Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

From what I have gathered from your recent posts, your position is that it is (morally) wrong to deny the expression of someone's "true nature".

Yes, I do indeed believe that. But I also believe that governments should do their utmost to ensure that families, especially those bringing up children, have as much support as possible in their struggle to remain stable environments. And I think policy on this issue should base itself on human nature as it is, and not on some flimsy edifice of mythology about how human nature ought to be.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by wblipp

I have seen it argued that the extensive promiscuity in certain male homosexual communities (think gay bath houses) is a societal negative that can be partially mitigated through supporting homosexual marriage, providing societal support for stable long term relationship.

Similarly with the extensive promiscuity in certain straight communities (think brothels) that can be partially mitigated by supporting marriage in general.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Yes, I do indeed believe that. But I also believe that governments should do their utmost to ensure that families, especially those bringing up children, have as much support as possible in their struggle to remain stable environments. And I think policy on this issue should base itself on human nature as it is, and not on some flimsy edifice of mythology about how human nature ought to be.

I believe that too.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by wblipp

Interesting. I have seen it argued that the extensive promiscuity in certain male homosexual communities (think gay bath houses) is a societal negative that can be partially mitigated through supporting homosexual marriage, providing societal support for stable long term relationship. I suppose that every change has its positives and negatives that must be weighed, and that proponents of particular views are often motivated to articulate only one side.

True. Even "no-fault divorce" has its positives.

[Brian-E]

A federal judge has demolished the arguments of the lawyers acting for the governor of the state of Kentucky in a particularly withering fashion, striking down the state's ban on same sex marriage (though staying his ruling).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ucky/11903703/

In Tuesday's ruling in favor of two Louisville couples, [Judge] Heyburn rejected the only justification that lawyers for Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear had offered — that traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate and the state's long-term economic stability.
"These arguments are not those of serious people," he said.

Needless to say, I agree with the judge, but I'm also quite surprised by the ridiculing tone of his judgment.

Does anyone here think that the Kentucky lawyers' argument that same sex marriage threatens the birth rate in the state has any merit?

[chappy]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Does anyone here think that the Kentucky lawyers' argument that same sex marriage threatens the birth rate in the state has any merit?

Merit? maybe. I would guess expanding equal rights to another 3-10% of the population would be a rather small part of the reasons for a declining birthrate. Especially given the fact that most of the people we are talking about probably aren't going to have children, they just aren't going to be married.

It's also unclear whether a declining birthrate is a bad thing. We aren't in the position of needing Kindergeld anywhere in the US as far as I know.

We have a slightly below stable birthrate at the moment. That's not a bad thing, in my opinion.

It's hard to see any justification in the economic argument. Does this state lawyer make the claim that gay people don't contribute to the economy? Or that suddenly having gay marriage will cause a drop in economic growth? I'll have to look this up later when I'm less drunk.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Needless to say, I agree with the judge, but I'm also quite surprised by the ridiculing tone of his judgment.

Perhaps if this had been only the first or second time that same-sex marriage opponents had introduced such an argument into a federal court case, the judge would have simply delivered a even-toned judgement. But this argument had already been introduced -- and failed -- in many other federal cases.

Judges tire of plaintiffs who raise unfounded legal arguments that have already been repeatedly refuted in similar cases, and try to discourage future plaintiffs and their attorneys from raising the same refuted arguments in future cases. Judges don't like cases with no merit that clog their court schedules.

Does anyone here think that the Kentucky lawyers' argument that same sex marriage threatens the birth rate in the state has any merit?

(* snort *) It's already been repeatedly refuted in other federal courts.

[Brian-E]

Here is an interview with Yvette Cantu Schneider who was active in the Ex-Gay movement for 14 years, campaigning against recognition and equality for LGBT people, but is now the latest in a series of such figures to apologise for her previous activism and renounce it. It is quite a lengthy interview, but also suitable for "dipping in" rather than necessarily reading from start to finish, because it was conducted over an extended period, partly on social media. I find it a fascinating insight into the workings of conservative Christian groups in the USA from a former insider.

https://www.glaad.org/blog/qa-former...-was-not-still

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Here is an interview with Yvette Cantu Schneider who was active in the Ex-Gay movement for 14 years, campaigning against recognition and equality for LGBT people, but is now the latest in a series of such figures to apologise for her previous activism and renounce it. It is quite a lengthy interview, but also suitable for "dipping in" rather than necessarily reading from start to finish, because it was conducted over an extended period, partly on social media. I find it a fascinating insight into the workings of conservative Christian groups in the USA from a former insider.

Care to give the "Reader's Digest" version?

Please explain why we should care.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Care to give the "Reader's Digest" version?

Please explain why we should care.

You don't have to care, of course.

I recommended "dipping in" rather than reading from start to finish, and that gives a good impression with this particular interview.

But the reason I care about the slow demise of the "ex-gay" movement is that it is horrifyingly damaging to many people. The movement basically asserts that homosexuality is "curable", and that people who are lesbian or gay can, and should, go into "therapy" which will enable them to love someone of the opposite sex and form a traditional mum, dad, kids family. The "science" behind it is bogus, discredited, and it survives mostly by feeding off religious beliefs. It is not only bogus though: it is destructive. Devastating. Both to the "ex-gay" people it purports to "cure", and of course to their subsequent opposite sex partners and families. The destruction rears its head in the subsequent years when the man or woman concerned starts to realise that the "cure" has not worked.

Even worse than the above scenario is when a young person, a teenager for example, is referred to this "therapy" by his or her parents (rather than taking their own initiative). The psychological damage which can be caused is horrifying.

In recent years we have seen several high profile people in the ex-gay movement realising themselves that they are still lesbian or gay. John Paulk was a high profile example: he was the pin-up boy of the movement for a number of years, wrote books about it with his wife Anne (who is also "ex-gay"), then suffered an incident in which he was spotted in a gay bar, and then some years after that "came out" as "ex-ex-gay", divorcing his wife and apologising for all the damage he had caused. (His ex-wife continues with her ex-gay campaigning nevertheless.) A more recent, just as high-profile, case was Alan Chambers who was the CEO of Exodus, one of the main ex-gay organisations. He disbanded his company saying that "gay cure therapy" doesn't work.

Now we have Yvette Schneider. She came out as a lesbian in 1987, became "ex-gay" in later years and was prominent in all sorts of anti-gay campaigning in past years, but has now denounced what she stood for. Her interview is the one I linked to and I find it very revealing of the circles in which she moved and how they operate.

All of this does the damage to the "ex-gay" movement which I believe it deserves. And that's why I care.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

And that's why I care.

Thank you for sharing. Sincerely.

To share, my ex-wife claimed she was a lesbian before our wedding. But she never brought a woman (or even a man) back home.

Can you say "Bait and Switch" boys and girls?