post #10, might offer you yet another point of view in opposition to same sex marriage and homosexuality in general, if you care to take a look at it.

Amicus

 

[JamesSD]

Slyc, Achtung, this link was provided by John-the Author, on the other thread and I found it so in tune with my thoughts that I must apologize, but lift the link anyway and hope that either or both of you will find some value in it.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp?pg=1

I responded in the other thread how simply leotarded that author is. He has his head so far up his own ass, he can see his tonsils.

Romantic marriage replaced the "women as property" system of old. Now, there clearly were cases, especially in the upper classes, where women had a great deal of freedom to dally with lovers so long as they produced a legitimate heir. That aside, I don't think many modern Americans want marriage to return to its "traditional" roots of girls belonging to their fathers until transferred to their husbands. If you've been to many weddings lately you'll know that a lot of couples forgo the "who presents this woman" bit, or else have both parents present her together.

I'll admit to being HORRIBLY offended by the notion that women must remain pure, and are essentially either virgins or child prostitutes. "But the duty of virginity can seem like a privilege, even a luxury, if you contrast it with the fate of child-prostitutes in brothels around the world." is such a vile line that it forced me to stop reading the article the first time around.

"The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage." The following are equal to or better at protecting a woman from being raped or becoming a concubine as a Husband: Guns, knives, pepper spray, male friends (gay or otherwise), straight male fuck buddies (in singles or groups), a group of female friends who have each others back, or simply LOCKING HER DAMN DOORS. At the risk of being offensive to those who have gone through the trauma, I don't think any rapist has been stopped by the ring on a woman's finger.

"This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being" At least the author admits he's a misogynist. Oddly, his attitude makes me NOT want to get married.

---

Ok, now that I'm done throwing up in my mouth from this author's vile filth, I'll try to continue.

Second is the incest argument. It's been refuted more times than I care to discuss. Let's just say that if a brother has sex with his sister and she's on the pill, it's still incest. His argument also could be applied equally against divorce, or at least re-marriage (sorry Newt, Rush).

His third point is basically "all sex outside of marriage is wrong". Let's see how middle America chews on THAT one. There's a reason the terms "illegitimate child" and "bastard child" aren't really used anymore. I can only imagine the disdain this author has for Levi Johnson and Bristol Palin and their parents (actually, they failed to defend her virginity, so they are "obvious" failures, and must support gay marriage or something).

Holy shit, his fourth point is "marriage is the end of childhood"! Apparently he doesn't realize that people are getting married later and later, and oh yeah, 2nd and 3rd marriages? (again, sorry Rush and Newt). I will say that if it were legal, a lot more gay men would probably get married a lot younger than now (although, probably still somewhat later than heterosexuals). It's a silly argument, hence it's last.

"But virginity and chastity before marriage, license after--these are the burdens of real marriage, honored in spirit if not in letter, creating for women (women as modern as Beyoncé) the right to demand a tangible sacrifice from the men who would adore them." Citing Beyonce doesn't meant you "get" how the modern world works. (As an aside, she dated her now husband Jay-Z for SIX YEARS before getting married. If the author thinks he wasn't hitting that before putting a ring on it... yeah...) People are having sex younger and younger and getting married later. People just aren't virgins at marriage anymore like they were in the (imaginary) past.

Amusingly the AUTHOR has been in three marriages, and yet the majority of his arguments seem to imply that only his first marriage was remotely legitimate.

Also interesting is the author seems unfamiliar that Lesbians exist. Many of his "girls like marriage boys don't" arguments would imply that Lesbian couples should be better at marriage than heterosexuals.

"Can gay men and women be as generous as we straight men are? Will you consider us as men who love, just as you do, and not merely as homophobes or Baptists? Every day thousands of ordinary heterosexual men surrender the dream of gratifying our immediate erotic desires. Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides, starting out upon what that cad poet Shelley called the longest journey, attired in the chains of the kinship system--a system from which you have been spared. Imitate our self-surrender. If gay men and women could see the price that humanity--particularly the women and children among us--will pay, simply in order that a gay person can say of someone she already loves with perfect competence, "Hey, meet the missus!"--no doubt they will think again. If not, we're about to see how well humanity will do without something as basic to our existence as gravity."
Not just one, but THREE women married this loser. That's sad. Seriously, if this is how he approaches marriage WHY THE FUCK would he remarry? If I was married to him and read this, I would leave him, ASAP. "Sorry you're chained down, surrendering your desires! Go have fun on your own, loser!"

To summarize my counterarguments:
-Romantic marriage is here to stay
-Even if you think female virginity is a virtue, the reality is it's rarely practiced in this era
-Gay marriage does not threaten incest taboos any more than straight divorce does
-Marriages can be legitimate and sacred even if they won't be producing biological children (i.e. men and women past childbearing age, or infertile couples)
-Heterosexuals marry for love, with producing children as a secondary goal in many, but not all marriages. Protecting virginity, property transfer, and legitimate heirs are antiquated concepts and not the reason anyone marries. Those still in denial may be surprised to hear Joe Dimaggio is dead, we landed on the moon, and have color TV boxes. Some people may WANT us to go back, but the majority of Americans and Europeans do not. These are not legitimate arguments against gay marriage.

This article really proves why there IS no rational argument against gay marriage, and it's really just the religious arguments and "it's icky" that keep a slim majority of (mostly older) Americans opposed.

 

[amicus]

JamesSD....I first want to pay heed to the amount of time and effort you put into your response.

I also take note of what seems to be an intense if controlled anger contained in your words and thoughts.

Much of the 'movement' and those who support it, seem to be somewhat disconnected from the values of the past and it is true that many of my generation do not understand contemporary culture.

I doubt that anyone, myself included, can predict what the future will hold, not just in terms of human relationships and family arrangements, but I do think the somewhat uneven synopsis of the past in the article, like it or not, is a fair assessment of the way things were.

No one I have ever met or read expresses any desire to return to the way things were, although perhaps some fundamentalist religious groups may recall the past with favor; I really don't know.

The passage of time offers perspective, I suppose, but I find particular interest in trying to imagine what the future holds, for all of us, in all directions.

The 'sexual revolution', however that defines out for you, has brought a tremendous departure from what I lived through as a younger person. I try to comprehend what it all means in terms of the future of my children and grandchildren.

I really do have questions about the future and very few answers that satisfy my curiosity. For example... the emergence of day care for children, where either both mother and father work or a single parent works and the children are cared for by schools, day care centers and babysitters. Parents or the parent, returns in the evening, exhausted from a treadmill that seems never to stop. I wonder why they do it and how long they can keep doing it?

I have read many science fiction works about the future, how children are raised apart from the nuclear family; become a part of a futuristic society, usually a tightly controlled and regulated existence.

I don't know what you expected from me, if anything at all, but I doubt I have offered anything of sustenance in terms of the battle you seem engaged in.

I am not comfortable, knowing history as I do, to think that the changes that have occurred, have been too fast and too much and that retaliation and resistance is beginning to grow. Especially since the 'movement', seems intent on gaining their desired ends at any cost.

Thank you for the civil reply.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I've studied this and prayed beside my bed about it.

And I conclude that there is a strong scientific correlation between heterosexuality and innates, and an equally strong correlation between homosexuality and inmates.

 

[xssve]

"Normative" is a social value, if you're talking evolution, sexual activity in the average human pair bond results in reproduction average only about every two years or so - it really makes very little difference in strictly reproductive terms what you do in between, all other things remaining equal.

 

[ericahope]

Amicus - Your post intrigues me and I'm pleased you wrote it. I'm still trying to think many things over in my mind and you've given me a lot to ponder.

I appreciate people who make me think and question conventional wisdom.

Thank you.

Erica

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

"Normative" is a social value, if you're talking evolution, sexual activity in the average human pair bond results in reproduction average only about every two years or so - it really makes very little difference in strictly reproductive terms what you do in between, all other things remaining equal.

Let me quote the late pianist Artur Rubenstein. IF I MISS ONE DAY OF PRACTICE, I CAN HEAR A DIFFERENCE; IF I MISS TWO DAYS OF PRACTICE, THE COMPETITION CAN HEAR A DIFFERENCE; AND IF I MISS THREE DAYS OF PRACTICE, THE AUDIENCE CAN HEAR A DIFFERENCE.

Heterosexual Masters of Love know this to be true. So while the rest of you are poking electrical sockets and the butts of old dogs, we Masters of Love are practicing with the fair sex.