Job Discussion Forums

[scot47]

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13518/

reflects some of my own thoughts on this troublimng field.

[johnslat]

Dear scot47,

Just a few questions:

1. Do you think that "being gay" is a matter of choice?

(If the answer is "Yes", no further discussion is possible - but one further question is: Do you recall choosing to be "straight?")

2. If you think sexual preference is, indeed, innate rather than "chosen," why should "gay people" be denied the civil rights of matrimony that are granted to "straight" people?

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

I think the writer of the article that Scot linked to is more disturbed by the stifling of any possibility of debate, much more than the substantive issues themselves. I can see his point.

[johnslat]

Dear Sasha,

If you think "the possibility of "debate" is being "stifled," perhaps you have missed some of these news stories:

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&rlz=&q=French+anti-gay+marriage+protests

http://www.euronews.com/nocomment/2013/03/27/pro-and-anti-gay-marriage-protests-in-washington/

http://thecabin.net/social-media/2013-03-28/arkansas-house-oks-anti-gay-marriage-resolution#.UY0C6xyCihU

The writer of the article certainly doesn't seem too "stifled" - and I invite debate on my last post.

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

Dear Johnslat

Yes, but how much the debate that has gone really mattered? When and where has this really been discussed at high levels? There is now no space for dissent without being tarred as a reactionary bigot.

French protests on the street: mainly due to the lack of public consultation. Where has there really been a public vote on this issue? Far fewer than have had legislation passed above the people's heads. It all seems to be quite forced.

Public opinion may have been easily swayed with regular low-level background propaganda in the form of TV shows and films, so it is a shame that they weren't even given the chance to show how they would have agreed, after their cultural enlightenment.

In any case, I think the article's most important point is that most people do not care either way about marriage as an institution any more. As an idea, it is dying in the western world. This legislation is merely its death-knell.

[johnslat]

Dear Sasha,

Just out of curiosity, do you recall your making the conscious decision to be "straight?"

I don't recall my doing so - but then, I'm a geezer, and the old noodle - well, you know.


Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

Dear Johnslat

How can you be so sure that I am, in the first place? Tsk tsk, such assumptions! And even so, what relevance does this personalisation have to the topic? Hee hee!

However, if you want to argue that 'innateness' justifies changing laws, then I'd be wary of an argument like that. Not so long ago homosexuality was a crime in most countries in the western world. This was so for centuries. More recently, psychologists believed it to be a disease. Now that it has been decriminalised, seemingly on the basis that psychologists no longer regard it as an affliction, but a naturally occurring innate state, what other things which we regard as crimes today will be decriminalised in future? Do kleptomaniacs choose to steal, or is it an innate, natural compulsion? Do violent hooligans choose to be violent, or are they hostage to their genetic makeup? Drunk drivers - do they really choose to get into such a state before getting into a car?

The state usually puts on its heavy boots and stomps over various other social behaviour that could be argued to be innate - multiple marriage partners for starters. But where is the outcry for the denial of this civil right? Age of consent - why eighteen years of age in most jurisdictions when it is natural for people younger than that to feel attraction to each other and even to some a little older? Blood tests for marriage? For public health? Sounds like discrimination against people who are genetically predisposed to contract various unfortunate diseases. I doubt they chose to contract them.

If I am wrong in denying that 'innateness' is a justification for changing the law, then I'd like to request that the law concerning drinking while teaching be appealed too. Other teachers are allowed to smoke during their breaks, after all...

Regards

Hic! Sasha

[sparks]

Of course laws are plentiful and many times their justification is dubious. To I would guess it has something to do with harming others. I suppose you could say that many of the things you mentioned may harm others if made illegal, stealing, drunk-driving etc. I think this guy has a nice view on homophobia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb-JZSyhWSc

[Sashadroogie]

The victimless crime argument is an interesting one. But again, that can be extended beyond reason too. Where is the victim if siblings or cousins marry? So why is it a crime? Multiple wives - victims? How?

[sparks]

Yes, that's why each case must be carefully considered, if you can find a victim, then you may have a leg to stand on. I don't really think it is quite possible to clearly define what is innate and what is learned, (violence, greed?) many studies, universal agreement? Always finding a victim may also pose difficulties. The woman is usually the "loser" in straight sex, (unless we've got a bunch of studs on here but what about gay sex? I believe that it is much more likely that both get their jollies

[johnslat]

Dear Sasha,

Where is the victim? The children may well be victims:

"I never really understood what happens if you are inbred. I know it means your parents are closely related, but does having closely related parents mess with your DNA?



-A high school student from Michigan

September 21, 2012

That is an interesting question with an equally interesting answer! Having closely related parents doesn�t exactly �mess with your DNA�, as you put it. But it does mean that you have less diversity, or variety, in your DNA. And diversity can be very important to your health.

Less variety in your DNA can increase your chances for getting rare genetic diseases. You may have heard of some of these diseases: albinism, cystic fibrosis, hemophilia and so on.

Less variety in your DNA can also make you unhealthy in another way � it can weaken your immune system so you can�t fight off diseases as well. You can end up a very sickly person!

Now of course inbreeding doesn�t mean you will definitely get a genetic disease or wind up sickly. You are just more likely to have health problems. And the more inbreeding, the greater the risk.

So inbreeding doesn�t actually make your DNA change in any way. Instead, inbreeding is risky because it means the DNA from your mom and your dad is similar. And as you�ll see below, when these similar parts come together in their child, this child can end up with problems."

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/genetics-inbreeding


Of course, this isn't something that gay married couples would have to worry about

If all men are brothers, would you want your sister to marry one?

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

Dear Johnslat

I thought the new thinking denied that marriage was a union for the procreation of children? Just like gay couples, siblings could adopt, or have a third person be a surrogate. No victim offspring then. No DNA games.

So, should we repeal the ban on close family members marrying, and end all the discrimination against those who wish to marry?


Regards

Sasha

[johnslat]

Dear Sasha,

Same-sex couples can't procreate - (most) siblings could. So, would you have them sign an agreement that they wouldn't?

Losta luck with that, amigo .


Regards,
John

[HLJHLJ]

Very few countries have laws restricting marriage between cousins. The additional risks to offspring are very small. In the western world I think it's only the USA that forbids it and then not in all states. There are certainly no restrictions in the UK.

Despite the genetic risks, incestuous relationships between consenting adults are not illegal, or at least not prosecuted, in many countries, especially in Europe. However, it's still illegal in the UK and also includes step relatives.

Edited to clarify re: consenting adults

[Sashadroogie]

Dear Johnslat

But you are ignoring the principle. Why should there be a law to prevent siblings marrying? It is surely as much of violation of human rights as anything else discussed here, don't you think?


Regards

Sasha