Redefining Marriage

[kayevcee]

I usually enjoy seeing your fresh perspective on things Pete, so often at odds with the rest of TMUK in interesting and though provoking ways. This time, however, I think you're completely up the wall. I'm not sure where to begin and I salute Matt for taking it point-by-point.

-Nick

[dyrl]

Well, I too salute Matt for taking it point by point - it's always easy to be clear when that happens.

I do agree that I might indeed be up the wall - but these are real concerns of mine on the subject of homosexuality that have stemmed from both experience and thought over the years.

Below, I quote only those points where I disagree or feel there's something that needs to be clarified. If I haven't quoted it - it means I agree with it or think the issue settled.

And so:

Sorry, but just mentioning an obscure psychology book from the 50s of all times and then not mentioning what the arguements are for the outrageous claim that somehow the following is true. How can I refute an argument that I don't know what it is?

Agreed - but you'll also agree that if the argument could be presented in a few sentences, surely no one would need to write a book on it.

I can, of course, try to boil the argument down into some sort of a general condenced form.

Fromm basically argues that Manliness tends towards an excess of forcefulness and pride while feminitity tends towards an excess of shyness and vanity.

The manly excess of forcefullness and pride, if left alone, are no good. If tamed - they become the virtues of strength and self-confidence.

The feminine excesses of shyness and vanity, if left alone, are no good. If tamed - they become the virtues of modesty and sensitivity for the beautiful.

Boys need mothers to counter-balance their natural dispensation towards the development of manly vices (since the feminine in general tempers the manly).

Girls need fathers to counter-balance their natural dispensation towards the development of feminine vices (since the manly in general tempers the feminine).

Boys and girls needs mothers and fathers to learn how the Manly and the Feminine can co-exist symbiotically for the mutual good of all rather than being at war with one another (it is not hard to see how these tendencies could be at war with one another).

Fromm does not specifically focus on forcefulness, pride, shyness and vanity as I have - but he does trace a general sphere of male and female virtues and vices which balance one another out in a healthy heterosexual relationship. This balance, according to him, is lacking in a homosexual relationship.

I suppose modern psychology, and much of modern philosophy, would disagree with this approach on the grounds that it is "sexist" - all this talk about "male" and "female" virtues and vices, as if people were not just people.

But that's just the thing: while we are indeed all human beings with shared human traits; we are also different - as individuals, but also as genders.

Modern feminism even makes it a point to underline these differences, albeit it seems to weigh in on the side of a natural proclivity towards a "war of the sexes" - finding female liberation to primarily be not liberation from the vices of womanhood by good men, who in turn themselves need good women - but through liberation from "patriarchy"; which broadly encompasses the structure of the modern heterosexual family. A structure feminists consider artificial, not natural.

I disagree with them.

At the end of the day, there's no homogenous 'MAN' and 'WOMAN'. We don't fall in love with genders, we fall in love with people. There are plenty of hetrosexual relationships which are fulfilling, there are plenty which are horrible and full of misery, and being a 'man' and 'woman ' doesn't magically change that. There are plenty of homosexual relationships which are happy and plenty which aren't. This is because we are all individuals and all people with our own drives, loves, lifes, fears. Trying to say that a man can only be happy if he loves a woman, risks stripping people of their individuality.

We are all individuals - but we are not abstractions. We are flesh and blood individuals who live in time and space and have certain biological traits that limit who we are.

We do not fall in love with "people." Heterosexual men fall in love with women. Womanly qualities, both physical and those of character, are important to men. Homosexual men also do not fall in love with "people" but with certain types of men (for example boyish men). Heterosexual women in turn fall in love with men and esteem manliness. In fact, often times homosexual men esteem the same type of manliness that heterosexual women do - albeit they are upset that they cannot fulfill themselves with these manly men because - being manly men - the objects of the homosexual's desire prefers to be with a woman.

It is impossible, in my opinion, to understand ourselves as individuals without understand ourselves as men and women.

To say that there are differences amongst the genders is not to say that all humans are not equal in their rights. To say I can buy any clothes I want is not to say that it makes no difference to my life whether or not I wear a skirt of pants.

Frankly, the only difference between a same sex and opposite sex relationship is the ability to procreate. Is that your argument, because I honestly don't know. In that case does that mean if someone is infertile that they will never have a happy and fulfilling love? Does that mean that parents who adopt children will never be happy and fulfilled?

I disagree. The ability to procreate is not the only difference between a same sex and an opposite sex relationship. A man who is with a man will never experience the love of a woman for a man. A woman who is with a woman will never experience the love of a woman for a man (assuming they do not in future stop being homosexuals). This is a mighty big difference. If it is true that men require the love of women to be fully happy men, and women require the love of men to be fully happy women - then a same-sex couple is thereby an inferior couple insofar as happiness is concerned. This doesn't, of course, mean that they're miserable - but not as happy as they could be.

My argument has nothing to do with fertility and everything to do with the symbiotic nature of the male-female relationship as over the male-male or female-female relationship.

I have literally no idea what this means. Easier love? Lower love? What?

Easier - and therefore more solid is the way I put it. What I mean by this is that two men are able to understand each other easier than a man and a woman - to a certain extent - because they are of the same gender. Therefore, if these two men are in a homosexual relationship, which can be understood as a friendship that has become sexual - then it is likely that their relationship will not encounter the same physical and psychological challenges encountered by a heterosexual relationship.

This makes the relationship more solid - on the face of it, but also "lower" - because whatever is easier cannot be as noble as something that is harder (a 25 year old who runs a marathon is to be commended - but an 80 year old who walks the same marathon has done something higher and better - because it was harder for him).

Well, 1990. And the 80s were a time of great homophobia. It's not an argument at all. You could make the same argument that all the great scientists once thought that black people were lower forms of life. Or that giving someone a lobotomy could cure the common cold, both widespread medical theories in the 20th century at one point, and thankfully debunked now. It doesn't mean that there's a grain of truth, just that at one point people were just too ignorant to want to look any further. "Homosexuality's horrible, it's a psychological problem, lets put it on the list, wash our hands and move on." You can't defend that sort of attitude.

Not all great scientists once thought that black people were lower forms of life - in fact, most attempts at scientifically based racism came in the early 20th century in rebellion to the natural rights philosophies of the 19th century which held that blacks and whites were equal in their rights. The idea of slavery as a "positive good" was something born in the mid XIX century in rebellion to hundreds of years of moral philosophy that argued otherwise.

But beyond that minor quible - I think this serialized, progressive view of history that contemporary people cling to is not helpful. The assumption that we can just brush off any period of history by assuming that "they" were too ignorant to know and understand what "we" understand now is dangerous and self-defeating. It's dangerous because it precludes the possibility that just maybe we are wrong and "they" were right - and "they" might be able to teach us something. It's self-defeating because if history is really progressive - than we are all probably horribly wrong - it just hasn't been proven yet. If this is true - what the point of trying to live a decent life or inquiring into some problems or controversies? Finally, if all views are just a reflection of their time and become dated - then won't that view itself become dated, and therefore be useless?

Again, there have been studies into this, and they have shown that there is no negative psychological impact inherant in having two parents of the same sex. As much as you can say "but there needs to be a man and a woman because that will magically make a child good" this isn't supported by the evidence. People aren't genders, they are people.

This statement flies in the face of not only my argument, not to mention simple observation (the existence of gender), but it even contradicts the feminist and homosexual literature which make it a point to define people on the basis of their gender roles.

Naturally, I don't agree with homosexuals who claim that it is impossible to apply universal moral criteria to all human beings because of gender-preference differences - I think they are too extreme in claiming that being gay or being a woman magically removes them from the human family and puts them beyond good and evil.

But I think the opposite extreme - what you seem to propose - is also harmful to individuality. It's impossible to appreciate ourselves as individuals without also understanding ourselves as men and women.

Pretending that society is "gender neutral" - when gender is so essential to who we are as human beings seems very dangerous to our development and happiness.

You seem to be under the impression that a same sex couple cannot have a loving, stable, moral relationship. That's so obviously not the case that I'm not sure how to respond to this.

Well - a good place to start would be simpe observation. In my experience, I have met only one homosexual couple who seemed happy and had been together for what passes in our modern society as a life time - namely eight years. To be clear, I didn't know these people well - it was a casual acquaintence.

Of all the homosexuals whom I have known very well - none of them were happy, and as time passed, their unhappiness grew due to the inability to create and sustain loving relationships.

Naturally, I have also known lots of heterosexuals with this problem. In fact - I have been one of them, since I have passed through 3 different relationships up to this point, all of them ultimately failures (I am hopefull that the one I'm in now is the final and real one).

But generally, I think part of the reason so many heterosexual couples have trouble staying together and happy these days is because they are morally confused. It is not because they are by nature incapable of happiness - it is because their nurture has been neglected and they do not know how to love eachother.

To some extent - homosexuals suffer the same problem. If you read about homosexual love in ancient societies such as the homosexual love of the ancient greeks - you will find that men understood how to nurture their friendships, and in some cases the view was even taken that true love was only possible between two men (because it was assumed that women were irrational creatures - you could have children with them, but you could not have true love and friendship with them). I don't agree with this view (since I think women are quite rational in their own right and have much to contribute to men - and much to gain from them) - but the point is that homosexual couples of old at least built their relationships on a moral understanding rather than on simple whim and a desire for sexual gratification.

More often than not, my experience with homosexuals (I speak in vauge generalities here- I know - but I hope it is obvious why I cannot speak in detail, since the only personal life I can speak about is my own) has been that they are men who lust for sexual gratification and find it with other men whose lust is equally high. Women generally do not share this male lust, since biologically the male sexual urge is a daily phenomenon, while the female sexual urge is more subtle. Thus it is harder for pure sexual lust to be the only basis sustaining a heterosexual relationship - and easier for it to sustain a homosexual one (though it burns out quicker, for the nature of sexual lust is to seek out new experiences with different "partners").

Now - it may well be that there is somewhere a theory of homosexual love that I am not aware of, and a practice of homosexual love that I have not yet witnessed, that puts to rest all my misgivings and demonstrates that homosexuality is a good idea as a road to happiness. I have yet to see it though.

Sorry Pete, there are words here but I just can't parse them. Are you saying that same sex relationships aren't love? Surely if you're talking about the 'idealism of love' then actually the opposite is true, and that it's more important to be honest and true to who you are and love who you love rather than try to hide and fit into an arbitary social norm of 'man plus woman'.

You are right - it is more important to be honest and true to who you are and love who love rather than try to hide and fit into an arbitrary social norm of 'man plus woman.'

The problem is that how does someone know how to love, and how to distinguish love from lust, unless this person does not learn it?

And what if it turns out that the only way you can learn it is via a male-female relationship? What if a man cannot learn true love except from a woman and vice-versa?

Really - the whole argument turns on what the meaning of love is.

As for friendship - I think that friendship is one kind of love, and without an understanding of love as such, friendship (as well as all other particular kinds of love) are made very difficult, if not impossible.

Homosexuality as a life style makes it hard to learn about love - and therefore makes it hard to learn about friendship. Or, sometimes homosexuality compels homosexual partners to substitute erotic friendship for love.

I don't know if any of that helps - but I do appreciate going point by point because it helps me understand the potential flaws in my own thinking.

Pete

[blueshift]

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

I can, of course, try to boil the argument down into some sort of a general condenced form.

Fromm basically argues that Manliness tends towards an excess of forcefulness and pride while feminitity tends towards an excess of shyness and vanity.

The manly excess of forcefullness and pride, if left alone, are no good. If tamed - they become the virtues of strength and self-confidence.

The feminine excesses of shyness and vanity, if left alone, are no good. If tamed - they become the virtues of modesty and sensitivity for the beautiful.

Boys need mothers to counter-balance their natural dispensation towards the development of manly vices (since the feminine in general tempers the manly).

Girls need fathers to counter-balance their natural dispensation towards the development of feminine vices (since the manly in general tempers the feminine).

I'm struggling to write a coherant response to something that's so obviously rubbish, but I'll try to from a logical standpoint. It sounds like the sort of thing someone who had no experience with real people would write. Maybe it was true in the 50s, but I'm sure it's not and certainly isn't today. These are just random words put in based on outdated stereotypes, the very first principles of the argument are flawed.

Manliness tends towards beards and shouting.
Femininity tends towards hair extensions and ska-punk.

As such a child would need both a man and a woman as parents to balance out the two, otherwise they might naturally lean too much towards their genetically dictated disposition to ska-punk.


Sorry if that sounds flippant, but that's a terrible argument. It's just random words put down and treated as fact. You can put any words down there and they'd have the same provenance. Women don't have excesses of forcefullness or pride? What? Men don't have excesses of shyness and vanity? What? Has Fromm ever met a man or a woman?

People are who people are. Plenty of things can factor in to a person's personality, but there's no genetic disposition to something like shyness which is inherant in the XX chromosome but not the XY chromosome. You could make arguments that perhaps this is how females are brought up and so the end result is the same, but it isn't how ALL females are brought up. Some are, some aren't. Some men are, some aren't.

The entire argument you postulated relies entirely on an idealised view of what a 'man' and what a 'woman' is. That just doesn't exist in reality, and also has the knock-on effect that it states that if a man does not fit that criteria, and if a woman does not fit that criteria, they are somehow flawed or unfit to marry or be happy.

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

Boys and girls needs mothers and fathers to learn how the Manly and the Feminine can co-exist symbiotically for the mutual good of all rather than being at war with one another (it is not hard to see how these tendencies could be at war with one another).

Again, another statement with no evidence or even logic behind it. Even IF the first statement was true (and there's no reason to believe it is), this proposes that parents bring up a child in a closed environment and that their only experience of male/female role models are from their parents, not any of the hundreds of adults they meet on a regular basis in their day to day lives.

It also assumes (since the argument seems to be that these are qualities inherant in MAN and WOMAN and that their exposure to children is what is important) that even the most dysfunctional and hateful marriage is a far better environment to bring up children in than a loving same sex marriage or a loving single parent. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if this concept is SO intrinsically important to a child's wellbeing, then it does seem to be the case.

I would further argue that the number of people who fit this 'idealised man' and 'idealised woman' and have a loving relationship is actually shockingly small. This is the real world. It also assumes that such parents can somehow teach a child that 'the manly and feminine can co-exist symbolically for the mutual good of all' by their very virtue of existing.

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

Fromm does not specifically focus on forcefulness, pride, shyness and vanity as I have - but he does trace a general sphere of male and female virtues and vices which balance one another out in a healthy heterosexual relationship. This balance, according to him, is lacking in a homosexual relationship.

Fromm sounds a bit like he has an agenda to me. You can prove anything with enough words. I'm sure by the same virtues you could make a convincing argument why a relationship between a man and a woman is unhealthy, or why a relationship between a man and a squirrel is the idealised target, if all you're going to do is invent 'virtues' which are somehow distinctly inherant in each of the sexes (and for such an argument to work, it needs to be inherant in every single member of each sex as well).

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

But that's just the thing: while we are indeed all human beings with shared human traits; we are also different - as individuals, but also as genders.

Well you just shot your argument in the foot there. Yes genders are different. Different strengths, different chemical makeups, but it doesn't necessarily follow that different virtues are thus present. Estrogen does not somehow pump shyness into a woman, and even if it did, so what? You can't measure and categorise all genders with little 'virtue' pidgeonholes. Nurture is a far far more powerful device for shaping a personality than nature is, and we're all nurtured by different people in different ways.

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

We do not fall in love with "people." Heterosexual men fall in love with women. Womanly qualities, both physical and those of character, are important to men. Homosexual men also do not fall in love with "people" but with certain types of men (for example boyish men). Heterosexual women in turn fall in love with men and esteem manliness. In fact, often times homosexual men esteem the same type of manliness that heterosexual women do - albeit they are upset that they cannot fulfill themselves with these manly men because - being manly men - the objects of the homosexual's desire prefers to be with a woman.

Just because you make a statement doesn't mean it is true. Some people fall in love with others for their intelligence. Some people fall in love with others for their money. Some people fall in love with others because they're meek, others because they're tough. If 'hetrosexual men fall in love with women with womanly qualities' as a blanket statement, then all men would go after the same women. Some women would never find a man because they do not possess these 'womanly qualities'. The above statement completely ignores the rather vital role 'personalities' have in relationships.

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

I disagree. The ability to procreate is not the only difference between a same sex and an opposite sex relationship. A man who is with a man will never experience the love of a woman for a man. A woman who is with a woman will never experience the love of a woman for a man

A man who is with a man will never experience the love of a squirrel for a man. What's your point?

More seriously, what about men who have had sexual experiences with women and then decide they prefer men. Maybe they don't exist, because they've already experienced true happiness so why would they change? I mean, if there was even one person like that, that would destroy your argument completely wouldn't it?

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

This is a mighty big difference. If it is true that men require the love of women to be fully happy men, and women require the love of men to be fully happy women - then a same-sex couple is thereby an inferior couple insofar as happiness is concerned. This doesn't, of course, mean that they're miserable - but not as happy as they could be.

You've not yet said why only a man and a woman can be happy together. That's a pretty massive statement to make. Surely it's up to the individuals concerned to decide whether they are happy, rather than someone saying "no no you can't be happy like this, don't do it."

If your argument is about some sort of 'there needs to be opposing virtues' then what if in a same sex relationship one of the individuals possesses the virtues of the opposite sex?

What if a man has been in a relationship with women, was unhappy, and then found happiness with another man. You're saying that he should have been happier with all the women? Given that this happens a lot, should it not be self evident to these men that they should be less happy, even if they are in actual fact, MORE happy? By that argument a man who has slept with a woman will never turn gay. A slightly more reprehensible view on that would be that it is possible to rape a lesbian in order to turn her straight. That happens too, and is based on the same logic. Many people DO know what they're missing and have made their choice based on experiences.

What about a man who has had a sex change operation and become a women. They would have female hormones, they may possess these 'virtues' of which you speak, they would have a vagina not a penis. Could they then marry a man and be happy? Or would they have to marry a woman to be happy?

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

Easier - and therefore more solid is the way I put it. What I mean by this is that two men are able to understand each other easier than a man and a woman - to a certain extent - because they are of the same gender. Therefore, if these two men are in a homosexual relationship, which can be understood as a friendship that has become sexual - then it is likely that their relationship will not encounter the same physical and psychological challenges encountered by a heterosexual relationship.

This makes the relationship more solid - on the face of it, but also "lower" - because whatever is easier cannot be as noble as something that is harder (a 25 year old who runs a marathon is to be commended - but an 80 year old who walks the same marathon has done something higher and better - because it was harder for him).

Sorry, but there is so much faulty logic here. Are you saying that somehow a homosexual relationship is easier than a hetrosexual one? That a drunken fumble with the local floozy in a back alley is somehow noble and difficult, and yet a same sex relationship where the individuals may have to deal with the shame lumped on them by society, facing hatred and bigotry, the shunning of family and friends, is somehow the EASY option? That it's somehow less psychologically challenging? What?

People are people. Every relationship is different. Some are difficult, some are easy, but that is less to do with the sex of the individuals, but as to HOW they are as individuals. Trying to say that homosexuality is the 'easy' option is just bonkers though.

For the record as well, just because something is 'hard' doesn't make it automatically noble. You chose a very specific example there, but what about other examples?

If instead of walking to the shops, I hop on one foot becasue it is harder, it doesn't make me noble, it makes me an idiot.
If instead of paying for something, I steal it, it doesn't make me noble, it makes me a thief.

The difficulty of an activity has no bearing on its morality. Just because you've taken the harder of two choices doesn't mean it is the right one. Just the harder one.

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

Not all great scientists once thought that black people were lower forms of life - in fact, most attempts at scientifically based racism came in the early 20th century in rebellion to the natural rights philosophies of the 19th century which held that blacks and whites were equal in their rights.

Sorry, but Darwin did, Huxley did, a lot of notable scientists did. And they were (of course) wrong.

The whole point of science and philosophy, by the way, is that it builds on what has gone before. There is evidence, there is peer review, there is the careful balancing of facts and evidence. I agree that history is not progressive, but by their very nature, ideas are, when left to their own devices. It's not always an upwards historical path, no. Much progress has been lost, look to the destruction of the Greek and Roman civilisations, look at the dark age and ignorance imposed by religion in the middle ages, putting to death anyone who dared dabble in science.

You say that 'we are all probably horribly wrong'. I think some moral truths are self evident. In a hundred years we won't suddenly assume that murder is a day to day normal activity, for instant. But even 200 years ago there were many people enthusiastically endorsing slavery on grounds of moral necessity, economic and religious. Now you'd have to be insane to try to do that. A hundred years ago women didn't have the vote, because they were self-evidently stupid creatures who men did not think could not cope with such responsibility, and they would write arguments defending this by stating that womanly virtues included subserviance to men and a lack of intelligence. Those arguments were based in as much evidence, and made as much sense as your arguments at the start of this, by the way. Just random words based on some sort of idealised view of womanhood that has no basis in reality. Nowadays we shake our heads as these people trying to deny women the vote and equality and think "what the hell were they on? What's their problem?"

In a hundred years, I firmly believe we'll be looking back at the twentieth century and the attitudes towards same-sex relationships and shaking our heads and thinking "What the hell were they on? What's their problem?"

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

Well - a good place to start would be simpe observation. In my experience, I have met only one homosexual couple who seemed happy and had been together for what passes in our modern society as a life time - namely eight years. To be clear, I didn't know these people well - it was a casual acquaintence.

Of all the homosexuals whom I have known very well - none of them were happy, and as time passed, their unhappiness grew due to the inability to create and sustain loving relationships.

Naturally, I have also known lots of heterosexuals with this problem. In fact - I have been one of them, since I have passed through 3 different relationships up to this point, all of them ultimately failures (I am hopefull that the one I'm in now is the final and real one).

Anecdotal evidence is never a great claim to actual proof. This is why you need large studies with many thousands of participants and careful measuring to even get close to the truth. I mean heck, someone could point at you and say "Look at Pete, three relationships, all unhappy failures, thus hetrosexuality does not work". No-one says that, of course, because we all realise that people are individuals.

Fact is, you probably know more homosexuals than they realise. Not everyone talks about their sexuality all the time, don't assume everyone you know is hetrosexual. Maybe they're homosexual. Maybe they're bisexual.

Fact is, one third of all people will have a heavily depressive episode in their life. That's not including all the ups and downs that make up life. I'm sure at some point every gay person you know has been depressed. I'm sure at some point every hetrosexual person you know has been depressed. Doesn't follow that this is intrinsically linked to their relationship status. I'm also sure that not everyone you know is 100% candid to you about their happiness and loves.

By that same logic, anyone who is single, or has always been single is automatically depressed and unhappy for they have never attained the true happiness of the touch of a woman. By that logic, all priests will be deeply depressed because they have never known the happiness of a relationship with a woman. (If you say 'well they get happiness via a different sort of relationship with God' then congratulations, you've just admitted that there are other routes to happiness).

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

More often than not, my experience with homosexuals (I speak in vauge generalities here- I know - but I hope it is obvious why I cannot speak in detail, since the only personal life I can speak about is my own) has been that they are men who lust for sexual gratification and find it with other men whose lust is equally high. Women generally do not share this male lust, since biologically the male sexual urge is a daily phenomenon, while the female sexual urge is more subtle. Thus it is harder for pure sexual lust to be the only basis sustaining a heterosexual relationship - and easier for it to sustain a homosexual one (though it burns out quicker, for the nature of sexual lust is to seek out new experiences with different "partners").

This is only an agument against relationships based on lust, not love. It's not an agument against same sex relationships.
If same sex relationships are bad because men are inherantly lustful (which I'm not sure I agree with), what then about two women who love each other?
Where's the evidence that homosexual relationships 'burn out quicker'. I know plenty of hetrosexual people who get through partners at a ridiculous pace. Or do they not count?

All you've said is that a relationship based on lust is unhealthy. No-one will disagree with that, but also it's not a neccessity of same-sex relationships. You do realise that not all gay men dress up like the Village People and hang about public toilets, right? The vast majority are exactly the same as hetrosexual people, with all the positives and negatives.

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

The problem is that how does someone know how to love, and how to distinguish love from lust, unless this person does not learn it?

Well, that assumes the only way to learn how to love is man-woman. The only way you can assume that is via circular reasoning (Love is a man and a woman, thus the only way to learn love is to be in a relationship with a man and a woman, because that is what love is). Are you saying that Paris Hilton's sex tapes are somehow a noble exploration of love, and yet a same sex couple who have been together for years are doing it wrong, and need to learn proper love from Ms Hilton by virtue that she has a vagina which lots of men stick their bits into?

Obviously that's not the case, and I'm sure you won't even argue that it is. But as such, it means that love is not something that intrinsically comes from a man and a woman. Love is something far deeper in the human condition.

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

And what if it turns out that the only way you can learn it is via a male-female relationship? What if a man cannot learn true love except from a woman and vice-versa?

What if it turns out that the only way you can learn love is a man-squirrel relationship? We're all sunk.

Jul 29, 2012 16:30:41 GMT dyrl said:

Homosexuality as a life style makes it hard to learn about love - and therefore makes it hard to learn about friendship. Or, sometimes homosexuality compels homosexual partners to substitute erotic friendship for love.

Pete, I want you to read what you wrote here. Read it until you realise why it makes no sense at all. Love is not something that is magically sparked into life by the penis hitting the vagina. If it was something that could only be attained by a man and a woman, it necessitates that all men and all women all have similar if not identical personality traits. That's not true outside of children's literature.

I'm sure plenty of homosexual relationships are based on erotic friendship. I'm also sure plenty of hetrosexual relationships are. I'm sure many are based on convenience. I'm sure many are based on accepting the 'best of a bad situation'. I'm sure many are based on 'we must stay together for the children'. I'm sure many are based on fear. I'm sure many are based on mistaking lust for love. The fact is that they are all relationships between individuals.

You seem to think that the love between a man and a woman is the only way to attain happiness. Yet I'm sure you'll also agree that what I just listed are all valid reasons why people might be married and unhappy. You might say "Well this doesn't count, and that doesn't count, and that doesn't count," but all you would be doing is sifting out the facts you don't like to showcase the ones that fit your hypothesis.

What you would end up with is the statement "Relationships between a man and a woman are happy when they are happy" because you've discounted all the many occasions when they are not. Well guess what, you can do that with anything. "Relationships between a man and a man are happy when they are happy" if you discount all the times when they are not. "Relationships between a woman and a woman are happy" if you discount all the times when they are not.

You also say that a same sex relationship can never be as happy as one between a man and a woman. Again, sorry, but that is an extremely childish notion. Happiness isn't a binary. It's not 'happy' and 'not happy'. There are men who have been in relationships with women and men, and are happier with men. There are homosexual relationships which are happier than hetrosexual relationships (and vice versa, of course!). Looking at two happy homosexual people and saying "Oh but maybe they could be HAPPIER" is an empty statement. Nothing backs it up, you could say that about anyone and anything.

Maybe the man who also had relationships with women before realising he was gay was doing it wrong? Maybe he should abandon his current relationship and go back to trying with women until he stops doing it wrong? Or maybe he really is happier? There's crap homosexual relationships and great ones. There's crap hetrosexual relationships and great ones. That's life.

[dyrl]

Thanks for the detailed reply. Once again, if I don't quote something of your in a response it's because I agree or consider the issue settled - what I do quote are the bits and pieces where I'd like to pursue more discussion:

The entire argument you postulated relies entirely on an idealised view of what a 'man' and what a 'woman' is. That just doesn't exist in reality, and also has the knock-on effect that it states that if a man does not fit that criteria, and if a woman does not fit that criteria, they are somehow flawed or unfit to marry or be happy.

Exactly - I agree. My entire argument relies entirely on an idealized view of what a "man" and what a "woman" is.

You say it does not exist in reality. To the extent that humans are not perfect- I agree.

But there are humans who are closer to this ideal than others. They exist.

Does the fact that an ideal is not perfectly attainable therefore make the argument in favor of striving for this ideal invalid?

I don't think so.

I think people should be idealistic in how they live their lives because this is the only way to have meaningful, happy lives - striving for ideals to the best of our ability.

I would further argue that the number of people who fit this 'idealised man' and 'idealised woman' and have a loving relationship is actually shockingly small. This is the real world.

Again - I agree with you - or at least with the first sentence in the above quote. The number of people who fit this ideal is shockingly small - "shockingly" because it seems contrary to self-interest for people to willingly condemn themselves to unhappiness - but yes - the number is small.

I don't think I agree that "this is the real world," though. The Ideal is the only thing that is truly real. Everything else is just between being and not being; everything else is just "becoming" - and therefore it doesn't "realy" exist. The closer we are to the ideal - the closer we are to existance.

Fromm sounds a bit like he has an agenda to me. You can prove anything with enough words.

There is only one paragraph about homosexuality in the entire book that I cited written by Fromm. He did not think the subject interesting enough to warrant more than that apparently. You are right, though, that he had an agenda - as far as I can tell he wanted to understand the Art of Love as a kind of "techne" - something we can learn and in turn teach to others; something that is more than just whim or tradition.

If 'hetrosexual men fall in love with women with womanly qualities' as a blanket statement, then all men would go after the same women.

Well, at the risk of inserting humor into our conversation - not all women are womenly :-)

More seriously, what about men who have had sexual experiences with women and then decide they prefer men. Maybe they don't exist, because they've already experienced true happiness so why would they change? I mean, if there was even one person like that, that would destroy your argument completely wouldn't it?

Not really, because since we're speaking of ideal types then by definition all of us will keep falling short of those ideal types to some extent. And even if we manage to reach the peak of our vision of the ideal - by its' very nature - that peak will just allow us to better see the next mountain. Ideals have a way of growing more elaborate as we pursue them.

What about a man who has had a sex change operation and become a women. They would have female hormones, they may possess these 'virtues' of which you speak, they would have a vagina not a penis. Could they then marry a man and be happy? Or would they have to marry a woman to be happy?

I think this case would fit into what I earlier called the "Tragic view of homosexuality" - although I suppose you could argue whether this fellow is homosexual, or merely "transgender" - but whatever you call him, he/she would still be tragic.

Sorry, but there is so much faulty logic here. Are you saying that somehow a homosexual relationship is easier than a hetrosexual one? That a drunken fumble with the local floozy in a back alley is somehow noble and difficult, and yet a same sex relationship where the individuals may have to deal with the shame lumped on them by society, facing hatred and bigotry, the shunning of family and friends, is somehow the EASY option? That it's somehow less psychologically challenging? What?

This is a good example of the contemporary tendency to argue that since heterosexual relationships are more often than not very far off from ideal - therefore we have no right to critique homosexuality. But all of the vices you mentioned are not the ideals being strived for in a loving heterosexual relationship. They are vices.

The whole point of science and philosophy, by the way, is that it builds on what has gone before.

I think the point of science and philosophy is to search for truth. Sometimes that means building on what has gone before - sometimes it means overturning it or even going back to where someone started from.

In any event - I think I can't argue with most of the points you've made, as they are sound. I was (and am) indeed presenting an idealistic view.

Pete

[blueshift]

Jul 29, 2012 19:55:46 GMT dyrl said:

Exactly - I agree. My entire argument relies entirely on an idealized view of what a "man" and what a "woman" is.

You say it does not exist in reality. To the extent that humans are not perfect- I agree.

But there are humans who are closer to this ideal than others. They exist.

Does the fact that an ideal is not perfectly attainable therefore make the argument in favor of striving for this ideal invalid?

I don't think so.

No, it doesn't invalidate the idea that we should always strive to be better than we are. It does however completely invalidate your argument.

Your only argument for postulating that somehow same sex relationships are inferior to hetrosexual relationships is that there is an inherant quality in a relationship between a man and a woman that render it superior via the medium of increased happiness. That was your argument, wasn't it? That there is a quality in a man-woman relationship which means that the participants will be happier than same sex couples. Happiness was your benchmark.

HOWEVER now we have come to the conclusion that this argument is based on an idealised conception of man and woman, something which actually very few men and women match. It follows then, that this 'ultimate level of happiness' can only be found in a small number of male-female relationships. By that note, a lot of other male-female relationships will be unhappy.

Thus, there is not something intrinsic in ALL male-female relationships which result in them being happy.

For your argument to work then, even the worst male-female relationship needs to be happier than the happiest same sex relationship. Obviously that isn't the case and I'm sure you won't try to argue that. Your argument against same-sex relationship fails on the grounds that man-women relationships are automatically happier, by your own admission. People in a same sex relationship CAN be happier than people in a mixed sex one. It just depends on who the people are.

What about this 'ultimate' happiness then that you claim can be achieved via these idealised man-woman couples?

For a start, there's no scientific indicator of happiness. There's no way to measure consistently. There are many factors in a person's happiness, from their job to their wealth to their love to their family. And it changes from day to day, month to month, year to year. It's impossible to measure and compare.

Secondly, if this truth was self-evident, then it should be impossible that people would go from being hetrosexual to homosexual. In fact the opposite is true - a vast majority of gay people will have started out experimenting with hetrosexuality before realising it is not for them, simply because of societal pressure to conform and be hetrosexual. If there was some sort of inherant superiority in a relationship between a man and a woman, this wouldn't happen.

Thirdly, and this is the biggie, you're taking a conclusion, and then picking your evidence to support the conclusion, ignoring everything that refutes it. Some mixed sex relationships aren't happy? Well, they don't count. Men and women aren't all the same? Well I'm talking about ideals. The further you get from the real world, the less it becomes an argument against same sex relationships.

In fact, you're left with no argument at all. There's no inherant quality in a man and a woman which automatically makes that sort of relationship superior. If you go with the 'well it only works for idealised men and women' then all you've proven is that if a relationship between two people is well matched and loving, then they will be happy. It doesn't prove that it's intrinsic between men and women though since as you've stated, some people are close to this ideal, some aren't, and as such men might be close to one ideal, they might be close to the other. A person's virtues are not stored inside their sexual organs but in their minds.

Jul 29, 2012 19:55:46 GMT dyrl said:

There is only one paragraph about homosexuality in the entire book that I cited written by Fromm. He did not think the subject interesting enough to warrant more than that apparently. You are right, though, that he had an agenda - as far as I can tell he wanted to understand the Art of Love as a kind of "techne" - something we can learn and in turn teach to others; something that is more than just whim or tradition.

Well that was the centrepiece of your evidence about why same-sex relationships are bad, and if it was just one paragraph in one book, then I think you grossly misrepresented Fromm in your initial post about him where it seemed that it was the entire thrust.

Jul 29, 2012 19:55:46 GMT dyrl said:

This is a good example of the contemporary tendency to argue that since heterosexual relationships are more often than not very far off from ideal - therefore we have no right to critique homosexuality. But all of the vices you mentioned are not the ideals being strived for in a loving heterosexual relationship. They are vices.

Well yes Pete, but that was the crux of your argument, not mine. Your argument was that hetrosexuality was intrinsically superior to homosexuality by view of the virtues inherant in all men and women. Now you have admitted that isn't the case, that not all men and woman have these virtues, then the 'argument' implodes upon itself because it becomes self-evident that there is nothing in a hetrosexual relationship which is superior.

Jul 29, 2012 19:55:46 GMT dyrl said:

In any event - I think I can't argue with most of the points you've made, as they are sound. I was (and am) indeed presenting an idealistic view.

Well yes but you can't argue about real world issues with a view that is not based in the real world. If you want to go around telling homosexual people that their relationships are automatically inferior and that they will automatically be bad parents, then you'd better have something solid to back that up with.

[Bogatan]

I have nothing to add, but I started reading this thread then went to see The Blanks and heard them preform this.



Then listening to it on the album on the way home as a finished reading the thread.

[dyrl]

I think in the end the conversation boils down to this: is it possible to say anything important and true about human nature in general, and men and women in particular?

Reading Matt's arguments, I feel that in a sense, the cultural revolution and the homosexual liberation movement have done their work well: it is now impossible to have a logical discussion about human love because one must first prove that a squirrel is essentially different from a woman - and from a beard.

In the end, the only point I can agree on is that it is true that a small minority of people do insist that women and squirrels are different - and that loving a woman is superior to loving a squirrel.

EDIT: One last point on this subject -

The replacement of words like woman with "squirrel" or vanity with "ska-punk" suggests that these are "just words" and that there is no inherent, logical connection between any of them.

And here we get to the real problem with homosexuality - namely in order to justify tolerance for homosexuality - you have to undermine the entire basis of a viable moral philosophy.

Case in point - Thomas Jefferson once wrote against slavery that some men are not born horses to be ridden by other men.

According to Matt's argument - there is no essential difference between a woman and a squirrel - and thus we can also posit there is no essential difference between a horse and a man.

The logical result of this type of thinking is a justification for negro slavery.

The very same principle is at play here. Whenever you realitivize moral philosophy in one area - it will eventually, like a cancer, spread to other areas.
Pete

[blueshift]

Jul 30, 2012 7:11:26 GMT dyrl said:

I think in the end the conversation boils down to this: is it possible to say anything important and true about human nature in general, and men and women in particular?

Reading Matt's arguments, I feel that in a sense, the cultural revolution and the homosexual liberation movement have done their work well: it is now impossible to have a logical discussion about human love because one must first prove that a squirrel is essentially different from a woman - and from a beard.

In the end, the only point I can agree on is that it is true that a small minority of people do insist that women and squirrels are different - and that loving a woman is superior to loving a squirrel.

Pete

Well Pete, see, that is my point. It's trivial to be able to prove that a squirrel is different from a woman. It is self evident that a man-squirrel relationship is doomed because you can make evidenced generalisations about squirrels - for example a squirrel is a wild animal powered by natural base instincts, it cannot consent, and will more likely rip off your nuts.

You can't make the same generalisations between men and women. Yes, the sexes are different in many ways, and also similar. There is no hard dividing line, it is perfectly possible for a woman to possess all your 'manly' virtues and none of the feminine ones and vice versa. We are humans, our genetic and emotional complexity is almost infinitely diverse. It would be intellectually dishonest to try to pidgeonhole the genders as completely different and unique personality wise since that isn't what is observed in life.

If your argument was self-evident, then it should be trivial to prove that same sex relationships are inferior, in much the same way that it is trivial to prove that relationships with squirrels are bad, and beards do not bring happiness on their own. But it's not. The only way you can is by saying "they are inferior apart from when they're not, but those cases don't count." That's not an argument, that's just ignoring all the evidence that is against your own viewpoint. Again, intellectually dishonest.

If you have a theory about the real world which falls down because it doesn't work, the answer is that the theory is flawed, not that real life is flawed.

You can say that in some cases men and women are uniquely suited to attaining maximum happiness through union with each other. Well congratulations, you've just identified hetrosexuality. What's your point.

[dyrl]

it is perfectly possible for a woman to possess all your 'manly' virtues and none of the feminine ones and vice versa

I agree with you here - but you do realize you have just revealed the contradiction in your argument?

If (as we both agree), it is possible for women to have manly virtues and men to have "womanly" virtues - then it must first be possible to distinguish manly from womanly virtues.

Thus is must be possible to distinguish men from women in a spiritual or moral sense, not simply a biological one.

If your argument was self-evident, then it should be trivial to prove that same sex relationships are inferior, in much the same way that it is trivial to prove that relationships with squirrels are bad, and beards do not bring happiness on their own. But it's not.

Thomas Jefferson had the same problem when he argued that some men were not born horses to be ridden by other men. Apparently large swaths of the population believed that negros were indeed akin to horses or cows and not to men. This view later developed into the "positive good" theory of racism.

Part of the reason that moral proofs, no matter how logical, have little effect is because of human recalcitrance. People generally don't like discovering that their "lifestyle" is wrong. People especially don't like discovering that they are unhappy.

But the proof of a moral postulate has nothing to do with its' effectiveness. Humans have free will - they can choose to be immoral. In the best cases, they can strive to be moral, although by their very nature - human potential is boundless and therefore there is always some level to which we can better ourselves compared to how we are now.

If you have a theory about the real world which falls down because it doesn't work, the answer is that the theory is flawed, not that real life is flawed.

I agree to the extent that no moral theory can claim to be moral if the end result is Sysyphus - mankind forced to masochistically strive for an unattainable ideal.

But you are wrong that the theory doesn't work. It does. Everyone who tries love, friendship and family - really tries them - is happy.

Everyone who doesn't try them or fails to attain them by the misfortune of encountering bad people during the attempt is unhappy.

That a majority of people seem to be failing to attain this happiness in our modern society is due - I would argue - to the fact that our schools no longer teach right and wrong, and people are - as I mentioned in a previous post - morally confused.

You can say that in some cases men and women are uniquely suited to attaining maximum happiness through union with each other. Well congratulations, you've just identified hetrosexuality. What's your point.

The point is that we can therefore identify the opposite of this condition as homosexuality - and call it a physical or psychological burden that prevents the attainment of maximum happiness.

That's the whole point - not to put an equal sign between them, but to identify the one as natural and conducive to happiness, while the other is - at best - conducive to a lower form of happiness.

Pete

[Bogatan]

Pete, I've tried reading your responses but in the end everything you say seems pinned to the statement homosexuals are less happy than heterosexuals. As nothing you have written (to me at least) supports this opinion in anyway, nor does any of my own personal experiences, the discussion seems to be running in circles. As long as you believe it the rest of your views make sense, but if you dont it reads like someone arguing 2+2=6 because 1+3=6.

Personally I dont believe you can measure individual happiness in a way to support your position. Nor can you a group because that group wouldnt just be gay, there race, age, history, family and countless other factors to account for.

Anyway going back to something like the original topic, I wonder if the problem with civil partnerships is the lack of tradition, people like tradition, a little girl playing with dolls imagining a wedding is likely to still want that experience even if she grows up and realises she is gay. Sorry if that sounds like a horrible stereotype but I've seen younger family members doing exactly that.

Civil partnerships not only lack the traditions that make marriage an important event, it also sounds like meaningless corporate speak. Given time, say 100 years to develop traditions and history I can see it having equal status to marriage, even being more popular and I can imagine these current discussions seeming very foolish, but right now I can fully understand why homosexuals may feel as though they are being forced to choose an inferior ceremony/contract.

[blueshift]

Jul 30, 2012 9:30:18 GMT dyrl said:

it is perfectly possible for a woman to possess all your 'manly' virtues and none of the feminine ones and vice versa

I agree with you here - but you do realize you have just revealed the contradiction in your argument?

If (as we both agree), it is possible for women to have manly virtues and men to have "womanly" virtues - then it must first be possible to distinguish manly from womanly virtues.

Thus is must be possible to distinguish men from women in a spiritual or moral sense, not simply a biological one.

Actually it disproves your argument completely, sorry if I misled you there. I should have used inverted commas when talking about 'manly' and 'womanly' virtues.

You can't say that X is a manly virtue and then admit that some men have X and some don't, and some women have X and some don't. There's nothing inherant in X that links it to men. X is just a virtue.

Frankly I don't think there's any evidence at all that true happiness is only attainable if one partner has X virtue and the other has Y (life is far far more complicated than that) but even IF that is the case your arguments implode on themselves.

If you say that to be happy, one partner needs virtue X and the other virtue Y, and that sometimes men have these virtues sometimes they don't, and vice versa, then all you are saying is if one partner has X and one has Y (irrespective of sex, since as you yourself said "it is possible for women to have manly virtues and men to have womanly virtues") then that relationship will work and be happy. By your own logic therefore, a same sex relationship can be just as happy and valid, because what you say are 'manly' and 'womanly' virtues are not actually intrinsically linked to being a man or a woman.

I'm not saying I agree with this idea, but working within the boundaries of your own argument, it destroys itself completely.

Jul 30, 2012 9:30:18 GMT dyrl said:

Thomas Jefferson had the same problem when he argued that some men were not born horses to be ridden by other men. Apparently large swaths of the population believed that negros were indeed akin to horses or cows and not to men. This view later developed into the "positive good" theory of racism.

Part of the reason that moral proofs, no matter how logical, have little effect is because of human recalcitrance. People generally don't like discovering that their "lifestyle" is wrong. People especially don't like discovering that they are unhappy.

But the proof of a moral postulate has nothing to do with its' effectiveness. Humans have free will - they can choose to be immoral. In the best cases, they can strive to be moral, although by their very nature - human potential is boundless and therefore there is always some level to which we can better ourselves compared to how we are now.

I have absolutely no idea what's going on here. Are you saying that people can be bigoted despite all logical evidence to the contrary? That's not exactly an argument AGAINST same sex marriage is it? Just as it isn't an argument for racism, or sexism.

Or are you saying that homosexuality is wrong because it's 'wrong' and 'immoral' for the sole reason you think it is?

I honestly can't parse the above statement, sorry.

Jul 30, 2012 9:30:18 GMT dyrl said:

But you are wrong that the theory doesn't work. It does. Everyone who tries love, friendship and family - really tries them - is happy.

Everyone who doesn't try them or fails to attain them by the misfortune of encountering bad people during the attempt is unhappy.

Nowhere is this an argument against homosexuality. It is an argument for the virtues of love, friendship and family. Unless you're saying that homosexuals are incapable of love, friendship and family life, which is just an insane statement.

Jul 30, 2012 9:30:18 GMT dyrl said:

You can say that in some cases men and women are uniquely suited to attaining maximum happiness through union with each other. Well congratulations, you've just identified hetrosexuality. What's your point.

The point is that we can therefore identify the opposite of this condition as homosexuality - and call it a physical or psychological burden that prevents the attainment of maximum happiness.

That's the whole point - not to put an equal sign between them, but to identify the one as natural and conducive to happiness, while the other is - at best - conducive to a lower form of happiness.

Again no, that doesn't follow at all.

By the same logic you could say "Well these men are in a happy loving relationship THEREFORE the opposite of this condition, hetrosexuality, MUST be less happy."

By the same logic you could say "Well I really enjoy Coco Pops for breakfast, THEREFORE the opposite of Coco Pops, Rice Crispies, MUST be awful."

Yes that might sound flippant, but it's the same faulty logic. Just because one form of relationship is (in your mind, you've not presented any proof that has stood up) capable of great happiness does not automatically mean that everything else CAN'T. I mean, that's obvious, isn't it?

[dyrl]

I have absolutely no idea what's going on here. Are you saying that people can be bigoted despite all logical evidence to the contrary? That's not exactly an argument AGAINST same sex marriage is it? Just as it isn't an argument for racism, or sexism.

Or are you saying that homosexuality is wrong because it's 'wrong' and 'immoral' for the sole reason you think it is?

I honestly can't parse the above statement, sorry.

I guess part of the problem is that when Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, he was living in a culture where the political necessity for being brief coincided with the philosophical necessity for spelling out an argument in long, well reasoned treatises or dialogues.

Thus he could write "we hold these truths to be self-evident" and the people of his generation and a couple of generations in the future understood what it was this statement consolidated.

In modern times, people are - as I have noted several times - morally confused.

The best I can do is go back to recommending at least a reading of Fromm's book, although Allan Bloom's Love & Friendship would also be a good place to start.

Anyway going back to something like the original topic, I wonder if the problem with civil partnerships is the lack of tradition, people like tradition, a little girl playing with dolls imagining a wedding is likely to still want that experience even if she grows up and realises she is gay. Sorry if that sounds like a horrible stereotype but I've seen younger family members doing exactly that.

Civil partnerships not only lack the traditions that make marriage an important event, it also sounds like meaningless corporate speak. Given time, say 100 years to develop traditions and history I can see it having equal status to marriage, even being more popular and I can imagine these current discussions seeming very foolish, but right now I can fully understand why homosexuals may feel as though they are being forced to choose an inferior ceremony/contract.

Regarding the first paragraph:

Marriage, understood in the sense of a sacred union of a man and a woman, is not predominantly a ceremony, and part of the problem is that the hypothetical little girl in your example rarely, in modern society, grows up to be an intelligent young woman capable of recognizing what marriage really means. Thus we have so many women who sadly fall into bad marriages because they are so concerned with the form and not the content of the thing.

Of course, men are not better, since they usually see marriage as a road to sexual intercourse with women they are attracted to who happen to be chaste, or to some sort of status in society, to the acquisition of a poseession alongisde their car and so forth and so on - all bad reasons to get married based on a bad understanding of marriage.

It is irrelevent whether the little girl in the example grows up and discovers she is gay or not. Heterosexual girls unfortunately could wing up wanting to get married for pretty much the same (bad) reasons as the lesbian girl in your example.

That said - a lesbian couple can have a 'wedding' with all the formal settings, and even all of the same words as a heterosexual wedding - but it wouldn't really be a wedding then, would it?

Unless we define marriage to be anything we want it to be - for example a loving union of two people, rather than of a man and a woman.

As to the second point: People are sadly already forced into choosing a wedding they don't want - namely a civil marriage. It is illegal to marry someone in any church without also getting a civil wedding.

A Priest who performs a wedding and doesn't register it with the civil authorities can be jailed.

This forces religious people who don't want t the government intervening in their lives to have secret weddings or to have civil marriages against their will.

We should simply have laws on the books that honor contracts; and if someone wants to sign a civil contract with another person - that's their business. You can put whatever you want in it - visitation rights, inheretance rights - let people regulate these very personal matters on their own.

Meanwhile - let's not allow the state to make up legal definitions of what marriage is - because it will end up defining marriage as something we personally do not agree with.

Pete

[Mark_Stevenson]

My God. This is so utterly mind-blowing.

I'm toying with a million and one sarcastic responses here but none of them seem worth the effort. Some people just can't imagine that there's a whole world that exists entirely outside their tiny minds.

Matt, when we eventually meet I'm going to get you very, very drunk. You deserve it. That is a promise, my friend.

Mx

[Bogatan]

Jul 30, 2012 12:39:08 GMT dyrl said:

It is irrelevent whether the little girl in the example grows up and discovers she is gay or not. Heterosexual girls unfortunately could wing up wanting to get married for pretty much the same (bad) reasons as the lesbian girl in your example.

In my example the girl grew up and wanted to marry and have the full traditional wedding because she fell in love, which seems to be the best possible reason. She just happens to fall in love with another woman. But as I said as long as our views on the happiness of two people of the same sex being in love differ there really is no mutual ground.

Jul 30, 2012 12:39:08 GMT dyrl said:

Meanwhile - let's not allow the state to make up legal definitions of what marriage is - because it will end up defining marriage as something we personally do not agree with.

Pete

That would be the whole point of the thread I guess, people not being happy with the current definition and what if any changes should be made.

[Andy Turnbull]

I am locking the thread now.

It's fair to say Pete has his position which is out of step with the majority of the viewpoints here and further discussion on this is not going to be productive and as it has stayed civil, let's end it before it stops being that

Andy