10 Reasons to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal...

[hardheadjarhead]

My use of the term "gay gene" was meant to mean a genetic basis of homosexuality, whatever it's form. And the term has been used in this thread before. There are only two (or three depending on your perspective) and they are genetics or environmental (spiritualism being the other one). If noone is born a homosexual, then it is a caused by the environment, which would mean homosexuality is a mutation or a choice.

There is likely no single "gay gene." The genetic etiology for homosexuality (where it exists) is most certainly polygenic.

Environmental influences consist of social conditioning (which I suggest is far less profound than other influences, given the homophobia in our society); pre-natal hormonal fluctuations that impact fetal neural development; pre-natal toxins that imact fetal neural development (aspirin, phthalates and hexachlorobenzene to name three); and post-natal chemical influences on infant/child neural development.

In addition there is a hypothesis that a mother's immune response to fetal testosterone might skew sexual orientation. Researchers noted that younger brothers with older brothers show significantly greater rates of homsexuality than those younger brothers who have no older brothers (only sisters). It is posited that in certain instances the mother's anti-body response to the first male fetus's androgens cause feminization of subsequent male children.

It should be noted that studies on rats have shown a dramatic amount of induced homosexuality in rats whose pre-natal hormones were tampered with.

The idea of one simply choosing to be homosexual is a little too simplistic, and suggests that every one here on this board is by default bisexual. That means that some of the most strident anti-gay marriage males here on MT could take passionate delight in giving oral sex to a man...all they have to do is make up their mind to do it.

In spite of claims to the contrary by some on the right, the evidence for a biological etiology for homosexuality is increasing. Funding for research in sexuality has always been difficult, regardless of the nature of the studies...but the data keeps piling up.

NOTE: Homosexuality would indeed be passed down via a genetic link if the genes involved are passed down through the mother. This would not effect human production and the trait would not be "bred out" of existence. Strong evidence of this link to matrilineal lines was found by Angela Pattatucci and Dean Hamer in their research at the National Institutes of Health, published in 1993.


Regards,


Steve

 

[arnisador]

Yes, "biological etiology" is a more precise statement than "gay gene" because in-the-womb factors may be what's significant.

Nall genes that lead to non-reproduction (and I say again, many homosexuals reproduce) will be eliminated. In some cases they only manifest in males, as suggested, for example.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

In other words, you dodged the question by substituting a Red Herring.

I actually answered the question. But it possibly was missed, therefore I'll repeat it. I stated as long as I was still gettin' some, I did not care whether the government allowed me to marry. I can have a significant relationship with the government to condone it with marriage.

You can claim this as much you like, but something like the given example has occured in some human cultures. Heterosexual intercourse is forbidden on all but a few days out of the year, whereas homosexual intercourse is a year-long practice.

Ummm.... placing yourself in the situation of the Other is kinda what the Golden Rule is all about.

I understand that. However, placing impossible scenario's around it doesn't make the argument any better. It would have been just as easy for him to ask..."how would you feel if you weren't allowed to marry because you're a heterosexual." That's really all that needed to be asked.

Not only have you not demonstrated that post-conventional moral reasoning leads to moral relativism, but you evince a fundamental misunderstanding of Kohlberg's developmental theories.

In no way was Kohlberg making the claim that morality is 'relative'. Instead, he is concerned with looking at how people's moral reasoning develops and grows over the course of their lifetimes. He was not making a judgment whatsoever concerning particular moral beliefs. Rather, he was researching the reasoning and thinking underlying their beliefs.

When somebody is claming there are universal, invariant, cross-cultural, hiearchical stages of moral thinking/reasoning, then by no stretch of the imagination are they appealing to 'relativity' or 'subjectivism'.

You're right, this was a demonstration about that particular stage of development. But I was "told" that unless I argued my point from this stage, that, in essence, I would be disregarded. So, looking at the example given by Kohberg, I have a choice to make regarding the "greater moral good." The question then becomes, who decides what is the greater good, outside of the abscence of a higher than human ethical framework. That means that someone can justify either behavior, ie. moral relativity. This is whether he was making any particular judgements regarding either decisions.

And as I asked on another thread, where do these "iversal, invariant, cross-cultural, hiearchical stages of moral thinking/reasoning" come from? And this is if they actually exist at all.

Ah, my mistake. I was unaware you were including the individual's prenatal and perinatal environments in the category 'environment', as the individual most assuredly has no choice about what happens to him or her during those stages of biological development.

Now that we have that understanding, I never said that one has a choice whether to be gay or not. I simply suggested that it is not necessarily a natural gentic trait. And if it is cause by hormonal issues, is that something that we should overlook. After all, we don't allow schizophrenics to own firearms, what someone in the U.S.A. might call a basic right akin to marriage.

I brought it up in response to your fallacious Red Herring that such a scenario could never occur in the first place.

It was not a "red herring." I just prefer to work in the realm of reality, rather than abstract and baseless hypothesises.

Another 'just-so' statement. You have yet to address the hypothetical moral dilemma outside of lobbing fallacious Red Herrings.

See above.

Okay, let's get something straight now....

An Appeal To Authority has nothing to do with whether said authority is 'right' or 'wrong'. Constructing a Strawman Argument to defend this won't change that.

No, the thing about an Appeal To Authority is that you are replacing a logical argument or defense with, essentially, "authority x says this, so it must be true!" This is fallacious reasoning, whether the authority is 'right' or not.

In any event, the Bible is not regarded as some sort of final moral authority outside of those that accept the circular premise that it is the 'Word of God'. Ergo, it is a moot point.

I understand what an appeal to authority is. What I am saying is that in addition to other arguments that are made, an "appeal to authority" is not a bad thing.


And a thank you to HHJH, who, rather than provides links to website concerning philosophical issues, actually brings information (and references) to a debate.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

And in response to your incredulity that I am philosophically a libertarian I will say this. I am a police officer in the U.S.A. As such, I respect the rule of law, primarily the U.S. Constitution. That being said, it is my belief that the Constitution would permit homosexuals to marry. It would also permit polygamist to marry as many people as they want. That is barring a Constitutional Amendment which were to prohibit such a union.


I do not however, believe that just because a thing is legally allowable that it is ethically correct. And even if I did, it would not bar me from playing "devil's advocate" to further my understanding of an issue. There have been many persuasive arguments given here. But there are those who have made resonable arguments with facts and references, rather than saying "logical fallacy", which would persuade me more.

 

[heretic888]

Let's get a few things straight here:

1) Just because one is satisfied with "gettin' some" doesn't mean the majority of homosexuals that make up approximately 7 percent of the adult population would share such sentiments, nor is it a sound basis for denying them equal legal rights to heterosexuals.

2) Once again, Lawrence Kohlberg's research in no way condones 'moral relativism'. As I stated before, he was interested in seeing how the reasoning or thinking that underlies moral decision-making evolves and matures over the course of an individual's lifetime. He was not making a judgment one way or the other concerning the validity of any given moral belief, as such an analysis is beyond the scope of psychological research. Likewise, he was also not making any kind of explanation as to the 'source' or 'origin' of these moral stages, as this is also beyond the scope of such research.

'Moral relativism' states that no given moral position is intrinsically better or worse than another. Kohlbergian theory would disagree with that, as it most definitely asserts that post-conventional morality is hiearchically superior to both conventional and pre-conventional moralities.

3) And, yes, the majority of research investigating this subject has come down in support of Kohlberg's theories. You can only make the argument that these moral stages do not exist against a wealth of developmental evidence.

4) Claiming a moral scenario is 'nonsensical' when it is both (a) quite possible and (b) has a precedent in cultural anthropology is indeed a Red Herring. Attempting to explain this away with empty platitudes like "I prefer to work in the realm of reality" does not change this.

5) An Appeal To Authority is always a logical fallacy, regardless of what other arguments one surrounds it with. In fact, any appeal to circular reasoning (in which the argument confirms itself) is intrinsically fallacious in nature.

6) Methinks perhaps you should look up the word 'liberterian' in the dictionary.

Laterz.

 

[arnisador]

I think 7 percent is rather high...the infamous "10%" notwithstanding, usual estimates are around 2-4% for males and half that for females, with higher rates in urban areas averaging out lower rates elsewhere. Where does the 7% come from?

 

[sgtmac_46]

And in response to your incredulity that I am philosophically a libertarian I will say this. I am a police officer in the U.S.A. As such, I respect the rule of law, primarily the U.S. Constitution. That being said, it is my belief that the Constitution would permit homosexuals to marry. It would also permit polygamist to marry as many people as they want. That is barring a Constitutional Amendment which were to prohibit such a union.


I do not however, believe that just because a thing is legally allowable that it is ethically correct. And even if I did, it would not bar me from playing "devil's advocate" to further my understanding of an issue. There have been many persuasive arguments given here. But there are those who have made resonable arguments with facts and references, rather than saying "logical fallacy", which would persuade me more.

I agree, and I defer to the 10th Amendment on issues like this. I don't believe the federal government should get involved in the issue. The US constitution does not expresses prohibit gay marriage, nor does it expressly protect it. It should be up to individual states to determine where they stand on the issue.

I also don't understand the mindset that says that toleration toward the Gay lifestyle (which is good) should automatically translate in to granting of every whim of Gay lifestyle (suddenly deciding Gay Marriage is necessary).

I believe I can be tolerant of the rights of gays, without having to grant Gay Marriage to everyone who decides they simply need it to live a full and productive life. Shouldn't it be enough to believe that what happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom?

 

[heretic888]

I think 7 percent is rather high...the infamous "10%" notwithstanding, usual estimates are around 2-4% for males and half that for females, with higher rates in urban areas averaging out lower rates elsewhere. Where does the 7% come from?

Upon reflection, that figure was the result of some fuzzy math on my part (adding the male and female figures together with a bias toward the upper range). I retract my earlier estimate.

Laterz.

 

[arnisador]

I believe I can be tolerant of the rights of gays, without having to grant Gay Marriage to everyone who decides they simply need it to live a full and productive life. Shouldn't it be enough to believe that what happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom?

Well, marriage is about so much more than what happens in the bedroom--the concern is over things like tax breaks, inheritance, hospital visits, health benefits, second-parent adoption, etc. These things are missing, and many non-marriage solutions are of the "separate but (almost) equal" variety.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, marriage is about so much more than what happens in the bedroom--the concern is over things like tax breaks, inheritance, hospital visits, health benefits, second-parent adoption, etc. These things are missing, and many non-marriage solutions are of the "separate but (almost) equal" variety.

The attempt to associate the issue with segregation aside, i'm not convinced that it's an issue that should be decided by the federal government.

The issue for me isn't about Gays. I really don't have a horse in that race...I don't believe homosexuality is some sort of sin. What I take issue with is the idea that the federal government HAS to sort out every little social disagreement we have. I believe states should solve that based on the will of the individual people there.

 

[arnisador]

I'm not trying to tar you with the segregation brush...my point is, separate but equal has failed before, and I think it'll fail again.

But, the federal government is involved--taxes, inheritance, etc. It's already a federal issue.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I agree, and I defer to the 10th Amendment on issues like this. I don't believe the federal government should get involved in the issue. The US constitution does not expresses prohibit gay marriage, nor does it expressly protect it. It should be up to individual states to determine where they stand on the issue.

I also don't understand the mindset that says that toleration toward the Gay lifestyle (which is good) should automatically translate in to granting of every whim of Gay lifestyle (suddenly deciding Gay Marriage is necessary).

I believe I can be tolerant of the rights of gays, without having to grant Gay Marriage to everyone who decides they simply need it to live a full and productive life. Shouldn't it be enough to believe that what happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom?

In this case, the argument for making gay marriage a states rights issue doesn't work. this is a civil rights issue, which is what the Constitution is all about. In this case, the 14th Amendment applies:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The key word in this phrase being liberty. In order to deny gays the liberty to marry, it would be incumbent upon the state to prove an injury to the greater society. This is also enumerated in the fourth amendment. It is not necessary for homosexuals to prove themselves.

 

[sgtmac_46]

In this case, the argument for making gay marriage a states rights issue doesn't work. this is a civil rights issue, which is what the Constitution is all about. In this case, the 14th Amendment applies:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The key word in this phrase being liberty. In order to deny gays the liberty to marry, it would be incumbent upon the state to prove an injury to the greater society. This is also enumerated in the fourth amendment. It is not necessary for homosexuals to prove themselves.

Many laws are based on moral grounds, not necessarily harm to the greater society. Again, the statement "life, liberty or property" is not defined as including so called "priveleges".

You are assuming that marriage is a right, which is not a fore-gone conclusion.

Again, if we examine the bill of rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and other freedoms are listed as exclicit freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. Nowhere have I seen freedom to marry as a right guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore, it falls under the 10th Amendment as an issue for the states.

If we follow your line of logic, EVERY issue becomes a civil rights issue, no matter how little it applies to the original meaning of the constitution.

What's furthermore, it would then be incumbent on states to prove a great harm to society resulting from such issues as polygamy, prostitution, pornography, underage marriage, and any number of other issues that could argued as being based on "morality". What they all have in common with homosexuality is the argument that they are questions of "Civil Rights" not explicitly dealt with by the Constitution.

Further, the idea that the same argument could be made about the earlier era infringements on the rights of blacks and other minorities does not hold up to the test of reason. African Americans were denied basic fundamental rights, such as voting, free speech, due process, the right to bear arms, etc. These are all expressly granted by the US constitution, and were arbitrarily denied blacks.

Again, this kind of broad application of the 14th amendment to include whatever we suddenly decide is a civil rights issue is absurd and abusive. This is a states rights issue. If a given state wishes to grant civil unions to homosexuals, more power to them.

I find it ironic that many people espouse the view that the will of the people is absolutely correct....unless the will of the people disagrees with them. Let the states decide this issue based each states own moral and ethical views.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The above having been said, I wouldn't consider it the collapse of western civilization if homosexuals were allowed civil unions tomorrow. I'm not particularly fired up about this topic either way, which is why i'm not particularly in favor of making this a federal issue. It seems much ado about nothing, but I could be wrong.

 

[heretic888]

Four little tidbits:

1) I would basically agree that this issue should be dealt with at the local level. I see no real basis for federal intervention, either for or against.

2) The running argument for gay marriage, as I understand it, is that homosexuals do not presently possess equal legal rights and privileges in most states as compared to heterosexuals. This is, not to be quaint, very un-American.

3) Again, I think this really revolves around deeper issues concerning the Separation of Church and State. Marriage is a religious ceremony conferring legal rights because it originates from a time when religious and legal powers were not yet separated. Our culture has not come to terms with the place of marriage in a secular society.

4) I personally don't think "the will of the people" is "always correct". To claim otherwise is to invoke mob rule and fallacious Appeals to Popularity. Democracy is not the same thing as popular opinion.

Laterz.

 

[Josh]

This is written in a humourous fashion, but its hard to argue with.

10 reasons to ban gay marriage

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

LOL..."REAL" americans

 

[tradrockrat]

2) The running argument for gay marriage, as I understand it, is that homosexuals do not presently possess equal legal rights and privileges in most states as compared to heterosexuals. This is, not to be quaint, very un-American.

Absolutely. Gay couples should be afforded the same rights as the rest.

3) Again, I think this really revolves around deeper issues concerning the Separation of Church and State. Marriage is a religious ceremony conferring legal rights because it originates from a time when religious and legal powers were not yet separated. Our culture has not come to terms with the place of marriage in a secular society.

This is, to my mind, the crux. Why should gay couples legally need marriage to obtain the same rights and priveleges? Why does it have to be marriage that qualifies someone for these legal rights? In short, why isn't cohabitation enough for ALL people, gay or not?


The waters are so muddied by the inability of people to seperate the "morality" of homosexuality from the "sanctity" of marriage that miss the whole point - equal legal rights and priveleges can be solved without ever addressing the validity of gay marriage. And most importantly, it should be done this way because of the seperation of church and state. Let a church decide if they will mary gays. the state should deal with cohabitation - not religious ceremonies.