What gay marriage is REALLY about

College Confidential Community
21

<p>

Wrong! If the state government allows gay marriage, then it normalizes a practice that clearly deviates from the norm and sets a bad precedent for society. This will eventually lead to the moral decay of society because the slippery slope will allow people to practice bestiality and have no regards for proper decency.</p>

<p>Why isn't being naked in public allowed by the government as well? Isn't it wrong to discriminate against a small minority who just want to express themselves in this way? Yes, it is wrong. It is not proper and decent. Just like being gay.</p>

<p>This November, California voters proved that America still has a moral backbone. God bless.</p>

22

<p>Top Ten (ABSURD) Reasons to Ban Same-sex Marriages
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester and air conditioning.</p>

<p>2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.</p>

<p>3) 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.</p>

<p>4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.</p>

<p>5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ would be destroyed.</p>

<p>6) The only valid marriages are those which 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.</p>

<p>7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.</p>

<p>8) 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.</p>

<p>9) Children can never succeed without both a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.</p>

<p>10) 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.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
You're not really using mental disorders as an example for normal human behavior, are you?

[/quote]

I am using their etiology to dispute a presumed connection between biological masculinization and the plethora of male-genders. This particular family of "mental disorders" provides experimental controls for matters where we would like to test social influences. Do we have an understanding here?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Wrong! If the state government allows gay marriage, then it normalizes a practice that clearly deviates from the norm and sets a bad precedent for society.

[/quote]

The legislation of Normalcy is not a a luxury of large populations. In tribes, they can afford (but oddly, decline, perhaps because biases are not so well-established) to kill off people for being weird. In large populations, normalcy is not a pressing function of the state. If you can attack people for being just a little bit unusual and yet fundamentally similar to you, what are you going to do about people who do not pick up social mores et cetera? Also, mores are never fixed. They are the subject only to the court of public opinion. Since we are dealing with constitutional democracy as a particularly functional kind of government, the pre-amble and rights bills cannot be struck down by the court of public opinion in whatever village or family that more is taken to be held. Note, too, that mores are unwritten and parochial. States do not need a "moral backbone". (Irrelevant digression: If they are internally inconsistent, then it is a matter of interpretation.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why isn't being naked in public allowed by the government as well?

[/quote]

This is a relic of more primitive law. It will stand until people try to decriminalize it where it would either find an amoral ground or pend its vanquishing. Also, with regard to your analogy, being gay is neither an "expression" nor illegal in most places.</p>

<p>Q: Male-gender-vestite persons consistently wear ties in certain scenarios. Why don't we codify that into law? What about Walking on the grass? Wasting food? Adultery? Ingratitude? Criminally neutral Public Dishonesty in private citizens and publicly liable private companies?</p>

<p>Doing bad things in duress is certainly a deviation from the norm. Are we to disallow them all? (Note: In many jurisdictions, courts accept "Duress" as a plea distinct from "guilty", "innocent", "not guilty" and "temporary insanity" or "compromised" or whatever the wording for that one is in your jurisdiction.)
Oh, and I am a male-sexed person, thought to be rather male-gendered too, who wears some lipstick (not chapstick) sometimes. Should I be jailed for weirdness? Should those weird kids in schools who are beaten by bullies instead be taken to juvenile court for their deviations from normalcy? Genius can come with prime and profound bizarrity. What do you say to that?</p>

24

<p>Ugh. How do YOUR beliefs dictate MY life?</p>

<p>I PERSONALLY don't think it's morally right to eat meat. So OBVIOUSLY that means NOBODY can. </p>

<p>I PERSONALLY believe that Wicca is the right religion for me. So OBVIOUSLY that means EVERYBODY has to follow the beliefs of that religion. </p>

<p>I am bisexual. So obviously that means that I am incapable of raising children or being with the person I love. </p>

<p>These are all absurd. I am a person who deserves to marry the person I love. I am very masculine and take the masculine role in relationships. So what? How is that any of your business? Right now, I happen to be with a male that I love and I am the one who has the job while he stays home and takes care of the dog (our baby) and the house. Why would it make any difference if the person who stays home is a man or a woman? Obviously the traditional male/female roles are already reversed. </p>

<p>Also, as for using marriage for reproduction, I supposed I'd never be able to get married. I found out when I was very young that I would never be able to have children and I came to terms with that long ago. Instead, I am going to adopt and give another child the chance to have a life outside of foster care and group homes where children are often beaten, abused, and neglected. Why should the fact that I am unable to have children (whether it be because my partner is a female or because I am infertile) decide whether or not I can have children. Also, why should the fact that my partner is a man or a woman determine whether or not I can adopt a child? We are two loving, caring parents, regardless of our gender. I have quite a few friends that were raised by two men and/or two women, and they are doing just fine. One is even going to Princeton next year. </p>

<p>Ultimately, it is my life, not yours. You cannot tell me who I can and cannot marry, just as I cannot tell you what you can and cannot believe, what you can and cannot eat, etc.</p>

25

<p>yes i can. i voted for prop 8 and indirectly i told you who you can't marry....</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
That is just a little over the top. How can you compare being gay to doing drugs or drinking? Being gay harms no one.

[/quote]

underaged drinking harms no one. doing drugs away from others harms no one. It actually benefits people, as they get income and thus a living from it.</p>

<p>While being gay could cause emotional damage to family and friends. So yeah.</p>

<p>And if stella's point stands, why don't we just legalize everything? It doesn't matter you or however many people say killing is wrong, does it.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
yes i can. i voted for prop 8 and indirectly i told you who you can't marry....

[/quote]

Lol-y-Props. Indeed, that's right. </p>

<p><romanigypsyeyes> may have meant that you don't have the power to dictate, and the legal worth of your opinion (which is not entitled to anything) is under attack by Brown's submission (<a href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1642_prop_8_brief.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1642_prop_8_brief.pdf&lt;/a> , which has a conclusion basically saying that no Amendment or Revision could have tampered with the rights short of abolishing the constitution).</romanigypsyeyes></p>

<p>
[quote]

underaged drinking harms no one.

[/quote]

The user may be harmed if they drink much (which is what is usually done); the worth of red wine is under dispute. Underage persons are not really full citizens (yet), and the state may limit their freedoms.</p>

<p>
[quote]

doing drugs away from others harms no one.

[/quote]

This is why there are movements to attack such relics of more primitive laws from a past era.</p>

<p>
[quote]

While being gay could cause emotional damage to family and friends. So yeah.

[/quote]

Anything can cause emotional damage to family and friends. The court usually only bothers when there is unequivocal intent or dutiful negligence on the part of the perpetrator.</p>

<p>
[quote]

And if stella's point stands, why don't we just legalize everything? It doesn't matter you or however many people say killing is wrong, does it.

[/quote]

I interpret the contribution of StellaNova as something like
" A single person's opposition to an otherwise legal event is not sufficient grounds for the illegalization of that event. " along with " A testable rationale is or ideally would be required, though ostensibly insufficient, to pass a ban. "</p>

<p>There are reasons beyond personal opinion (eg, special-majority opinion, defended opinion, peace and profit) for things like murder, but even rather benign issues can be easy to get amorality on. Many of our [ie Western Hemisphere, although this statement indeed applies to some in the US] laws - such as standards regulations - are in fact legislated with nobody's personal support; there is a need to contrive a consistent conventional language, and people in conventions just vote for something that might be convenient, and then they take that to Senate committees, which then take these kinds of laws to Houses, which then receive votes based on how expensive they are, whether or not everyone agrees on whether they would actually be good ideas.</p>

28

<p>"I am using their etiology to dispute a presumed connection between biological masculinization and the plethora of male-genders. This particular family of "mental disorders" provides experimental controls for matters where we would like to test social influences. Do we have an understanding here?"</p>

<p>No, you can't use someone outside the norm as a control. Nice try.</p>

<p>"then it normalizes a practice that clearly deviates from the norm and sets a bad precedent for society"</p>

<p>Homosexuality's been around longer than marriage. Hope this helps.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
No, you can't use someone outside the norm as a control.

[/quote]

If you won't accept a control subject to less socialization, then please note the New Guinea cultures subjected to different socialization producing different genders.</p>

<p>Returning to my proposal which you (acknowledgeably sensibly) attacked, I don't think that abnormalcy is sufficient grounds to reject all (potentially extrapolable) evidence associated with them. This may be nontrivial, so I shall explain this opinion:
Now assume without loss of generality (or loss of specificity; all I am asking you to assume is semantic) that we hadn't labelled my previously presumed abnormal controls as having any particular disorder (note, that as a spectrum, my particular example of Autism does blend in to normalcy on the weakest end; Schizophrenia is regarded as the neurally feminizing opposite spectrum). We have processes associated with a measure of biological sex in the brain (ASD and Schizoid, opposite cause and opposite effect but same platform) at odds with social genders. Do you accept the presence of these phenomena as evidence against (what I presume is) your presumed bio-social sex-gender relationship?</p>

30

<p>Gender is totally biological and there is no evidence to refute this. Males acting feminine and females acting masculine is a result of genetic mutations. Since New Guinea is isolated, these mutations became the norm. However, that never happened outside of New Guinea.</p>

31

<p>I insist that you make an attempt to clear or defend your information. I shall remain calm and non-accusing, but almost every clause - with one exception - in post #30 is wrong. Did you do that on purpose?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Gender is totally biological

[/quote]

Totally? I've never heard that before from any side in any argument, but thank you for enriching my knowledge of people's opinions.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and there is no evidence to refute this.

[/quote]

Well, since there are explicit constructions in different cultures that are associated with genders - such as white=masculine, black=feminine, and vice versa, this last clause is trivially wrong too.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Males acting feminine and females acting masculine is a result of genetic mutations.

[/quote]

Don't forget circumstance and parenting. Genes aren't even perfect expressors of anatomical sex. Consider "Hormones" instead, but if you do want an explicit idea of what biological sexing in the brain is actually like, try <a href="http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=ExtServices.GspDownloadIssueView&ARTICLEID_CHAR=6C18CEA9-E1CC-40D5-8EB8-6DA1D28E516%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=ExtServices.GspDownloadIssueView&ARTICLEID_CHAR=6C18CEA9-E1CC-40D5-8EB8-6DA1D28E516&lt;/a> and other results at sex</a> brain - Google Scholar .</p>

<p>
[quote]
Since New Guinea is isolated

[/quote]

I'll take it easy and correct this: "Since New Guinea was isolated..."</p>

<p>
[quote]

these mutations became the norm.

[/quote]

This wouldn't explain why the cultures' genders of New Guinea were different across cultures.</p>

<p>
[quote]

However, that never happened outside of New Guinea.

[/quote]

The sixth time is the charm. Great.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]

If the state government allows gay marriage, then it normalizes a practice that clearly deviates from the norm and sets a bad precedent for society. This will eventually lead to the moral decay of society because the slippery slope will allow people to practice bestiality and have no regards for proper decency.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The exact same arguments were probably used against interracial marriage. They could be used today to support the illegalization of most non-Christian religions and to sanction book burning.</p>

<p>
[quote]

yea okay, but in my opinion, and many others, being gay is WRONG. How is gay wrong? well, how is doing drugs wrong? how is underaged drinking wrong? </p>

<p>I just think it is. It's not natural. Futhermore, it's gross.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In my opinion, and many others, chewing gum is WRONG. I just think it is. It's not natural. Furthermore, it's gross. </p>

<p>
[quote]

While being gay could cause emotional damage to family and friends. So yeah.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Stopping gay marriage won't stop people from being gay. Unless you think no one should have the right to live as a homosexual?</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
Males acting feminine and females acting masculine is a result of genetic mutations.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ahem. Just to clarify... </p>

<p>Gender = Biological.
Gender roles = Cultural.</p>

<p>"Feminine" and "masculine" are cultural.
"Male" and "female" are biological. </p>

<p>Therefore, it is not possible for "males to act feminine" or "females to act masculine" as a result of genetic mutation. </p>

<p>What happened in New Guinea is not merely a case of males acting feminine or vice versa. It is much more complicated than that and has nothing to do with cultural gender roles, but rather a third biological gender.</p>

<p>Sorry, mini-rant, but had to clear that up.</p>

34

<p>
[quote]

What happened in New Guinea is not merely a case of males acting feminine or vice versa. It is much more complicated than that and has nothing to do with cultural gender roles, but rather a third biological gender.

[/quote]

This gives LogicWarrior's fallacies too much credence insofar as you mislead people into thinking biology played a role in New Guinea. It has happened in many cultures - the native North Americans, the pre-Semite West Bankers, the rich heterogeneity of Africa, etc, and we haven't found a biological basis for anything much other than brain formation and hormone affect, which are both intrasexually heterogeneous (and even then the natal influences, which are more significant than the genotype, ARE NOT CONCRETE IN SOCIAL TERMS, and even then the will to conform will outweigh quite a lot of the biology) (and you can't have a control for peer pressure WITHOUT using someone with significant sociophilic impairment [basically requiring neurodiversity]). Forgive me - this has been one of my pet topics for years. And LogicWarrior claims there is "absolutely no evidence" for something!?!?!? Anthropology and biological anthropology aren't that "absolute". I have had to edit out remarks to go read a textbook in previous posts, but I am not trying to convince anyone in this one particular post - this is a rant (please do not respond to this post).</p>

<p>It's a straight case of a culture defining Masculine and Feminine differently from those cultures with which we are familiar. I don't want to dismiss anyone's point (I prefer to be the amiable debator) but the sheer ignorance in post #30 is akin to someone who has never read a physics text (analogously, bio anthropology or sociology etc) trying to argue with a merrily read fan of the subject. It looks like its information source is a bunch of misinterpreted posts. I am not giving up hope on LogicWarrior, but can you really convert someone with "faith" in their indoctrination?</p>

35

<p>Sex = biological
Gender = biological</p>

<p>Feminine and masculine are biological.</p>

36

<p>Note that post #33's

[quote]

Gender = Biological.
Gender roles = Cultural.

[/quote]

should instead be

[quote]

Sex = Biological.
Gender roles = Cultural.

[/quote]

The relationship between brain hormone response and presence of a Y chromosome does not amount to socially significant gendering.</p>

37

<p>aside from all of this...</p>

<p>do you guys think i would be the richest person in the world if i eliminated homosexuality through science?</p>

38

<p>Well, you would certainly be propositioned by lots of people if you had a means of retroactively eliminating one person's homosexuality through an easily rendered treatment. So yes, I agree with the idea that you would be rich, but not in that superlative. I'm not sure if homosexuals would want to take it in the libertarian social order of developed countries, so you might find yourself more pressed for services in poorer . </p>

<p>(One might not expect recurring income if one does a one-time thing, so one may wish to do retroactive work on homosexuality. If you eradicate the target you are paid to take out, and then you're going to be out of work. Prospective genetic engineering might be attacked by terrorist groups like PETA just because of the animal implications, so be careful there.)</p>

<p>Yes, I am amoral. Find a way to tweak sexuality and I will castrate my population to cut lost productivity. Good luck. On the other hand, if you can really tweak the stuff that precisely, maybe you would also be able to make everyone platonic friends. Could you cure black skin? Maybe we could make the world look like anime! Anyway, your funding agency might want you to direct your skills to violent tendencies, so you might not get far.</p>

39

<p>


</p>

<p>Ah, but you're assuming that non-Christians accept homosexuality. Fact is, pretty much every major religion on earth disapproves. Not that I'm using that as a general argument - I'm just refuting the absurd example you used in that post.</p>

<p>For all of the gay-marriage supporters out there: why should murder be illegalized and/or punished? Doesn't that display cultural bias?</p>

40

<p>^Their teachings about homosexuality are totally irrelevant. Your original argument was:</p>

<p>
[quote]

If the state government allows gay marriage, then it normalizes a practice that clearly deviates from the norm and sets a bad precedent for society. This will eventually lead to the moral decay of society because the slippery slope will allow people to practice bestiality and have no regards for proper decency.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If that is valid, then so is this:</p>

<p>
[quote]

If the state government allows the practice of Islam, then it normalizes a practice that clearly deviates from the norm and sets a bad precedent for society. This will eventually lead to the moral decay of society because the slippery slope will allow people to practice paganism and have no regards for proper decency.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why murder should be punished: Every person has the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. Murder strips others of their right to life. Gay marriage doesn't.</p>