Same sex marriage

quote:

---

I do have a problem with gay couples raising children - NOT because I think the couple will try to "turn the kid gay" or anything, but because our largely backward society is not ready for it, and will make the kid suffer because they "disapprove" of the parents.
When I was growing up, there was a racially mixed couple with 3 kids, all of whom rode on the same bus I took. Some of the other kids would call them nigger and such, because, I have little doubt, their parents instilled this hatred in them. Sadly, I see no reason to think that such intolerance - magnified - will be present in large numbers of people today, and the kids of gay couples will be the targets.

---

The only way to fight this sort of thing, though, is to do it in the face of adversity.I actually do not think that things will be as bad for the children of gay parents as it was for the children of mixed race parents, or even of the black children who had to go to school under the protection of the National Guard.I live in a fairly progressive town in a midwest state which is the only town in an otherwise rather terrifyingly Christian/fundamentalist/redneck/militia/NRA sort of state which allows gay coulples to adopt children. As a result, lots of gay couples live here, are and have kids. I haven't heard anything about any major problems.

Interestingly, I seem to remember seeing a CNN poll about same sex marriage, and while more women than men thought it would be OK, women approved of male gay couples more than female gay couples, and men approved of female gay couples more than male gay couples.It seems that the further removed from poneself the "idea" of a gay couple is, the easier it is for everyone.(Of course, nobody is surprised that men approve of the idea of a lesbial couple...)

quote:

---

Of course, men can't seem to understand that a lesbian couple might not actually be interested in... well, ya know

---

Don't you know that lesbians are only having sex with each other while they wait for a man to show up and join them and show them how it's really done?LOL!!!

I seem to recall that there was a big thing a few years back with some white people being denied the adoption of a black foster child they had cared for for several years as one of their own.Why someone puts culture or physical appearence above love and responsibility is beyond my comprehension, particularly when we have enough trouble finding homes for all the rejected or orphaned children in the system.

LOL!Men think they are the dirty minded ones...

quote:

---

Given the women I've hung out with in my life... trust me, I know my mind to be absolutely puritanical in comparison.

---

Yup!...and unlike men, we don't tend to fabricate stories a la "lockeroom bragging."We share, and and we don't lie to impress; we like to share our troubles.

quote:

---

Why do you seem to be so determined to make gay people out to be the bad guy, completely evil in every thought and deed, incapable of having any compassion or any other redeeming feature?

---

Um, where the heck did Scott say or even remotely imply anything close to the extreme viewpoint you just accused him of holding?You invent things to rail against sometimes.

It sucks to have to defend yourself against something that you never even came close to doing or saying, doesn't it?Some people just think what they want to think, regardless of what you actually say.

quote:

---

But because I think there's resonable evidence that having a mother and father is the best environment for a child to be raised in.

---

quote:

---

I think there's evidence, but I'm insufficently knowledgable about the subject to give a definite answer.

---

Then why form an opinion before becoming "sufficiently knowledgeable?"

quote:

---

Right now in the USA it seems to be the Biggest Insult to Call someone Gay. its really a Big deal.

---

It depends where you live, actually.I see you are from South Carolina. I have never lived in the south; only visited occasionally. However, from what I know of the general social climate in many parts of the south which has been conveyed to me through friends who have either always lived there or have moved there, it tends to be more homophobic than some other parts of the country. Most of the midwest is pretty much that way, as well.Basically, though, you will find isolated places (often University towns and larger cities) where people can be gay and live in peace.

quote:

---

to have a Kid in a family like that? to me thats really NO. Personally I am not against because the Child can be Happy in the Home. But outside of that I wouldn't think so. I know it was torture being fat in school... and right now thats noting compared to Homosexuality.

---

Well, the kid probably isn't going to be gay, the parents are.And I would definitely say that it is much worse to be fat in today's culture than gay. Fat jokes are common, and we see entire hollywood movies based upon how funny or unattractive or unsuccessful fat people are.Look, kids are incredibly cruel to each other in school for all sorts of reasons. It's a fact of life. To keep kids parentless in the system just because they "might" have some problems seems silly.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-31-2003]

quote:

---

Someone also asked why I would not agree with same sex adoptions, from a secular standpoint. Well first it seems completely un natural to me. (this is very weak but it's big in my mind.)

---

quote:

---

The second and biggest reason is that I know how hard it is to be a child, and deal with other children. Can you imagine the kinds of things these kids will have said to them in the school yard, or when they get to highschool? It hardly seems fair to add this ammunition to their peers, in an already difficult environment.

---

This is exactly the same two reasons people used to (actually, many still do) offer as reasons black people and white people shouldn't get married and have children; it was unnatural and the children will have a hard time.You have just substituted "gay" for "mixed race". You are just bigoted against another group.Oh, and I agree with crashfrog; homosexuality is pretty common in the animal kingdom. Do you know how cattle ranchers know when their cows are coming into season? They start mounting each other.

I don't think it is the same argument.Sorry.I found myself unable to argue effectively about the whole prostitution thing because I was getting some pretty deep feelings about it, so I dropped out rather than get overly emotional and stupid.Sex is one of the most powerful and primal expressions of intimacy that humans participate in with one another.To turn it into a mere commodity; to turn bodies into mere commodities, is not a step in the right direction for us to go in. It is also highly disturbing to me that you seem unconcerned about what amounts to the commoditization of fake intimacy and fake personal connection at what might be some of the deepest levels we humans can feel.I think that prostitution is a push away from learning how to acheive authentic intimacy in favor of fake, bought-and-paid-for intimacy. The US male population is already intimacy-phobic and unskilled at relationship-building, and prostitution provides them a "pretend girlfriend"; a maleable plaything which never disapproves, criticizes, or expects a single thing from them, emotionally.It's a step backwards from learning to have equitable, healthy relationships if one can always pay money to have a fake one.

quote:

---

1) You argued natural occurences of homosexuality in the animal kingdom supports the naturalness of its occurence in human beings.

---

To argue that prostitution is natural in the animal kingdom, or even just in our closest relatives, you would first have to show that they have an economic system and business contracts.Giving a potential mate gifts to curry favor is not the same as paying for services. A suitor could give lots of gifts and still be rejected, but a prostitute, if she takes the money, is expected to provide services in the way the customer desires.If my husband decides one day to bring me home a box of chocolates, is that prostitution?

quote:

---

2) You argued that just because group A may get abused by group B--- due to hatred or whatever because of what group A is or does--- does not mean that group A should be punished or prevented from doing what it wants to do.

---

No, not the same. I didn't argue against prostitution because I was afraid that prostitutes would be ostracized, or that school kids would tease the children of prostitutes, or whatever. I argued that the act of prostitution itself is dangerous, and the systems that have historically been built up around it are unfair and damaging to the women involved (and the men, in different ways). You might argue that that's the woman's choice, and that these things won't necessarily happen (in a perfect world...or the Netherlands...), but certainly there are lots of laws that keep people from putting themselves in danger (seatbelt and helmet laws).That's an interesting legal and philosophical question, but I don't think I'm being inconsistent in my arguments.

quote:

---

This sounds sensible. However, would it not be wise to assess the accuracy of your arguments, if you find yourself losing emotional control on a subject?

---

Well, sure. See above

quote:

---

schraf writes:
Sex is one of the most powerful and primal expressions of intimacy that humans participate in with one another.

---

quote:

---

This is where I am going to ask you to review your own arguments. Your post--- linking the naturalness of homosexuality in humans to the sexuality of animals--- involved cattle mounting each other when they get "horny."

​

This hardly suggests that the level of "intimacy" you say sex is all about, finds its source in nature.

---

Well, I don't really mean to argue that cows gettin' horny justifies the morality of homosexuality. It's really ONLY to counter the idea that it's "unnatural", or that ONLY humans do it. There are lots of natural things that not only humans do that are definitely wrong and should be made illegal.

quote:

---

Rather it would appear to be as I suggested. Sex in its pure state is about simple physical pleasure, which one can have regardless of emotional commitment.

---

I disagree.Sex, "in it's pure state" is solely about reproduction.On top of that, in humans and many other mammals, it has also acquired the purpose of pair bonding.The idea of sex "purely" as something pleasurable that two organisms do, without either reproductive or emotional consequences, is an extremely new and rare thing, not sex "in its pure state". I would suspect that this idea is primarily a bit of mythology that grew out of the sexual revolution.

quote:

---

It is prudishness and moralizing which has driven the natural urge for basic sexual pleasure

---

See above.

quote:

---

into a tight box where its connection with personal intimacy becomes a NECESSITY, or it gets slapped with some form of moral censure.

---

Do you deny that pair bonding is a large factor in the evolutionary direction of human and other mammals' sexuality?

quote:

---

There are people who--- whether from lack of indoctrination or through freeing their own minds--- do not feel the need to connect deep emotional attachments (ie relationships) with sexuality. For them sex has no deep emotional overtones. It is simply fun.

---

OK.Let them have fun, in a safe, responsible, non-commercial manner.I have nothing against that.

quote:

---

schraf writes:
To turn it into a mere commodity; to turn bodies into mere commodities, is not a step in the right direction for us to go in. It is also highly disturbing to me that you seem unconcerned about what amounts to the commoditization of fake intimacy and fake personal connection at what might be some of the deepest levels we humans can feel.

---

quote:

---

If sex has nothing to do with intimacy and personal connection and the deepest levels of emotions humans can feel, then there is no problem with its commodification. It is no more odd than commodifying a backrub.

---

I've already explained that I disagree with this.Men fall in love with their prostitutes on occasion, you know. If "sex has nothing to do with intimacy and personal connection", why would this ever happen?

quote:

---

Remember I am not saying prostitution is for everyone, especially those who feel as you do about the intimate nature of sex. I am simply arguing for the ability of those who do not feel like you, to do as they will.

---

They can do as they will. I don't mean to prosribe who can have sex with who among consenting adults. I argue for severe restrictions on a business practice.

quote:

---

If you look at what you just said above, it is eerily similar to the arguments made by those who do not want to sully the supposed "purity" of sexuality and/or relationships with "base" things like miscegenation or homosexuality.

---

I hope what I said above clarifies my position.

quote:

---

schraf writes:
The US male population is already intimacy-phobic and unskilled at relationship-building, and prostitution provides them a "pretend girlfriend"; a maleable plaything which never disapproves, criticizes, or expects a single thing from them, emotionally.

---

quote:

---

No joke, but I've heard evangelicals say the same thing about homosexuality.

---

Well, those evangelicals would be wrong.

quote:

---

And I don't see how you can deny their position. You just slammed all men... or are homosexuals somehow above straight men in their emotional involvement towards sex?

---

Nope, didn't just slam all men. I made a generalization. Not the same. If you like, insert a "on the whole" or "on average" or something, to clarify.And of course I can deny their postion. There's no connection between fake relationships with one gender (which is what I'm talking about) and real relationships with another gender (which is what those evangelicals are talking about).

quote:

---

In the end there are men as you describe. Whether it is all men, or a section thereof, prostitution did not begin what you described and its abolition will not end such confused behavior.

---

That's true. But I think that prostitution encourages and feeds such "confused" behavior.

quote:

---

You asked me to provide evidence for my position on this and I did. I would like to see some evidence... any evidence... to support the stereotype you just presented of men, or that abolishing prostitution would end that phenomenon.

---

Truthfully, I don't think you made your case that Bonobos giving gifts to curry favor in a potential mate is the same as a business contract for services. Also, what about the pair bonding that goes on in the tightly-knit social groups that Bonobos live in?It's not like a Bonobo drives into the city to give a piece of fruit to a Bonobo they have never seen before and is guaranteed sexual access to her in exchange for that fruit.I'm not arguing the second point.

quote:

---

Toward that end I would point out something interesting. Your slam was on US men. Are you saying European men are more sensitive and less scattered about their emotional relationships? If so that tends to support my argument since most European cultures do not link sex and relationships as the US culture does, and often allows for prostitution.

---

I don't know anything about European men. That's why I specified.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-10-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-10-2003]

quote:

---

Isn't that, frankly, a sexist stereotype? As though the only intimacy or relationship that could exist is the kind that women approve of? Men may be just as able to be intimate or form relationships. They just may not be the kind of intimacy or relationships that women know.

---

Of course, I totally agree with this, and I was not specific enough in my previous comment. Generalizations are always inaccurate.However, I was getting at the idea that a huge industry exists which serves to provide fake intimacy and fake relationships to men in exchange for money. Call me crazy, but I think that this says something.

quote:

---

And I don't see that men visit prostitutes - or strip bars - because they're looking for "pretend girlfriends". The way I see it they're looking for sex, because men seek out sex to a greater degree than women. And sex doesn't always have to be part of a deep, abiding intimacy. Sometimes it's just about deep biological directives. Just as eating isn't always about feasting with friends and family - sometimes it's about being hungry.

---

The "deep biological directives" of eating are:
1) getting nutrition, and
2) getting fuelThe "feast with family and friends" is a cultural invention, not a "biological directive".The "deep biological directives" of sex are;
1) reproduction, and
2) pair bondingThe pair bonding that happens with sex is part and parcel of the evolution of sex, not something we have "tacked on" as "cultural baggage" or something."Cultural baggage" isn't neccessarily bad (see "feast with family and friends", above). However, just as hunger can be satisfied by non-nutritious junk that serves neither "directive" or has dire consequences to our health, sexual desire can be satisfied in empty ways that can have consequences for our true relationships.

quote:

---

Chrashfrog: And I don't see that men visit prostitutes - or strip bars - because they're looking for "pretend girlfriends". The way I see it they're looking for sex, because men seek out sex to a greater degree than women.

---

For heaven's sake, just go jack off.If men are just looking for sexual stimulation and orgasm, then they can do that.If they are looking for more than that, then that just confirms my argument that they are paying money for fake intimacy and fake relationships (or possibly to exercise power).[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-10-2003]