Job Discussion Forums

scot47 · Joined: 10 Jan 2003 Posts: 15343

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

reflects some of my own thoughts on this troublimng field.

johnslat · Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 1:18 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 1:31 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 2:13 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 6:31 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 6:54 pm Post subject:

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.
Very Happy

Regards,
John

Sashadroogie · Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 6:39 am Post subject:

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 · Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 632

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 · Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 8:41 am Post subject:

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 · Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 632

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 Smile

but what about gay sex? I believe that it is much more likely that both get their jollies Smile