Ten Reasons Gay Marriage is Un-American
I found this unattributed piece on bw.org, who had taken it from a BBS (where there was also no attribution). Enjoy!
- 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 behavior. 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 Britany 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.
15 Responses to “Ten Reasons Gay Marriage is Un-American”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Ten Reasons Gay Marriage is Un-American,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Oct 23 2007
Tags and categories
Category: Religion & Society
11. Genesis 1:27 God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them. (NET)
Homosexuality is at odds with the divinity reflected within gendered design.
Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Now the problem with taking the Bible as literal truth is that you have to accept that people should be killed for working on the wrong day. “Working” (it is clear from other passages in the Bible) includes cooking and house-cleaning. I presume that no one would advocate that my wife be executed for slinging a frozen (but delicious) lasagne into the oven last weekend or that I be killed for baby-proofing the kitchen. It’s clear that the Bible can’t be taken literally as an ethical guide, although taken selectively and with wise interpretation it’s not entirely without value as a moral guide.
Also the statement “Homosexuality is at odds with the divinity reflected within gendered design” doesn’t follow from the quotation given, which I presume was meant to be some kind of logical premise.
There are indeed males and females — although nature does make things rather more complicated than that (did God also create hermaphrodites?) — and some of those males and females are sexually and romantically attracted to people of their own sex. It seems to me cruel to seek to prevent those people from marrying one another.
Thanks for the chuckle this morning!! We are in the middle of an overseas move and a little humor is always nice!
What about those people attracted to children, other men’s wives, other women’s husbands, the family pet and first cousins? Is it cruel to tell them these attractions are forbidden and cannot be acted upon?
As for hermaphrodites, their condition is a birth defect and they are the only ones with a congenital excuse for confusion and a choice for sex identity.
The homosexuals are a result of some environmental influence that needs correction in the raising of children and adolescents. One of those influences is media.
Hi Barbara,
I take it this is the slippery slope argument — that if we allow homosexual adults to marry then soon people will be marrying their pet poodles, etc. It sounds like a bizarre argument to me, but I’ll try to take it seriously.
Children do not have the intellectual or emotional maturity to consent to sexual activity with adults, which is of course why there are variously determined ages of consent (16 in the UK, 18 in New Hampshire, 14 in Germany, for example). We don’t allow adults to have sex with children for the children’s protection, and therefore the marriage of children and adults is not going to happen.
Animals also do not have the capacity to consent to sexual activity and so sex between humans and animals is illegal in order to protect them.
Now only consenting adult homosexuals would be permitted to marry if gay marriage were more widely permitted in the US, so your arguments hardly apply.
I actually find it morally repulsive that you think that gay marriage, pedophilia, and bestiality are somehow equivalent.
As for those attracted to other people’s spouses, they are perfectly free to marry the object of their desires provided a divorce is obtained first. I hardly think we’re on the road to allowing polygamy. I have reasons for being against polygamy, but I won’t go into them here.
First cousins: I don’t know where you live, but in most of the world (including most US states) marriage between first cousins is legal. The Bible also allows first cousin marriage. The children of first cousins have only a negligibly higher risk of genetic abnormality than the children of completely unrelated parents, which I guess is why very few people make a fuss about it.
So apart from the case of first cousins, my answer is no, I don’t think it’s cruel to prevent people attracted to children, animals, or other people’s spouses from marrying the object of their desires — such prohibitions exist for very sensible reasons.
Your belief that homosexuality is the result only of environmental influences is highly questionable (wrong actually), which may be why you simply make the assertion without presenting any evidence. Environmental influences, I’m sure do have some part to play, but studies of identical twins show that genes play a large part, and studies of finger-length are strongly suggestive that high levels of androgens during fetal development are very important.
Even if you worked very hard to provide a “heterosexual” environment for children, you’re still going to have people who grow up knowing their entire lives that they are attracted to the same sex. Now you could argue that you could try to “cure” them, but most of them won’t want to be cured, so I’d suggest you accept the inevitability that homosexuality is going to be present in society, and find ways to tolerate it.
I believe in the right to “Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness” and that depriving consenting homosexual adults from enjoying the legal protection of marriage is contrary to natural justice.
Over to you…
Also the statement “Homosexuality is at odds with the divinity reflected within gendered design” doesn’t follow from the quotation given, which I presume was meant to be some kind of logical premise.
It follows quite natural actually. But no, it is not logically necessary, nor was that arguement deductively valid. But I don’t consider that the rules of deductive logic circumscribe all forms of rational reasoning.
I maintain that it follows but of course, the interpretation is no necessary. This is of course a foundational passage in the Jewish scriptures where a death penalty was eventually attached to homosexual actions. It is through that lense where light is shed on an acceptable range of sexual activity that does not disgrace the divine image. Of it does prove too much since I absolutely have no wish to see such a death penalty enacted. I’m under no illusion that we live in the old Jewish state under the old covenant, and as a Christian, I don’t see myself under that covenant, but that covenant nevertheless gives the wisdom of God which is sometimes obvious but not always and sometimes takes study to understand the point of the various rules.
I don’t think that the rule about the sabbath proves the absurdity of anything in the scriptures and points out something that is rather profound, that a life of constant work is not worth living. I’m so glad that that rule is a part of our western tradition such that even today as the world continues to speed up it’s pace, it’s still quite possible to get a job with Sundays off. Oddly, at the community college I am currently attending, someone wrote the school paper citing the government recognition of Sunday’s as a day off, even by the post office as an innappropriate example of an error against the seperation of church and state. All I could wonder is what kind of ill soul is obsessive enough to want mail delivered on Sunday. There is very little work that is so worthwhile that anyone should engage it every single day of their life. Of course, as harsh as the penalty for that rule is, it actually is not universally prescribed to all people even under the covenant as the Priests worked on the sabbath and today, there are rare jobs where it is not practical. Again, it’s not bad that the old covenant is no longer running, but that doesn’t mean we should fail to learn it’s lessons.
As for taking scripture literally, I don’t. It’s actually odd the way some folks disagree with the scripture and say that it’s about taking it literally or metaphorical when no metaphorical meaning of the passage in question is given.
I am not actually commited to a concrete interpretation of those first chapters of Genesis, but my point doesn’t depend upon a concrete or abstract interpretation (I find when people speak of literal or metaphorical interpretation, what they actually mean to convey is that the idea is simply wrong, or at most, an abstraction is meant to be conveyed. After all, many of those who would be accused of literalism in fact take much of scriptural language metaphorically. After all, who really thinks that God has a long nose?)
The point nevertheless from Genesis is that sexuality is deeply sacred and if it is sacred, it can be profaned and disgraced.
The point was made about hermaphrodites, that they have a birth defect and this point is lost by many who would interpret the Christian scriptures, that nature has been distorted and broken. In Christian theology, it was broken and distorted so that humans who had rebelled would not live at ease in their state of rebellion but would be compelled to depend upon eachother and their maker and to realize that this life has not yet fully been redeemed.
As for those who are “naturally” attracted to the same sex, there is the question of why and there is a viewpoint that suggests that there may be a variety of reasons all stemming from some unhealthy situation or another from molestation to a lack of affection and identification with a father figure (for males for specifically) which leads to unmet desires (source of dukkha, if you will), that become confused and sexualized during puberty.
You insist that the twins studies show genetic influence, and that very well could be as surely as other vices such as violence are thought to be genetically linked. But the twin studies don’t demonstrate biological determinism, they demonstrate the exact opposite.
The reason that I am at this blog at all is very ironic. You see, I am doing a little light personal research on how Buddhism, or more specifically meditation, to some degree as Buddhist teach it may be used in the service of Christian piety. I have long understood that Buddhism might have some wisdom and even insight to bring to the Christian traditiona as pagan greek philosophy has done for the past 2000 years (for better and for worse). It never occured to me until recently the wealth of knowledge Buddhism has gained for taking control of the mind, specifically in areas of temptation that could be utilized in Christian practice until I read a very interesting Interview. It was of a certain Mr. Glatze who used to be an editor for the magazine “Young Gay America” (or yga as I believe may be the title). Michael Glatze developed a relationship with God as a result of a scare he had over his mortality, and he didn’t see any contradiction with this relationship and his homosexual lifestyle but he gradually began to question the propoganda and ideals of the dominant homosexual messege and he eventually became dissatisfied with life as a homosexual. He couldn’t afford reparitive therepy (it does exist) but rather through Buddhist meditative techniques, he learned to control his same sex desires.
The interview, if you are interested, is here:
http://www.narth.com/docs/glatze.pdf
Looking for a point of agreement, I’m very much in favor of there being a day of rest, not just for each individual but for society as a whole so that families can spend time together. I think it’s going too far to say that because the Christian Sabbath is on a Sunday this is some kind of imposition of Christian values. Apart from anything else the Christians seem to have borrowed the idea of Sunday as the day of rest, along with much else, from Mithraism, so it’s arguably not a Christian thing at all.
I’d be in favor of legislation allowing any employee who so desired to take Sunday off work, but not in favor of forced rest, as happens in some places. That would be going too far in the direction of imposing one set of values on others.
(Incidentally, Buddhism also has a weekly day of rest, or uposatha, but it’s lunar-based and therefore doesn’t fall on the same day each week. Lunar calendars are handy for non-literate agricultural cultures.)
I must say though that while I agree with you on the value of a day of rest, I think you’re a bit blithe in skating over the issue of there being a death penalty for working on the Sabbath (and remember that working would include more than just paid work — having a game of baseball with your kid in the back yard or washing the dishes would constitute work). The old testament is full of these tribal restrictions, along with draconian penalties. Even the most literalist Christians tend not to take that stuff as gospel (so to speak). And yet the prohibitions against homosexuality (common in cultures that needed to promote breeding) are still taken very seriously by many. This is a very selective way of looking at the Bible!
You say “But the twin studies don’t demonstrate biological determinism, they demonstrate the exact opposite,” but no one was talking about “biological determinism.” Biology is not destiny, but it is still a powerful shaping force, and a gay identical twin is far more likely to have a gay brother than than chance would dictate (not taking the word “dictate” too literally!), even if they were separated at birth. The biological (genetic and uterine) forces shaping the brain can together make it incapable of responding sexually to the opposite gender. This isn’t just a superficial habit like not liking peas that can be easily retrained, but is embedded in the structure of the brain and written in the body.
Lastly, Mr Glatze’s story is an interesting one (although I haven’t read his paper and so all I know is what I’ve read in your comment). It’s also unusual — I know of many, many people who have left the Christian faith and embraced Buddhism because they could not reconcile the deeply-entrenched nature of their homosexuality with Christian teaching.
Apart from anything else the Christians seem to have borrowed the idea of Sunday as the day of rest, along with much else, from Mithraism, so it’s arguably not a Christian thing at all.
I doubt that. It’s a bias of some scholars to find some alleged common ground with mithraism and insist that that was the inspiration for any similarities in christianity… and not the other way around, or even mere coincidence. Furthermore, my understanding is that mithraism is a rather poorly documented mystery religion as it’s followers left no records. But even if this was the reason, even if the Christian religion adopted it, it is still due to the Christian tradition, adopted or otherwise, that we in the US have Sundays off. Even better, it is my understanding that it was an accomodation of the Jewish tradition as to why it is typical for Saterday to be off.
We have a perfectly logical reason as to why Sunday is the Christian sabbath, and that is because that is when Jesus rose. The reason for believing this is that the women who first visited the tomb were coming to treat the body with spices since this was missed in a rushed burial that couldn’t be completed fully since the Jewish Sabbath was beginning.
I’d be in favor of legislation allowing any employee who so desired to take Sunday off work, but not in favor of forced rest, as happens in some places.
No, and of course, this is not a Jewish state under the old Jewish customs. I wouldn’t mind some legal restrictions on Businesses on Sundays, particularly non-emergency ones though, (and perhaps excluding businesses such as gas stations) but I really don’t believe that it would be prudent to police people to rigidly enforce it so no one does yard work. I emphasis I wouldn’t mind it. I don’t think it is terribly necessary.
I must say though that while I agree with you on the value of a day of rest, I think you’re a bit blithe in skating over the issue of there being a death penalty for working on the Sabbath
You are a buddhist and an atheist. It seems that you wouldn’t think that anything could be more sacred than biologically instantiated human life, so naturally, I don’t suppose you would think that a death penalty would ever be justifiable. As a Christian, I do hold that physical human life is very sacred, but there are aspects of life that are even more important and they are so important that they could compromise a person’s right to live and their continued existence is an ungoing threat to the rest of the community, specifically the covenant community. I don’t hold that such is case any more that it is our perogative to eliminate these threats through the death penalty and the nature of the threats has changed.
I believe that there are two reasons for death penalty under the old covanent. First, the death penalty was instantiated when someone commited an act that is so contrary to the divine reflection of God within that it disgraced it (such as murder, adultry, and homosexuality) and/or secondly, the act may deeply transgress something that is marked as an extremely sacred part of the covenant (such as the observance of the sabbath day and threats to the covenant such as enticement to witchcraft or Idolatry). Of course, that is the old covenant. The Sabbath as originally observed is not viewed as something that is absolutely essential in the new covenant and it is not clear at all that we should recognize the death penalty at all as Christ has taken all penalties upon himself.
(and remember that working would include more than just paid work — having a game of baseball with your kid in the back yard or washing the dishes would constitute work)
That might be considered work according to Jewish fence laws. I don’t know that anything in the Mosaic covenant could actually be construed as prohibiting recreational play on the Sabbath as an act of work. I don’t know that any of those had much value and they were criticized by Jesus.
This is a very selective way of looking at the Bible!
We should be selective in terms of interpretational integrity. We look at the old agreement which is no longer binding through the lens of the new which points to the old as a source of knowledge and usefulness.
Biology is not destiny, but it is still a powerful shaping force, and a gay identical twin is far more likely to have a gay brother than than chance would dictate (not taking the word “dictate” too literally!), even if they were separated at birth.
yes, I recognize this. I’ve seen the number as high as 50 percent for the likelyhood that a gay twin brother will be gay, but Francis Collins who heads the human Genome project puts the number at 20 percent. This perhaps reflects the twins seperated by birth.
The biological (genetic and uterine) forces shaping the brain can together make it incapable of responding sexually to the opposite gender.
To emphasize only the biological is a doctrine which has not been established by science. Of course there is science being done to that extent by politically motivated gay activists who have a conflict of interest. This bias has been a source of complaint by several in the in the psychological community including two former APA presidents who insist that the political biases of the current APA leadership. According to them ‘”psychology, psychiatry, and social work have been captured by an ultra-liberal agenda.” “Misguided political correctness tethers our intellects,” they observe, and “if psychology is to soar like an eagle, it needs both a left wing and a right wing.”‘
http://www.narth.com/docs/chairs.html
I agree with the sentiment about needing the left as well as the right. Though I’m fairly conservative on this, I do recognize that research that conservatives wouldn’t find value in has been important. A highly conservative bias on the issue might not want to recognize biological influence at all, but the research demonstrating otherwise is important in dealing with the issue.
This isn’t just a superficial habit like not liking peas that can be easily retrained, but is embedded in the structure of the brain and written in the body.
I would never suggest otherwise. All sorts of vices can be hardwritten into the brain by childhood trauma, maladaptive habits and chemical abuse. Those psychaitrists who who give up on rehabilitation perhaps have betrayed there calling though especially since science is an ongoing project that offers unforseen hope. But with homosexuality, we just have politically motivated willful blindness since many have come made the transition from homosexuality to heterosexuality. I facinating that now, Buddhism offers new oppertunities for treatment which I’m sure you will agree is an approach that has not been thoroughly researched.
It’s also unusual — I know of many, many people who have left the Christian faith and embraced Buddhism because they could not reconcile the deeply-entrenched nature of their homosexuality with Christian teaching.
Glatze mentions this in the interview. He knew of many homosexuals who have been buddhists longer than he has and he even describes them as being in a calmer place. He says that it was his Christian faith that provided the direction and the buddhist meditation gave him a language (and tool) for moving in that direction. The gay Buddhist did not have a direction for applying their training towards their homosexuality.
If you don’t read it, I’ve told you most pretty much the most relevent aspects (he does not go into great detail) but I think you might find his description of the process interesting. It is through Christianity that he came to identify himself not as a homosexual but as a heterosexual with a homosexual problem. He said that in his meditations, he learned not to fight his same sex attraction but to sort of let it be without latching on to it. In the process, he would identify homosexuality as his false self and in recognizing this, his true self would begin to emerge.
I just read through my last post. I apologize but I have a bad habit of failing to proofread and it can lead to some confusing wording and half finished thoughts though I usually manage to say what I want to say.
Whether you find homosexuality morally repugnant or socially acceptance, the basic fact is that this is something that is genetically predetermined and not chosen. Programs especially in the US to convert gay people to heterosexuality are littered with ‘failures’, gay youth are massively more likley to be bullied and attempt suicide than their straight classmates… And yet, we try to tell ourselves this is a choice. If legislation were passed to say black people, or blind people, may not marry … Or indeed may not exist (!) Society would I hope find this completely unacceptable. And yet gay people are fair game. How does that work? In a secular state, legislation should be determined by equality not dogma. A just society should seek to minimize suffering for all its members (and that includes proscribing actions which cause harm to others). How do two women married in their own place and going about their lives cause harm to anyone?
the basic fact is that this is something that is genetically predetermined and not chosen.
From several of my college psychology text books to the head of the human genome research project, Francis Collins, this popular misconception is denied. There is evidence of genetic influence, but not determination. As has already been discussed at some length here, the gay twin studies demonstrate that genes do not determine this sort of thing.
Programs especially in the US to convert gay people to heterosexuality are littered with ‘failures’,
and they also have many successes. Of course, if you want to talk numbers, there aren’t many. The overly political APA discourages the sorts of studies that would demonstrate this one way or the other. I think they are afraid that there would be too many successes. But there are a few studies demonstrating the malleability of homosexuality. Even the liberal political magazine “Mother Jones” published an article that acknowledged these studies and the shaky ground of the doctrine of immutable sexual orientation.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/gay-by-choice.html
gay youth are massively more likley to be bullied and attempt suicide than their straight classmates…
Which is tragic, but the tragedies that homosexuals suffer doesn’t legitimize the homosexual status as normal and not pathological. No they shouldn’t be bullied. As for the higher rate of suicide, I don’t buy that it is simply because they’re orientation isn’t accepted. I suspect that their suicidal nature and homosexuality have a similar root.
And yet, we try to tell ourselves this is a choice.
I don’t… not directly. No, like many other addictions, it is not a choice (in terms of an ongoing problem it isn’t… but most other addictions may have been a choice at the beginning… I don’t believe this is so with homosexuality). Now to seek real help and understanding of the nature, meaning, and causes of homosexuality, that is a choice which may lead to liberty from homosexuality.
If legislation were passed to say black people, or blind people, may not marry … Or indeed may not exist (!) Society would I hope find this completely unacceptable. And yet gay people are fair game. How does that work?
There is nothing to suggest that black or blind people have a sexual abnormalacy on principle that is at odds with the nature of matrimonial union. This analogy is disputable.
In a secular state, legislation should be determined by equality not dogma.
It is not clear that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. One is clearly normal. the other is quite possibly a psychological disorder.
A just society should seek to minimize suffering for all its members (and that includes proscribing actions which cause harm to others).
Yes… within reasonable limits. People should also have a degree of liberty as to whether they want their suffering alleviated.
How do two women married in their own place and going about their lives cause harm to anyone?
Got me. I don’t buy the notion that moral issues always revolve around whether harm is caused to others.
There is also the issue of deep respect for that which is sacred in humanity.
Just a few points (this conversation could go on indefinitely):
“There is evidence of genetic influence, but not determination. As has already been discussed at some length here, the gay twin studies demonstrate that genes do not determine this sort of thing.”
This is very misleading on a number of levels.
The twin studies show that an identical twin who has a gay brother is far more likely than chance to be gay himself. There’s therefore clearly a significant genetic contribution to whether someone is homosexual. Other factors involved in shaping sexual orientation are maternal/fetal hormone levels and environmental factors. Since one chooses neither one’s genes, one’s mother’s hormones, nor one’s childhood environment, it can hardly be said that homosexuality (for most people) is a “choice.”
You also seem to be confusing the meaning of genes not being deterministic. I am six feet tall because of both my genes and my environment. My genes therefore do not determine that I am six feet tall (with poorer nutrition I could be stunted, with better nutrition I could be even taller) but without those “tall” genes I would not be six feet tall. Without “gay” genes most gay people would not be gay. We can’t ignore the impact of genes or argue that they have no effect.
“But there are a few studies demonstrating the malleability of homosexuality”
I don’t doubt that sexual orientation is malleable in some individuals under some circumstances. But the vast majority of people who are homosexual have no interest in changing their sexual orientation, so unless you’re proposing forced “reprogramming” of homosexuals you’re still going to have to learn to adjust to a world in which not everyone is heterosexual. (Charles Socarides, who was the proponent of the idea of “curing” homosexuality, found this out the hard way: his son is gay.)
“like many other addictions”
You offer no evidence that homosexuality is an “addiction.” I can’t see that my lesbian friends down the road share anything in common with drug addicts or alcoholics. They’re happy, well-adjusted, loving people. Their love for one another causes problems neither for them nor for others. Is an activity an addiction if it is neither compulsive nor harmful? By definition it cannot.
“I don’t buy the notion that moral issues always revolve around whether harm is caused to others.”
I would have thought that “Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself” would imply a degree of tolerance for others. How would you feel about not having the right to visit your partner or adopted child in hospital, for example? That’s the kind of right that’s denied to gay couples because they can’t marry. It’s because I believe that we should do unto others as I would have them do unto myself that I support the right of gay people to marry.
You seem now to be making a clinical argument: that gay people should not allowed to marry because they have a “psychological disorder”. Perhaps you could provide a list of other psychological disorders that you think should bar people from matrimony? Depression? Anxiety? OCD? Agoraphobia? Dyslexia?
Other factors involved in shaping sexual orientation are maternal/fetal hormone
perhaps, but it is tentative and unproven. I know of the fraternal birth order effect that suggests that the more older brothers one has, the more likely he is to be gay (I don’t believe a similar effect is found for lesbians). The theory behind this is that the number of boys born to a woman effects the hormonal environment of the womb. This has been contradicted by some studies such a dutch study covering 2 million homosexuals.
http://www.narth.com/docs/nearly.html
Since one chooses neither one’s genes, one’s mother’s hormones, nor one’s childhood environment, it can hardly be said that homosexuality (for most people) is a “choice.”
yes, I agree. It can be hardly said that homosexual attraction is a choice and I hardly say it. I don’t buy for a moment that a man who finds himself attracted to other men can simply decide one day not to be attracted, or fix himself by buying himself a playboy and running out to buy the services of a prostitute.
But I do believe choice has a role to play nonetheless. Perhaps not so much with same sex attraction itself but behavior is a choice. Perhaps, if a homosexual wasn’t the victum of sexual child abuse (and I’m sure many aren’t. I suspect that is easier to avoid initiating a behavior if one wasn’t introduced to it to begin with), he is in more of a position to avoid acting out his desires with other men.
More importantly, someone who has same sex attraction can probe the reasons as to why he/she might be a homosexual and then seek the guidance, help and healing of those who specialize in treating same sex attraction or who have successfully subdued or eliminated these attractions themselves or have even eliminated them altogether. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that the reason so many homosexuals fail to change when they try is because they go it alone and fail to deal with the underlying causes which involves the homosexuals relationship to others, most likely family.
You also seem to be confusing the meaning of genes not being deterministic. I am six feet tall because of both my genes and my environment. My genes therefore do not determine that I am six feet tall (with poorer nutrition I could be stunted, with better nutrition I could be even taller) but without those “tall” genes I would not be six feet tall. Without “gay” genes most gay people would not be gay.
I don’t quite see how I am suggesting something that is analogically different, except that height is no where near as important as sexuality. You could be malnurished, but an appropriate diet help you grow to your full height. Likewise, you could be homosexual, but proper therapy, relationships and support group interaction could heal and lead to heterosexuality or a satisfactory life of celebacy where one doesn’t feel the compulsion to be in a gay relationship.
Without “gay” genes most gay people would not be gay.
perhaps. But I don’t know that the science demonstrates this conclusively. With the gay twins studies for instance, it isn’t clear how important the genetic effect is since both twins may have had more important sociologically relevent experiences and relationships that influenced their orientation in common. Add to this the distorting effect of self sorting where homosexuals are more likely to volunteer for homosexual studies and as a pair, gay twins may be more likely to volunteer for gay twin studies exagerating the strength of the genetic effect.
We can’t ignore the impact of genes or argue that they have no effect.
good thing that I don’t.
But the vast majority of people who are homosexual have no interest in changing their sexual orientation, so unless you’re proposing forced “reprogramming” of homosexuals you’re still going to have to learn to adjust to a world in which not everyone is heterosexual.
I’ve adjusted. There are homosexuals who have no interest in changing. I think they are wrong. Disagreements with others about life, morality, normalacy and so on is normal aspect of life. Have you adjusted to this?
I don’t see the point in forced reparitive therapy. I don’t believe it would work and those who practise it believe that therapy that goes against the worldview of the homosexual is the primary sort that may be damaging and should be avoided.
(Charles Socarides, who was the proponent of the idea of “curing” homosexuality, found this out the hard way: his son is gay.)
One of many proponents. Socarides had four wives and his first divorce was of the mother of his gay son. This is the sort of damaging environment that is conducive to orientation damage.
You offer no evidence that homosexuality is an “addiction.” I can’t see that my lesbian friends down the road share anything in common with drug addicts or alcoholics.
Describing it as an addiction here has to do with the nature of choice. I don’t believe that addicts excersize absolute free choice regarding many of their behaviors and compulsions. It was in this line of thought that I referred to homosexuals as addicts. But addicts like homosexuals may be confronted with a choice to address their situation as a whole and thus may begin to restore the libertarian nature of their behaviors.
This way of thinking has more to do with my thoughts on the nature of free will and determinism than it does with a psychologically technical usage of the term “addict”.
They’re happy, well-adjusted, loving people.
Perhaps it appears that way. We are ultimately limited in that we cannot truely look on the heart of others. If modern psychology has taught us anything, we are even limited at looking at our own heart which involves a great depth descending into the subconscious.
Is an activity an addiction if it is neither compulsive nor harmful? By definition it cannot.
Of course, I engage most of this discussion with secular reasoning, but I began it with a religious consideration and for that, I cannot apologize especially since I reject as profoundly mistaken the notion that religious considerations can be roped off from the rest of the concerns that occupy those creatures called humans. The worst harm is as I said, that homosexuality is at odds with the divinity reflected within gendered design, reflectected divinity which is at the heart of everything we hold dear.
I said what I said in my first post as I thought it might stike a cord with you, as some Buddhists may go on about an inner god (perhaps those are just certian western Buddhists?) but I see that you are the atheistic sort, or at least you have given me that impression. Nevertheless, that we reflect the divine is something that I believe is subjectively available to all and any who would think that it was rational to treat others as if they were so important that they were sacred. This is is just as evident as the notion that inspite of the deep significance of people, we have fallen short of that through hatred, war, greed, sexual perversion, environmental destruction and so on.
That we reflect the divine is something that almost anyone but perhaps the worst of sociopaths apprehend, but it is not something we fully comprehend. If we did, there woudn’t be any atheists and there world wouldn’t be filled with strife as it is. And for this reason, I believe we are dependent upon a higher power to guide us about our own nature as we will always be limited in learning of it from the ground up.
Perhaps you would insist that there is nothing sacred about humans as we are just a collection of chemicals that have developed behaviors including “compassionate” ones merely because they are conducive to spreading our genes. I can’t imagine that anyone would find that truely satisfying though.
I would have thought that “Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself” would imply a degree of tolerance for others.
I don’t see what I have written as any less tolerant than you have been of my posts. And that is not a complaint.
The golden rule of course has different implications according to different sets of values. I don’t want to live as one decieved about these matters and I’m sure you would agree. Thus I am doing what I would want done for me.
How would you feel about not having the right to visit your partner or adopted child in hospital, for example?
I guess I don’t know what good forbidding hospital visits would do so I wouldn’t recomend that. What goes on in a hospital bed isn’t the issue after all. Perhaps I am wrong, but that’s the way I see it.
That’s the kind of right that’s denied to gay couples because they can’t marry.
So hospital policy may be too restrictive. That does not mean that society as a whole should recognize a dysfunctional relationship as normal. Homosexuals may do something that is very contrary to human nature, but that does not mean that they are unable to do that which is consistent with intended human nature which is to show compassion for friends or children. I for one do not believe that the adopted relationship with the child should have been to begin with though. I don’t believe that either gender is unnecssary for raising a child and the absence of one is not healthy.
You seem now to be making a clinical argument: that gay people should not allowed to marry because they have a “psychological disorder”. Perhaps you could provide a list of other psychological disorders that you think should bar people from matrimony? Depression? Anxiety? OCD? Agoraphobia? Dyslexia?
It’s an interesting question. But none of these disorders as relevent to married and engaged people who have them are considered the basis for the marriage nor do they suggest an altercation of what marriage is.
We can all tie ourselves up in knots with various arguments about morality, genetics, clinical and psychological disorders and render any argument or counterargument absurd by attempting to apply logic.
What remains the case is that we do not honestly know the basis for human sexuality beyond the biological need for the species to reproduce. And we do know that there is widespread evidence of homo- and bisexuality in animals. While that doesn’t make it ‘natural’ or ‘right’ it does mean it is not a phenomenon that is a human social construct (and I would find it hard to believe an argument about inter-species learnt behaviour!)
Some societies are more tolerant of same-sex relationships than others, some have legislation to support marriages, others have the death penalty for any act of homosexuality. And this continues to be enforced. Marriage itself is the product of the societies in which we live. I find it hard to understand why many gay people seek to be included in churches and religions that many times in the past have made their lives intolerable, but many do. But on a purely secular argument, what has the Church got to do with the State? Maybe that’s a typically British argument – let’s have civil ceremonies entirely separate from the Church. But it seems to work.
We can all tie ourselves up in knots with various arguments about morality, genetics, clinical and psychological disorders and render any argument or counterargument absurd by attempting to apply logic.
I’m not quite sure what you are getting at here. The task at hand, the task always for any issue is to consider all of the evidence from all directions on all fronts and to do so in a rational manner. If getting “tied up in knots” is a risk, then so be it. It is a risk worth taking because there is no other way to do it nor should their be.
What remains the case is that we do not honestly know the basis for human sexuality beyond the biological need for the species to reproduce.
I don’t know what you mean by that. I don’t know why you’d say that this is what remains. Further, I’d say we can honestly know a lot more. Perhaps what you intend to get at is that this is all that we can agree upon that is non-controversial. But I cannot limit myself to what is non-controversial and consider that honest by any stretch of the notion. But if we are going to lay out that which is non-controversial (at least fairly so), I do think that I could expand this a bit. Sexuality is not just for reproduction but it is a basis for a certain type of community that exalts community between two individuals and the individuals themselves. It is deeply meaningful as it touches us deeply on an intimate level such that it also touches us in vulnerable ways. Something so deep is also dangerous and this is noncontroversial. The damage that rape and child molestation testify to this and the havoc on lives due to divorce further indicates this.
With less concern for what is controversial, I would go further to suggest that the meaningfulness of sexuality is transcendent and points beyond itself, beyond matter and energy and what is biologically confirmable. It is deeply sacred and as something sacred, it can be disgraced. We need to treat it with reverence, not that it must be a dry and sober reverence devoid of any joy and creativity (as some would mistakenly take the notion of reverence).
And we do know that there is widespread evidence of homo- and bisexuality in animals. While that doesn’t make it ‘natural’ or ‘right’ it does mean it is not a phenomenon that is a human social construct
I don’t see that this is the case at all. Infanticide and canabalism often have sociological precursors for people and yet these are also found throughout the animal kingdom.
But on a purely secular argument, what has the Church got to do with the State?
They are both deeply entrenched in human affairs, including many similar ones.
Maybe that’s a typically British argument – let’s have civil ceremonies entirely separate from the Church. But it seems to work.
In the US we do, but if you want to stick to a secular reason for not allowing homosexual marriage for protecting some notion of seperation of church and state which will never truely be pure and absolute, I have already given one or two in previous posts.