Saturday, August 21, 2010

women, LGBT and discrimination

I know I said at the beginning of my blog that I didn't want the imposition on my blog of christians saying "It is god's word", but I have changed my mind. I would love to hear a christian perspective on some of my ideas. Also I plan to express my interpretations of their views so it would be unfair to prevent any from commenting on it. If I am incorrect in some way please let me (civilly). Firstly I would like to offer my interpretation of peoples interpretation of the bible. I haven't read it all but I have read bits, fairly big chunks of it in parts actually. However definitely if I misquote or paraphrase let me know. I write from my understanding of christianity's take on marriage through discussion with church going christians and research into christian groups, activists and blogs. (caution may repeat some sentiments expressed in my last blog entry but I wish to expand and clarify on these points)

I am sceptical that there is any christian that follows god's word (expressed through the bible) in its entirety. I have certainly never encountered anyone who wants to stone adulterers or rape victims who won't marry their rapists to death (for obvious reasons). It applies also to lesser things like a man being forbidden from sitting where a menstruating woman has been. I have heard logical arguments from christians for why; the onset of sanitary protection means disease spread through blood contact isn't an issue anymore, therefore there is no reason to avoid seats formerly sat upon by menstruating women. This puts a qualifier on the whole argument of god's word. By saying it isn't appropriate or relevant to follow certain parts of the bible (as examplified above) you are saying it is incorrect even though god said so because of logic and rational application of facts.

Logic dictates that the other side of this is agreeing with god's word also with a qualifier. Either there has to be a logical reason to follow god's word or at the least no illogical reason why it should not be followed. Thus it seems to remove the "god's word' argument at least as a sole basis for political policy and interpretation of the bible as it is obviously impacted by peoples opinions and views about certain things.

How this applies to the question of homosexual marriage is simple in my opinion. If there is logical reasons why homosexual marriage would be a positive thing, or at least not a negative thing then it should be allowed even though god was/is clearly anti gay.

To demonstrate this point that homosexual marriage is a positive, or at least not a negative, I will introduce a hypothetical here, from a strictly conservative christian view. Let us for a moment assume that sexuality, in particular homosexuality is a choice and that it is also wrong and condemned by god as wicked and sinful. The facts are as follows:

Being homosexual increases the chances of depression, anxiety and suicidality due to discrimination perpetuated by not being seen as equal to heterosexual (ie marriage rights)

Homosexuals are still 'gay bashed'

Homosexuals as people are seen as less than heterosexuals

Gay relations won't actually be changed by gay marriage rights (just viewed as equal)

Addressing the homosexuality (sexuality in general) as a choice argument I would just like to ask as a woman why wouldn't I choose to be gay? The benefits are:

Significantly less chance of stds

Significantly less prevalence of sexual violence

Significantly less prevalence of domestic violence

(compared to heterosexual relationships and marriages, all shown in scientific studies). This leads into the next issue I noticed while perusing the bible. One of the main verses which condemns homosexuality as sinful also includes condemnation of thieves and adulterers. It also condemns rape. 1/6 women in Australia will be raped or sexually assaulted NUMEROUS times in her life. I am not sure of the exact facts here (I am not sure anyone is) but it stands to reason to assume it is about 1/6 of men perpetrating these acts of violence. So on one hand you have gay marriage which involves 10% of the population and on the other a crime nearly 20% of people are directly involved with in one way or the another. I have however been unable to find any christian groups rallying against rape (please direct me to websites of any that exist).

Homosexuality has been proved to have no direct health issues. Being raped on the other hand generally comes hand in hand with co morbid psychiatric issues such as depression, anxiety, borderline personality disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse. Why when there are logical reasons not to oppose homosexual marriage and logical reasons to rally against rape do we have people pouring millions of dollars into anti-gay christian compaigns but none that I can find into anti-rape christian compaigns?

I would like to at this point out that in my opinion the idea of marriage as "tradition" also holds no weight. There is little about marriage today that resembles what it was founded on. There is a no faults divorce system and there exists now the choice not to get married and not necessarily be expected to produce children if you do. The one tradition that holds true is marriage as a union between one man and one woman. However the history of marriage as an insitution is based upon the rule of a patriarchy. The "one" man is dominant over the "one" woman. Positioning women as lesser than men and thereby implying their needs and wants are of less concern. This allowed there to be a position where rape wasn't possible in wedlock. Consequently to support traditional gender roles in marriage is to encourage a culture where sexual abuse is widespread, this I believe contradicts the bible.

Convicted sex offenders and child molesters are permitted to get married with no challenge (that I have heard) coming from church groups. Seems to me that a child molester would pose more threat to the welfare of children then does a gay couple, who have the same potential as straight couples for love and compassion and morals.

I talked earlier about there being no health problems directly involved with being homosexual so I would like to now address a constant argument presented by the conservatives against gay marriage. The fact that gay men are more prone (then heterosexuals) to contracting sexual diseases such as aids. However to say this is relevant to the fact that they are homosexual is deeply flawed. It is like stating heterosexual people contract sexual diseases for reasons of their sexuality. If this is the case, then opposite sex marriage shouldn't be allowed either. On the basis of relative std contraction only lesbian marriage and relationships should be allowed as they have the lowest amount of stds.

It has also come to my intention that several conservative church groups believe it is impossible to have morals without following a divine law. However through the application of science morals can certainly be formed and followed quite well. The bible itself is subject to the scrutiny of facts as I stated previously. The other flaw of this as applied to homosexual marriage is that it is used to state that gay people do not follow god's law correctly and are evil. However many straight couples in society do not follow the bible either, not much is said about their inability to make moral judgement. I suppose as long as you conform to a christian view of a relationship without actually being christian you are still seen as a moral person, even though it is asserted that is is not possible for you to do so.

Another point I wanted to raise is the fact that the bible sees women as lesser beings than men. How can a rational person support the right of women to vote (assuming you do) to grant equal rights but deny equal rights to homosexual couples? Returning to the std argument for a moment, I also don't understand the ramifications of std rates in homosexual relationships in regards to gay marriage. I believe they are most likely already sexually active, it is hard to save yourself for marriage when you're not allowed to marry.

I have two side notes to make here.

1) I oppose the use of the word homophobia and propose instead sexualism (allows for sexualities other than homosexuality to be discriminated against)

2) I use the term homosexual throughout this post as it is written in regards to christianity's response to the LGBT movement which has a focus on the homosexual aspect. Although to be politically correct I would prefer if I, and they, used the term "non heterosexual"

22 comments:

  1. This is a long argument, and while I'm a "christian", I'm not typical. I take my own spin on things, and use christianity more as a philosophy than a dictating religion. I feel that the bible who was written by men through visions sent to them via God, can't help but be distorted by their world views at the time. God told us in the bible to use our common sense and warned us that the bible may have conflicting ideas as it would be passed down from age to age..this is why I feel it is better to take core values out of the bible.. I feel as though if we have agape love (the most rare kind of love..self-sacrificing out of choice not influence)towards our neighbors, friends, and family that we can overcome...is this not what feminism is about? I feel the core message of the bible aligns very well with feminism and all it really requires to be a christian is that you believe God gave his only begotten son so that you may have everlasting life in heaven. To reject an entire ideology because there are christians that twist the bible to suit their wickedness would be like men calling feminists man-haters...
    I've had many christians get upset for me not being a bible thumper...but I tell them Jesus said to take up your cross and follow me, and your persecution of me as not a true christian is exactly what he was talking about, thank you for reinforcing my belief.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @ marriedfem, I think you need to re-read exactly what I said.

    "To reject an entire ideology because there are christians that twist the bible to suit their wickedness would be like men calling feminists man-haters..."

    Where did I say all christians are homophobes or sexists? Where did I reject christianity as as an ideology? I stated "From a strictly conservative christian view" in other words what you referred to as "bible thumpers" (I didn't want to use that offenseive terminology). Just as you distinguish between a conservative christian view and other christian views I distinguish between extreme brands of radical feminism and mainstream feminism, as you pointed out.

    I also support the bible as a good basis for good morals coupled with the application of facts. Where did I say otherwise?

    "...and your persecution of me as not a true christian is exactly what he was talking about, thank you for reinforcing my belief."

    Can you point out exactly where I persecuted you? Where I described anyone as a 'true' christian or otherwise? I merely challenged the belief system of the (as I clearly stated) christian conservative groups. If you don't fall into that value structure I am not talking about you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh I wasn't saying you were persecuting me...I meant that as other christians who tell me I'm not being a good christian... I'm sorry if I came across accusing to you...I did not mean it at all!!! I was just offering a piece to christians who may read this thinking they can't be feminist...I'm sorry, I should have been more clear, I know you weren't saying all christians were like this, I know better than to think you are generalizing, I'm responding to other people who read this blog who are set on thinking christianity should be abandoned, I totally jumped the gun and I'm sorry about that, but I wasn't talking to you specifically..it was more of addressing common arguments that I've faced as a christian and a feminist and my view on why I can logically have both perspectives...I'm sorry if I came off accusatory towards you...and sorry if I derailed the argument altogether

    ReplyDelete
  4. @marriedfem

    Oh! sorry I must have misinterpreted! In light of this new revelation I thank you for your support :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. @marriedfrm

    I am also glad that my argument made you feel justified in being christian even though you don't support discrimination. From an outside view I think that the true meaning of the bible and god's word, is that we should be kind to each other, and ease each others suffering rather than promote it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Exactly!

    I think Christians feel that if they are loving homosexuals then they are condoning their lifestyle, and to me that's simply NOT true, if you can love someone in a heterosexual relationship even with PERCEIVED "flaws" and not condone those "flaws" you can do the same with any other person... I'm not saying being gay is a flaw, but to Christians it is, so to drive the point I had to use their viewpoint..not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "However through the application of science morals can certainly be formed and followed quite well."

    If you are inclined I would be interested to have you elaborate on this point - the formation of morals from scientific principles.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For example gay marriage rights. In very recent studies in my country it has been shown that homosexual women are twice as likely to have suicidal ideation as their heterosexual counterparts and nearly 3 times more likely to harm themselves or attempt suicide. This shows the harm discrimination causes them. Combined with the dozens of other studies that also show homosexuals are more likely to have depression and/or anxiety (caused by discrimination and vilification) and more likely to commit suicide.

    From this without a god, you can see harm is caused to somebody, and even without religion or maybe particularly without a belief in religion (no hope for a better lot in the afterlife) it is important to address these issues. You don't need to follow the bible to understand suffering is bad. I want everyone to have a good life.

    Therefore the logical conclusion from this data I have gathered is that legalising homosexual marriage would be a good thing, from a moral standpoint. As it will decrease discrimination and therefore depression and all the issues that come with that.

    Perhaps you thought I meant something along the lines of following the theory of evolution? I did not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What you've described is taking particular action to achieve a goal you already and independently think of as moral. The science tells you how to go about achieving a particular outcome but it says nothing about whether pursuing that outcome is good or right.

    "You don't need to follow the bible to understand suffering is bad."

    The belief that suffering is bad, Biblically inspired or not, is a matter of faith. I don't believe science can deal directly with that sort of thing.

    If morals are simply a matter of faith (not objectively provable) they can be arbitrary.

    If morals have some scientific basis (objective proof) I think they would have to be approached from an evolutionary or natural law point of view. I don't think there's reason within those sources to allow gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  10. K3

    I am sorry but I am going to have to say that I think you are talking crap, albeit crap that sounds pretty.

    "What you've described is taking particular action to achieve a goal you already and independently think of as moral. The science tells you how to go about achieving a particular outcome but it says nothing about whether pursuing that outcome is good or right."

    I am really not sure what you are talking about here. Most of the scientific studies I have read don't say anything about how to achieve goals but everything about what is good and bad for humanity. An exception to this would be in recent a lesbian/gay study I read. It stated we needed to take immediate action to lessen discrimination and prevent more unnecessary deaths.

    The belief that suffering is bad has nothing to do with faith, it lessens quality of life. Please do tell me how you think it is faith based. Especially when we have science to show us the different chemical reactions in the brain to do with mental illness (eg suffering). It is manifested in the physical.

    "If morals have some scientific basis (objective proof) I think they would have to be approached from an evolutionary or natural law point of view."

    I have heard that view put forth before. However natural law has nothing to do with morality, it was never meant to be something to base morals on. I think what christians don't understand is athiests don't follow a set of beliefs, we tend to form our beliefs about the world from a variety of sources.

    In terms of natural selection I assume you are talking about darwinism. To say that an athiest has to base their morals on survival of the fittest is absurd and obviously not applicable. Otherwise you would have lobbies to shut down drug companies, hospitals, surgeries, general practices, etc.

    Also tbh if you use natural law as a moral guide there is no reason against homosexual marriage, it is all natural stuff.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that instead of trying to assign my beliefs to a specific scientific theory actually respond to what I am saying and mount an argument against it.

    Thank you for your input.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I wanted to add in two things here to clarify on what I said in the previous comment.

    1) athiesm describes a lack of a belief system not the existence of an arbitrary other than religious belief system

    2) the theory of evolution describes how humans came about from animals (non human) you obsolutely cannot apply morality to animals (non human). They don't have a conscience. Consequently the theory of evolution doesn't involve morality as it is only applicable to non human animals.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your argument relating to allowing gay marriage despite God’s disapproval on the basis of a lack of logical objections is fairly sound. I’m not a Christian so I can’t gauge the importance but I imagine there should be a distinction made between disobeying commands that are related to particular situations (stoning adulterers, avoiding menstruating women) and violating God’s moral code (being homosexual).

    What is your educational/scientific background? What scientific studies do you read?

    Let me direct you to Wikipedia: ‘is ought problem’. Science tells you only what is. You seem to be treating it as also telling you what ought to be. My primary argument with what you have written is that you are saying that certain things ought to be: what you think ought to be is based on your own moral system but you have no greater support for your moral system than (anyone else has for) any other. You’re in the same boat as God – we should ignore you unless you can provide a logical justification for your position which I doubt is truly possible for you to do.

    “I am really not sure what you are talking about here. Most of the scientific studies I have read don't say anything about how to achieve goals but everything about what is good and bad for humanity. An exception to this would be in recent a lesbian/gay study I read. It stated we needed to take immediate action to lessen discrimination and prevent more unnecessary deaths.”

    Scientific studies tell you what IS: they can confirm that there IS a group whose members are more likely than normal to commit suicide, and can show that there IS a relationship between suicide and depression and between depression and discrimination. You now know that discrimination is linked to suicide so when you decide that suicide rates OUGHT to be reduced you conclude that we ought to lessen discrimination, but you could just as easily decide that suicide rates ought to be increased and conclude that we ought to increase discrimination. The scientific information remains the same.

    A study that tells you what you ought to be doing is straying outside the realm of science. This is the author’s opinion or the answer to the question the author was asked (how to achieve the goal the questioner thinks ought to be met).

    [continues in next comment due to character limit]

    ReplyDelete
  13. “The belief that suffering is bad has nothing to do with faith, it lessens quality of life. Please do tell me how you think it is faith based. Especially when we have science to show us the different chemical reactions in the brain to do with mental illness (eg suffering). It is manifested in the physical.”

    It’s another is/ought distinction. Is: Subjectively reported suffering can be observed as electrochemical brain signals. Ought: People ought not to suffer or have low life quality. These signals ought to be minimised.

    “In terms of natural selection I assume you are talking about darwinism. To say that an athiest has to base their morals on survival of the fittest is absurd and obviously not applicable. Otherwise you would have lobbies to shut down drug companies, hospitals, surgeries, general practices, etc.”

    Do you think the abilities to use tools and cooperate are excluded from being naturally selected? Regardless, what I had in mind was that humans are biological systems so it makes sense that a relevant system of morality would be based on biological principles. For example you can make the observation that most creatures will go to great efforts to preserve their own lives and from that conclude that life is something that is of value.

    “Also tbh if you use natural law as a moral guide there is no reason against homosexual marriage, it is all natural stuff.”

    I view marriage as the relationship between society and the relationship of the couple. Society can approve and sanction the relationship or disapprove and refuse to sanction it.
    Homosexuality is natural but it’s also dysfunctional. The reproductive systems of males and females are obviously complementary and if peoples’ sexual drives result in them partnering with the same sex their reproductive capacity is nullified. From both evolutionary (gene propagation) and social (next generation) perspectives reproduction serves an important purpose.
    Ought society to approve, sanction or celebrate something that is necessarily dysfunctional? Generally, no, supporting dysfunction of a component of oneself is detrimental. Ought society to treat two functionally distinct types of relationship equally? Not if it has any of its interests met in the function.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ K3

    I think you managed to deftly avoid all my arguments.

    However you brought up another cliched argument against same sex marriage; reproduction. To that I say who cares? We are overpopulated already. It isn't really applicable to humans as a species.

    It also comes with the assumption that humanity should procreate and continue. That is very much open to debate. As for my view on that matter, I would be happy enough if humanity as a species died out. It has no moral significance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. (The first half my previous comment is missing. I exceeded the comment character limit so split it into two comments. Parts of the second half make little sense without the first half so here it is-)

    Your argument relating to allowing gay marriage despite God’s disapproval on the basis of a lack of logical objections is fairly sound. I’m not a Christian so I can’t gauge the importance but I imagine there should be a distinction made between disobeying commands that are related to particular situations (stoning adulterers, avoiding menstruating women) and violating God’s moral code (being homosexual).

    What is your educational/scientific background? What scientific studies do you read?

    Let me direct you to Wikipedia: ‘is ought problem’. Science tells you only what is. You seem to be treating it as also telling you what ought to be. My primary argument with what you have written is that you are saying that certain things ought to be: what you think ought to be is based on your own moral system but you have no greater support for your moral system than (anyone else has for) any other. You’re in the same boat as God – we should ignore you unless you can provide a logical justification for your position which I doubt is truly possible for you to do.

    “I am really not sure what you are talking about here. Most of the scientific studies I have read don't say anything about how to achieve goals but everything about what is good and bad for humanity. An exception to this would be in recent a lesbian/gay study I read. It stated we needed to take immediate action to lessen discrimination and prevent more unnecessary deaths.”

    Scientific studies tell you what IS: they can confirm that there IS a group whose members are more likely than normal to commit suicide, and can show that there IS a relationship between suicide and depression and between depression and discrimination. You now know that discrimination is linked to suicide so when you decide that suicide rates OUGHT to be reduced you conclude that we ought to lessen discrimination, but you could just as easily decide that suicide rates ought to be increased and conclude that we ought to increase discrimination. The scientific information remains the same.

    A study that tells you what you ought to be doing is straying outside the realm of science. This is the author’s opinion or the answer to the question the author was asked (how to achieve the goal the questioner thinks ought to be met).
    (End of first half)

    On the topic of reproduction – humanity is as a species defined in terms of an ability to procreate and continue. That’s what a species is so strictly speaking reproduction is relevant to humanity.

    It’s true that there’s no objective moral requirement that humans do not become extinct but the question of allowing gay marriage is only sensible in the context of ongoing society and humanity.

    I don’t see any other way to look at it. Society exists and has an interest in its own continued existence. Society is made of people and people need regular replacement. Heterosexual relationships produce new people and homosexual relationships do not. All these statements are true. The logical conclusion is that society should value hetero over homo relationships. You can argue about the magnitude of the value difference or how society should demonstrate it but it doesn’t make sense to me to say it shouldn’t exist.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't have time at the moment to respond to all you said, and I probably won't endeavor to do so. The reason for this is most of what you said is rubbish that has been debunked many times.

    Take for instance your assertion that marriage is for procreation. People who are not married don't and in some cases can't have children. The next flaw is trying to equate procreation as a moral duty, this is also not correct, especially as the planet is overpopulated and fast becoming more so. It could be seen as a moral duty to not in fact procreate as doing so causes suffering and death of the population you are seeking to increase. Your own argument proves you wrong. Third inconsistency, homosexual relationships can and do produce children. Of course they can't combine their genetic make up but that is irrelevant as you did not and can not say that producing new people should be contingent on certain genetics.

    In terms of your assertion that one needs to approach science with a morality already that is correct. My morality is one that is superior to god given morality however in that I have justifiable reasons for it that manifest themselves. I think the terms "harm" and "quality of life" cover it.

    Finally, instead of trying to twist things to suit your bigotry why not actually read or consider the opposing side, why not consider that you could be wrong? You disfuise ignorance with rhetoric, quite a common tactic, I am not buying it sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  17. “Finally, instead of trying to twist things to suit your bigotry why not actually read or consider the opposing side, why not consider that you could be wrong?”
    Same to you.
    I’ve seen the counterarguments you presented before and I find them unconvincing (rubbish debunked many times before!). There are distinctions you should make but don’t so you confuse one thing with another.

    I didn’t say that marriage was for procreation.
    It is true that some hetero couples whether married or not can’t or won’t reproduce, but that is despite the nature of the relationship, not because of it. It doesn’t follow from the existence of such a couple that all hetero couples lack value. If one apple tree fails to bear fruit that doesn’t mean an orchard of apple trees loses its value as a source of food and it doesn’t mean we should start planting other non fruit-bearing trees in our orchards.
    The problems of overpopulation are arguments against the practice of excessive reproduction now, not against the value of reproduction itself (that eating too much food at once can make you sick does not mean food is without value). Reducing birth rates too much just swaps one set of problems for another eg, ageing population problems. Regardless, unless you think society’s support of certain types of relationship should be conditional on the desired population growth this argument isn’t relevant.
    How do homosexual relationships produce children? If you mean IVF/surrogacy then it is those things that are producing children, not the relationship.

    What do you think a marriage is, in terms of what components must one have to exist and what is one for? For example do you need two partners (in love?), broad community support and legal recognition? Does society have to benefit? Do you think society has any role in marriages apart from to approve them?

    ReplyDelete
  18. To address the same argument you have made before. Reproduction is not a moral issue unless perhaps you follow god and the bible as god's word. In this case for this to make sense you have to show god exists, or it is irrelevant.

    The main reason for marriage is to protect the rights of the individual within the relationship in a legal sense. That is the extent of the importance a secular society places on marriage. Which is what we are (Australia), we don't have a national religion.

    If you think I am trying to justify bigotry here, you would have to first tell me what type of bigotry I am engaged in and then why. For example I think you are a sexualist (homophobe).

    ReplyDelete
  19. The true absurdity of your argument however is that not allowing homosexual marriage doesn't increase reproduction.

    I think perhaps, it is time for you to move on, you are not really bringing much of interest to my blog. You are merely repeating over and over "the gays can't reproduce naturally". This is reliant on many things. The fact that heterosexuals reproduce naturally which I would debate. The fact that reproducing naturally is a moral position. The fact that reproducing is a moral imperative. None of this is true.

    ReplyDelete
  20. “Reproduction is not a moral issue...”
    That’s right, and I never said it was. The argument is that in the context of an ongoing society reproduction is valuable. Don’t confuse the value of things with their moral correctness.
    “...not allowing homosexual marriage doesn't increase reproduction.”
    That’s right, and I never said we should. Don’t confuse statements that something is valuable with the desire to see it increased.

    “The main reason for marriage is to protect the rights of the individual within the relationship in a legal sense. That is the extent of the importance a secular society places on marriage.”
    That’s very limited and I think poorly worded or not thought through. Which rights, specifically? There are no types of relationship (sexual or otherwise) in which the people involved should not have their rights protected, so shouldn’t everyone marry everyone?
    When a relationship is granted legal recognition by the state the process is called marriage. Society (distinct from the state) uses marriage to promote some of its ideals and things it values or needs. When you change what constitutes a marriage society necessarily has its ability to promote such things reduced. That is reason enough to be opposed to homosexual marriages so it is possible for Christians or anyone to pass your rationality test for complying with God’s anti-gay sentiment. This is something that can be rationally supported.

    In order to make a decision it is necessary to have a point of difference on which a distinction can be made. In the case of hetero/homo relationships one of the few consequential distinctions is that of reproductive potential so it is appropriate to focus on that.

    “If you think I am trying to justify bigotry here, you would have to first tell me what type of bigotry I am engaged in and then why. For example I think you are a sexualist (homophobe).”
    And why do you think that?
    You’re convinced of the correctness and superiority of your opinions on this topic and others (who isn’t?) but you’re hostile and closed-minded to alternatives. That’s bigotry by definition, not that it matters.

    “I think perhaps, it is time for you to move on, you are not really bringing much of interest to my blog.”
    Clarify please. Would you like me to stop commenting on the blog entirely or just move on to a new topic/be more interesting?

    ReplyDelete
  21. “...not allowing homosexual marriage doesn't increase reproduction.”
    That’s right, and I never said we should. Don’t confuse statements that something is valuable with the desire to see it increased."

    My point was if you see reproduction as valuable and homosexual marriage challenged reproduction that would at least make a kind of sense. However you are against homosexual marriage on the basis that reproduction is good and should be maintained at the same level. It will be. Making your argument irrelevant.

    I disagree with your premise that the current rate of reproduction is valuable. In fact the very opposite can be seen. The current rate of reproduction is harmful. I think we should probably start to limit peoples reproduction. Homosexuals are limited by reproduction and as such only end up reproducing when it is completely useful to society. For instance they don't have unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. It would be better if the same was true of the rest of the population.

    I think homosexual relationships in that regard are superior to other types(within your own argument). That however doesn't have anything to do with it. We talking about marriage here. The point of marriage is not reproduction. For example in Australia in many states homosexual couples can adopt but not marry. If your argument had any validity (which it does not) then that would make it quickly redundant.

    Bigotry by definition is actually prejudice against a certain group without rational basis. My basis for being prejudiced against sexualists is obvious and stated several times on this blog.

    Yes I am hostile to alternatives that involve allowing the high rates of depression and suicidality amongst homosexuals continue. Why wouldn't I be?

    I am not close minded to alternatives however. I am fine with getting rid of marriage altogether if that works better.

    I think you are a sexualist because you do not have a rational reason for denying homosexuals marriage rights. You keep asserting the same thing over and over and expect to change my mind. None of your arguments work.

    My original point was that the person within the relationship is protected by law within that relationship eg. divorce proceedings. So no only people in a relationship should be allowed to marry.

    Honestly as I stated before this is the same argument the ignorant bible thumpers put forth "penis is made for vagina". It is so boringly predictable.

    The "you are close minded" is just ad hominem the desperate with no argument use to try to vilify their opposing debator.

    Which leads to what I said lastly, desist insisting the same point over and over and over. I have better things to do with my life, then try to convince every bigot they are wrong. I wish I could but it just doesn't seem within my power. This ends your ability to spew this particular bigotry based on this particular irrational reasoning across my blog. Goodbye

    ReplyDelete