Atheists or Creationists - who's got more faith?

[oxmixmudd]

Let's make one slight change.

"The union of an infertile hetero couple, even aside from the religious issues, is simply not primarily constrained by those same needs. It simply is not 'the same' as a fertile heterosexual marriage. No infertile hetero union ever has ever directly produced children (though cloning technologies might one day make it possible for two infertile heteros to produce their own offspring - I'm not talking about surrogate mothers here or a sperm donation). I doubt any of us will ever see an infertile person gestating a baby. Thus an infertile hetero couple is never forced to take on the responsibility of raising one or more children through their participation in intimacy. That responsibility can not be minimized. It is a 20 year or more commitment. It's impact financially and socially is immense. Not supporting it would be catastrophic to our culture"

There you have it. Jim says couples who can't have natural babies (i.e infertile men, post menopausal women) should be denied marriage. Adopting infants for infertile couples (hetero or same sex) is out too because it doesn't involve intimacy.

You really didn't think that one through at all, did you Jim?

Actually, I did. But I can only say so much in one post. The overall thrust of my post is to lay the ground work for the case as it applies to the general population, why in the development of human civilization heterosexual marriage is virtually universal and same-sex marriage almost non-existent. I had asked those participating in the thread not to do knee-jerk reactions to the things said, because it is impossible to deal with this issue if we do not do a back and forth and push into the meaning and implications of the various statements made, especially if you think something ridiculous is implied.

English is an imperfect medium of communication, especially when dealing with emotional and contentious issues. We can't be marching of all freaked out over what we thought someone meant.

We've had good conversations on this before Beagle. You know I am a reasonable person. So if you think something implied is ridiculous, lets talk it through and see if it really is ridiculous (I'll listen to your points) or if I just left an element out because I was addressing something else and time and space (and the attention span of the reader) is limited , or if I just phrased something poorly and you misunderstood my meaning.


Jim

[carpedm9587]

Hard to do for someone whose lifelong passion and all their training and business equipment investments target the making of wedding cakes. Again, you are punishing people for living according to their religions dictates and according to their conscience. A wedding is not who you are, it is something you do. The person who won't make the cake is not saying they wont make any cakes for homosexual people. They are saying they can't make a cake that celebrates and act they believe is wrong. Would it be wrong to ask a person to make a cake that celebrates hedonism? Should a fellow be required to make a cake decorated with figurines acting out an orgy in celebration of the vernal equinox? This is where it gets really stupid. If I am an artist, no one has any right to dictate what I create. Suppose a gay couple walks into a portrait studio and demands the artist create a painting of them engaging in a sexual act? Does he have to do that? Even if he painted a heterosexual couple in a sexual act?

As I see it, this is much more about the creative freedom of the artisan than discrimination against homosexuality. If this was a pastry shop and the baker refused to sell a gay couple an eclair just because they were gay, then you'd have a discrimination case.

Your questions suggest the basis of the disagreement: the nature of homosexuality. All of the other examples you cited were things that people do. The law is clear that a person may not discriminate against others on the basis of aspects of who they are. They cannot turn someone away because they are a woman, or black, or Jewish. A homosexual is a person who's sexual orientation is different. It is not just something someone does - it is something someone is. Essentially, the baker is turning people away on the basis of their sexual orientation, and the fact that the two people getting married happen to have matching sexual equipment instead of different sexual equipment.

And I do not think "it is hard" is a valid defense. A baker can bake many things. A wedding cake is one type of thing. They can create celebratory cakes for any other type of event: retirements, birthday parties, graduations, etc. If they are going to make wedding cakes, then they need to recognize that, in the U.S., the law says marriage can between people of the same gender.

No one is getting in the way of this person adhering to their faith. They ARE being told they cannot use their faith as a justification for discrimination. Since there is a recourse this person can take and both follow their faith AND not discriminate, I believe they are legally and morally bound to take it. Otherwise, we are opening the door to justifying any form of discrimination on the basis of "my faith says I can."

I am not advocating 'that's the way it always was". I am saying there are very natural reasons for marriage. It exists in almost all cultures, and it exists between men and women. And the reasons are very practical. To properly raise children, that sort of a construct is needed. And raising children is not just about sex, and it is not just about the immediate needs of the parents. It is about the needs of the civilization and the culture. We are one generation away from anarchy at any given time.

I suggest that you cannot defend the bolded part of your statement. The fact is that we have a wide variety of family types in the U.S. today, and around the world. The available evidence does not suggest that the only model that "works" is "two parents of opposite gender."

A case can be made for giving marriage or marriage like protections to gay couples who adopt. But I am speaking in the larger sense. A man and a women get married. They are going to eventually have kids. This is the true, even today, of a significant majority of the cases.

They may have kids. Even if they mostly do, an appeal to the majority does not make your case. My point stands: marriage is not just about children. Since a gay marriage is as intimate as an heterosexual marriage, and has more than one avenue for creating a family, there is essentially no distinction here.

But marriage doesn't primarily exist for the two people. It exists for the purpose of creating family, of making children, of providing a construct withing the society that is conducive to creating the next generation of that civilization. And that is naturally going to be part of a heterosexual marriage in most cases (but certainly not all). It could easily be argued that the entire element of an intimate loving act evolved to give us what we needed to make children in spite of all the difficulties, and to keep us together through the long task of raising those same children. marriage naturally then between a man and a women. That is what it is. same-sex unions can appropriate part of that, but it will always be something different, and I seriously doubt that a homogeneous same-sex society would be driven to develop such a construct. Whereas in a homogeneous heterosexual society it is almost universally part of the society. The civilization needs it or something very close to it to survive.

You are, again, emphasizing one aspect of marriage to the exclusion of the other. And since there are avenues open to "creating family" for a same-sex couple, I do not believe you are making a valid distinction.

Actually, I was anticipating participants other than yourself that may or may not be able to maintain civility even if they find an idea difficult or offensive.

There is an avenue open to dealing with this. We are "squatting" in Jorge's thread, and history suggests he has no problem with the kind of discourse both of us apparently want to avoid. We are also somewhat off-topic for the thread. We could simply create our own thread, and set the rules accordingly. TWeb policy allows a thread originator to set the parameters for the thread, and we would have the assistance of the mods in keeping it civil. I have had some success with that in the past. Either one of us can create the thread. Thoughts?

I do try :) This is a difficult area for me. I understand perhaps better than most (due to my own involvement in the arts) the difficulties homosexuals face. And I do have a good bit of internal conflict over what I understand my faith to teach on the issue and what my humanity tells me about the issue.

Jim

It is a difficult area period. As with many other topics, it potentially pits two closely held values against one another: the freedom of people to exercise their faith and the need to avoid inappropriate discrimination. For myself, I think the religious injunction against homosexuality is simply wrong. It is rooted in ancient motivations that simply no longer apply. It is harmful. It needs to change. There are signs that it IS changing, but because the religious injunction is rooted in the belief that it is "what god wants," it is a VERY difficult injunction to shift. Still, there were many other things defended, in the past, on the basis of it being "what god wants." Those changed. I have hopes this will change too.

Michel

[HMS_Beagle]

Actually, I did. But I can only say so much in one post. The overall thrust of my post is to lay the ground work for the case as it applies to the general population, why in the development of human civilization heterosexual marriage is virtually universal and same-sex marriage almost non-existent. I had asked those participating in the thread not to do knee-jerk reactions to the things said, because it is impossible to deal with this issue if we do not do a back and forth and push into the meaning and implications of the various statements made, especially if you think something ridiculous is implied.

English is an imperfect medium of communication, especially when dealing with emotional and contentious issues. We can't be marching of all freaked out over what we thought someone meant.

We've had good conversations on this before Beagle. You know I am a reasonable person. So if you think something implied is ridiculous, lets talk it through and see if it really is ridiculous (I'll listen to your points) or if I just left an element out because I was addressing something else and time and space (and the attention span of the reader) is limited , or if I just phrased something poorly and you misunderstood my meaning.


Jim

I know you are a reasonable person too Jim. That's why I was so surprised to see you trot out the old homophobic thought "gays can't naturally reproduce" as an argument against same sex marriage. You have to admit it is one of the dumber ones out there.

[carpedm9587]

I know you are a reasonable person too Jim. That's why I was so surprised to see you trot out the old homophobic thought "gays can't naturally reproduce" as an argument against same sex marriage. You have to admit it is one of the dumber ones out there.

I have taken the proverbial bull by the horns and created a new thread for this discussion. You can find the OP here.

[oxmixmudd]

I know you are a reasonable person too Jim. That's why I was so surprised to see you trot out the old homophobic thought "gays can't naturally reproduce" as an argument against same sex marriage. You have to admit it is one of the dumber ones out there.

Well, I wasn't discussing that issue as a reason against same sex marriage! Yes, it has lots of problems if that is the goal (to reason against same-sex marriage) because a large number (small percentage) of hetero couple can't have kids and it leads to conundrum of why can hetero couple that can't (or won't) have kids get married but same-sex couples can't.

However, the biology of making children and the needs associated caring for them, the needs a civilization has to support that activity so it can continue, does have a lot to do with why hetero marriage is nearly universal across cultures and factors into (though it may not be the dominant factor) why same-sex marriage is nearly non-existent.

A discussion of those simple fact is important to understanding what is and is not marriage. But I have by no means stated any hard conclusions. I do believe it is irresponsible to dismiss these elements and say they don't matter. If we don't look at why marriage exists, how can we possibly understand if same-sex 'marriage' is a reasonable construct?



Jim

[HMS_Beagle]

However, the biology of making children and the needs associated caring for them, the needs a civilization has to support that activity so it can continue, does have a lot to do with why hetero marriage is nearly universal across cultures and factors into (though it may not be the dominant factor) why same-sex marriage is nearly non-existent.

What in the world makes you think granting marriage rights to same sex couples will somehow negatively impact the ability of hetero couples to marry and produce children?

A discussion of those simple fact is important to understanding what is and is not marriage. But I have by no means stated any hard conclusions. I do believe it is irresponsible to dismiss these elements and say they don't matter. If we don't look at why marriage exists, how can we possibly understand if same-sex 'marriage' is a reasonable construct?

Marriage is about a lot more than just making babies. Couples who wish to make a formal legal commitment to one another should be allowed to do so unless there is a compelling reason to deny them the right. The couple's sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. So far no one on the religious right has come up with anything close to a compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the right hetero couples are given.

[carpedm9587]

Well, I wasn't discussing that issue as a reason against same sex marriage! Yes, it has lots of problems if that is the goal (to reason against same-sex marriage) because a large number (small percentage) of hetero couple can't have kids and it leads to conundrum of why can hetero couple that can't (or won't) have kids get married but same-sex couples can't.

However, the biology of making children and the needs associated caring for them, the needs a civilization has to support that activity so it can continue, does have a lot to do with why hetero marriage is nearly universal across cultures and factors into (though it may not be the dominant factor) why same-sex marriage is nearly non-existent.

A discussion of those simple fact is important to understanding what is and is not marriage. But I have by no means stated any hard conclusions. I do believe it is irresponsible to dismiss these elements and say they don't matter. If we don't look at why marriage exists, how can we possibly understand if same-sex 'marriage' is a reasonable construct?

Jim

I wanted to respond to this, but also wanted to separate from this thread. I responded here.

[oxmixmudd]

What in the world makes you think granting marriage rights to same sex couples will somehow negatively impact the ability of hetero couples to marry and produce children?

I didn't say it would. You are generating that conclusion yourself.

Marriage is about a lot more than just making babies. Couples who wish to make a formal legal commitment to one another should be allowed to do so unless there is a compelling reason to deny them the right. The couple's sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. So far no one on the religious right has come up with anything close to a compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the right hetero couples are given.

Of course it is. I wasn't saying it was 'only about making babies'. Again, you are drawing conclusions from the text that are not there. I know it is hard - but you are bringing a whole laundry list of stereotypical assumptions about what the points are I'm trying to make. And since I'm not completely aware of what key phrases I'm using that are setting those off, the conversation is never going to get anywhere unless you can ditch them and enter into a the conversation without them. IOW, it is virtually impossible at this point to have a reasoned conversation because you're looking for a fight. Can't we just talk about the various issues and see where it goes?

But perhaps we can try a different approach. What is your explanation for the historical reality of the nearly universal presence of marriage, and the nearly universal absence same sex unions.


Jim

[HMS_Beagle]

I didn't say it would. You are generating that conclusion yourself.

Based solely on your words.

IOW, it is virtually impossible at this point to have a reasoned conversation because you're looking for a fight.

I'm not looking for a fight. You are using very provocative language, quite possibly unknowingly, and I am responding accordingly. I'm all for a calm reasoned discussion.

What is your explanation for the historical reality of the nearly universal presence of marriage, and the nearly universal absence same sex unions.

Most likely because it has only been the last few decades in which human sexuality has been scientifically investigated. What we've learned is

1. Sexual orientation isn't consciously chosen. It is a combination of genetic, hormonal, and post-natal environmental factors. There is no "one size fits all"
2. Sexual orientation isn't consciously changeable. Behavior can be modified through sufficient punishment (i.e. threat of being ostracized) but that is not the same thing.
3. Human sexuality isn't only a binary "male" and "female". It occurs across a whole spectrum from hetero to bi to gay and all shades in between.
4. Sometimes a person's innate sexual orientation won't match their physical morphology. Such non-hetero orientation is a normally occurring and harmless variation in human sexuality. Like other physiological traits it should not be a basis for institutionalized discrimination.

Previous bans on marriage were almost all based on the prevailing religious or social standards - you often could only marry your own race, your own religion, your own nationality. Those prohibitions changes as society became more aware of their inherent unfairness.

As already pointed out , "we always did it that way in the past" is no excuse for denying equal rights to non-hetero people knowing what we know now about human sexuality.

[carpedm9587]

Based solely on your words.



I'm not looking for a fight. You are using very provocative language, quite possibly unknowingly, and I am responding accordingly. I'm all for a calm reasoned discussion.



Most likely because it has only been the last few decades in which human sexuality has been scientifically investigated. What we've learned is

1. Sexual orientation isn't consciously chosen. It is a combination of genetic, hormonal, and post-natal environmental factors. There is no "one size fits all"
2. Sexual orientation isn't consciously changeable. Behavior can be modified through sufficient punishment (i.e. threat of being ostracized) but that is not the same thing.
3. Human sexuality isn't only a binary "male" and "female". It occurs across a whole spectrum from hetero to bi to gay and all shades in between.
4. Sometimes a person's innate sexual orientation won't match their physical morphology. Such non-hetero orientation is a normally occurring and harmless variation in human sexuality. Like other physiological traits it should not be a basis for institutionalized discrimination.

Previous bans on marriage were almost all based on the prevailing religious or social standards - you often could only marry your own race, your own religion, your own nationality. Those prohibitions changes as society became more aware of their inherent unfairness.

As already pointed out , "we always did it that way in the past" is no excuse for denying equal rights to non-hetero people knowing what we know now about human sexuality.

Nicely said...

[oxmixmudd]

Based solely on your words.



I'm not looking for a fight. You are using very provocative language, quite possibly unknowingly, and I am responding accordingly. I'm all for a calm reasoned discussion.

I have no idea why you think what I said was provocative, and for that reason I think I am going to seek out friends I have on both sides of this issue to hash this out with them privately. Clearly I can't be honest or discuss the questions or ideas that I actually have in this forum. There just are not very many people that can keep their heads on this thing. It's not that I think you can't. It's just that watching Carpe's thread and the responses here, I just have no desire to approach an issue that is this difficult for me in this sort of environment. So I'm pulling out.


Jim

[HMS_Beagle]

I have no idea why you think what I said was provocative, and for that reason I think I am going to seek out friends I have on both sides of this issue to hash this out with them privately. Clearly I can't be honest or discuss the questions or ideas that I actually have in this forum. There just are not very many people that can keep their heads on this thing. It's not that I think you can't. It's just that watching Carpe's thread and the responses here, I just have no desire to approach an issue that is this difficult for me in this sort of environment. So I'm pulling out.

As you wish. I hope you are wise enough to look inward and recognize the subtle internal biases which have crept into your language.

When I was in high school many years ago I had a chance to visit some of my Mom's sisters who still lived in the deep South. When they spoke over the dinner table every reference to a black person was the N word. I was somewhat shocked (having grown up in the much more progressive North) but to them it was perfectly normal in their culture. They honestly had no idea why I was bothered. I suspect in your very religious cultural upbringing LGBT folks were often spoken about like my aunts spoke of black folks. You don't even notice but the subtle putdowns and snide overtones are pretty obvious to an outsider.

To be fair I know I have internal biases too - we all do - but I work very hard to recognizing and compensating for them.

[oxmixmudd]

As you wish. I hope you are wise enough to look inward and recognize the subtle internal biases which have crept into your language.

When I was in high school many years ago I had a chance to visit some of my Mom's sisters who still lived in the deep South. When they spoke over the dinner table every reference to a black person was the N word. I was somewhat shocked (having grown up in the much more progressive North) but to them it was perfectly normal in their culture. They honestly had no idea why I was bothered. I suspect in your very religious cultural upbringing LGBT folks were often spoken about like my aunts spoke of black folks. You don't even notice but the subtle putdowns and snide overtones are pretty obvious to an outsider.

To be fair I know I have internal biases too - we all do - but I work very hard to recognizing and compensating for them.

you do realize that by making that comment you just effectively smeared me as a bigot equivalent to a stereotypical 'southern' racist - right?

And in doing so you have illustrated why I am withdrawing from the conversation. There is no way to discuss the issue openly unless one is willing to simply repeat the current dogma on this issue.

In a system of dogma, questioning the dogma is blasphemy. Tough questions about the dogma can't be asked. Independent assessments of the validity of the dogma are not allowed.

I despise the adoption of dogma that paints anyone who questions it as a demon. I hate it in Churches. I hate it in Politics. I hate it in business. And I hate it in Science. And I hate it here and now.



Jim

[carpedm9587]

I have no idea why you think what I said was provocative, and for that reason I think I am going to seek out friends I have on both sides of this issue to hash this out with them privately. Clearly I can't be honest or discuss the questions or ideas that I actually have in this forum. There just are not very many people that can keep their heads on this thing. It's not that I think you can't. It's just that watching Carpe's thread and the responses here, I just have no desire to approach an issue that is this difficult for me in this sort of environment. So I'm pulling out.

Jim

Just for the record - my "nicely said" was about the breakdown of what we know about sexuality, not the discussion you were having about the provocativeness of language.

Look, this is indeed a subject that pushes a lot of people's buttons. I did not find your language "provocative," but I do think you are making an argument that is skewed and cannot be sustained. My focus is on that argument, not on your as a person. The other thread is, frankly, a bust. It took off in a different direction than our discussion here.

My position is a simple one: marriage is not, and should not be, dependent on what is or is not between people's legs. Marriage is about love and family. Both can be achieved in a heterosexual or homosexual union. The love is universal. As for children, there are some ways not open to same-sex couples that are open to heterosexual couples. Other than those physical realities, there is no distinction. I would love to quote statistics about the stability of same-sex marriages versus heterosexual marriages, but the data is scant and there are still pressures on same-sex couples that do not exist for heterosexual couples, so we are (I believe) some distance from having good data to work with. But I can report that I know many same sex couples, both with and without children. I see no difference between the ways their families function and the ways heterosexual families function. That is anecdotal, and I am fond of noting that examples are not arguments. Unfortunately, for this topic, we don't have the data (yet) for a solid position to be put forward.

[oxmixmudd]

Just for the record - my "nicely said" was about the breakdown of what we know about sexuality, not the discussion you were having about the provocativeness of language.

Look, this is indeed a subject that pushes a lot of people's buttons. I did not find your language "provocative," but I do think you are making an argument that is skewed and cannot be sustained. My focus is on that argument, not on your as a person. The other thread is, frankly, a bust. It took off in a different direction than our discussion here.

For the record, I was making the argument as a starting point. I was hoping to get reasoned responses to it, so I could compare my reasoning on the topic with other peoples reasoning on the topic, not so I could prove that position true or false. The problem is, no matter how many times I tried to correct those that went immedietely to ad hominem attacks and to try to get them to 'just talk', it was just nearly impossible to get there. Beagles second to last response could have been a good start point, but then the final one was back 'to the man', though I don't think in that case it was purposeful.

My position is a simple one: marriage is not, and should not be, dependent on what is or is not between people's legs. Marriage is about love and family. Both can be achieved in a heterosexual or homosexual union. The love is universal. As for children, there are some ways not open to same-sex couples that are open to heterosexual couples. Other than those physical realities, there is no distinction. I would love to quote statistics about the stability of same-sex marriages versus heterosexual marriages, but the data is scant and there are still pressures on same-sex couples that do not exist for heterosexual couples, so we are (I believe) some distance from having good data to work with. But I can report that I know many same sex couples, both with and without children. I see no difference between the ways their families function and the ways heterosexual families function. That is anecdotal, and I am fond of noting that examples are not arguments. Unfortunately, for this topic, we don't have the data (yet) for a solid position to be put forward.

Thanks for your explanation of your position. But at least for now, I'm in no mood to discuss what I see are it's merits or flaws, as it is clear there can be no discussion on that level. I either agree your position is valid, or I am evil and will be treated as such.

Jim