Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Christenson

Whoops!!! Let's try that again:
I expect that Zeta-Flux joins everyone else on this forum in finding polygamists morally offensive.

I don't find people morally offensive. I also do not necessarily find their actions morally offensive even if I personally know I should never do them.

It's a serious point worth thinking about; in Z-flux's neck of the woods, it's only been this decade or so that being openly gay wasn't downright dangerous. Gays are just barely accepted as human.

In "my neck of the woods" humans are humans, regardless of their desires and choices, and have always been so. Those who harass or persecute others are looked down upon here by the significant majority of people.

Still, I think you'll find bullying everywhere, and I find that morally offensive.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

But that begs the question. If the worries are reasonable then it is rational to wait and see what happens in places where it is legal. It can be just as unjust to jump the gun.

I'm not sure it is a good idea for government to somehow require specific forms of "love" before it passes out marriage licenses. In fact, I'd be against such a change. Stating you will love one another should be enough.

Actually, that is a very good question, which a lot of social scientists have studied and are currently studying. It isn't an open and shut case. Children clearly do better when raised by their biological parents, for example. That's one reason why I'm opposed to all the new (and old) means people use to create children which they don't plan on raising.

And I find that a mistaken notion. "Gender roles" (in the broadest sense of the words) are central to humanity, and especially to the process of creating and nurturing young humans.

How can it be just to base law on what "might happen that's might be bad" while denying a group a freedom/privilege that everyone outside that group has now without question? The only reason I mentioned "forms of love" is because in the US there was a time when marriages of people who were not citizens to people who were citizens went without question. Now, however, they are all investigated to make sure it's not a marriage of convenience just to get a green card/citizenship. If you question that, you have to question all marriages for nefarious intentions to be fair.

As for people "creating children they have no intention of raising", I can agree on a man abandoning a pregnant woman, but a few of the others simply allow people who wouldn't be able to have their own children to be parents. For example, a method is now nearing fertility clinic use in a few years which will allow 2 men or 2 women to have their own biological children as a couple, but in the case of two men, they would still require a surrogate to carry the baby to term. It is done by converting and egg of one partner into a sperm for two women or a sperm into an egg for two men. This will effectively make that antigay argument moot as some bigots use it now.

As for gener roles, you can't confine people to them because some people will not fit them in any way. Forcing a boy or girl to do or say or play with certain things based on their gender is cruel as it creates a falsehood when the child doesn't want to do them or doesn't feel as if it is in them to be the "traditional" role. As long as the roles are fulfilled by the parents of the children, it shouldn't matter which parent performs which role, anatomy notwithstanding as a compulsory part you can't avoid yet. Saying, "It's always been done X way means it should always be done X way or has to be done X way or it's wrong" is backward thinking if used in more than very minor factual or procedural cases.

[Christenson]

The problem with a "wait and see" is that very real harm is being done to gay teenagers RIGHT NOW. See the article linked above about 1/4 of Massachusets teens with non-standard sexuality having no fixed address -- acceptance of gayness is a real problem, and allowing gay marriage addresses it in a symbolic way like nothing else. There's also a "public health" positive -- it encourages gay men (who are famous for gazillions of partners) to pick one and stick with it.

Just remember those anti-gay conservatives that kept getting found arrested for gay activities in inappropriate places a little while back....and then killing themselves. That speaks to the strength of the gayness...

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Christenson

The problem with a "wait and see" is that very real harm is being done to gay teenagers RIGHT NOW. See the article linked above about 1/4 of Massachusets teens with non-standard sexuality having no fixed address -- acceptance of gayness is a real problem, and allowing gay marriage addresses it in a symbolic way like nothing else. There's also a "public health" positive -- it encourages gay men (who are famous for gazillions of partners) to pick one and stick with it.

Just remember those anti-gay conservatives that kept getting found arrested for gay activities in inappropriate places a little while back....and then killing themselves. That speaks to the strength of the gayness...

I think I may have thought we were disagreeing when we weren't. I agree with what you say here. I guess I just misunderstood what you were talking about in the "wait and see" category.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

How can it be just to base law on what "might happen that's might be bad" while denying a group a freedom/privilege that everyone outside that group has now without question?

The answer is that I don't view it that way. In my opinion, the question is not about denying a group a freedom/privilege. The question is whether it is good/safe to create a new privilege (or extend our understanding of current privileges). Especially when those new freedoms/privileges can interfere with other freedoms.

The only reason I mentioned "forms of love" is because in the US there was a time when marriages of people who were not citizens to people who were citizens went without question. Now, however, they are all investigated to make sure it's not a marriage of convenience just to get a green card/citizenship. If you question that, you have to question all marriages for nefarious intentions to be fair.

Okay.

As for people "creating children they have no intention of raising", I can agree on a man abandoning a pregnant woman, but a few of the others simply allow people who wouldn't be able to have their own children to be parents.

And thus we have to balance the desires of those seeking to create children and the rights of the children thus created. I believe a child has a right to be raised by its biological parents in the ideal situation. We shouldn't try to circumvent the child's right to a father and a mother.

For example, a method is now nearing fertility clinic use in a few years which will allow 2 men or 2 women to have their own biological children as a couple, but in the case of two men, they would still require a surrogate to carry the baby to term. It is done by converting and egg of one partner into a sperm for two women or a sperm into an egg for two men. This will effectively make that antigay argument moot as some bigots use it now.

Ignoring the irrelevant and unnecessary accusation of "bigot", I think we humans should consider long and hard about making such changes to our creation of children.

As for gener roles, you can't confine people to them because some people will not fit them in any way. Forcing a boy or girl to do or say or play with certain things based on their gender is cruel as it creates a falsehood when the child doesn't want to do them or doesn't feel as if it is in them to be the "traditional" role

I'm not confining them. Biology is what biology is.

I did make it clear that by "roles" I was speaking broadly in terms of biological differences.

As long as the roles are fulfilled by the parents of the children, it shouldn't matter which parent performs which role, anatomy notwithstanding as a compulsory part you can't avoid yet. Saying, "It's always been done X way means it should always be done X way or has to be done X way or it's wrong" is backward thinking if used in more than very minor factual or procedural cases.

I disagree. Women have baby feeding organs, and men don't. There are other differences that naturally flow from our gender/sexual differences.

Anatomy is a large part of it. Ignoring the role of gender in our being is not rational. The roles of father and mother are not irrelevant, and there are a plethora of studies to back that up.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Christenson

The problem with a "wait and see" is that very real harm is being done to gay teenagers RIGHT NOW. See the article linked above about 1/4 of Massachusets teens with non-standard sexuality having no fixed address -- acceptance of gayness is a real problem, and allowing gay marriage addresses it in a symbolic way like nothing else. There's also a "public health" positive -- it encourages gay men (who are famous for gazillions of partners) to pick one and stick with it.

Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts. I'm not sure what you are saying...

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts. I'm not sure what you are saying...

Ah, there's another instance for which I'd appreciate your clarification and/or amplification.

Your statement is, on the face of it, undeniably true. Within the state of MA gay marriages performed under the laws of that state are recognized as legal.

However, what are your views? Do you regard gay couples who have undertaken a marriage ceremony in Massachusetts as married when they are located anywhere outside of MA?


Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I disagree. Women have baby feeding organs, and men don't.

Largely, but not entirely true.

A tiny minority of men can lactate naturally. A larger number are able to lactate after a simple hormone treatment. Some men take this treatment to enhance their bodily appearance (in their opinion, of course) rather than to feed children.

A significant minority of women are either unable to lactate or unable to produce enough milk to feed an infant. The use of wet nurses and bottle feeding in such cases goes back a very long time, certainly millenia and (IMO) probably longer.

For what it's worth, I bottle-fed my youngest brother --- he is 14 years younger than I am. I also took care of the other end on occasion, but that's another matter.


Paul

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by xilman

Ah, there's another instance for which I'd appreciate your clarification and/or amplification.

Your statement is, on the face of it, undeniably true. Within the state of MA gay marriages performed under the laws of that state are recognized as legal.

However, what are your views? Do you regard gay couples who have undertaken a marriage ceremony in Massachusetts as married when they are located anywhere outside of MA?


Paul

To be honest I hadn't given it much thought. I imagine I probably would use the same word (i.e. "marriage") for their legal status (which does vary from State to State), their personal view of whether they are married when they are located elsewhere (which may vary from one couple to the next), and my personal definition of marriage (as the union of a man and a woman).

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

The answer is that I don't view it that way. In my opinion, the question is not about denying a group a freedom/privilege. The question is whether it is good/safe to create a new privilege (or extend our understanding of current privileges). Especially when those new freedoms/privileges can interfere with other freedoms.

How can increasing freedom be bad when that freedom doesn't actually harm anyone in any real way that matters?

And thus we have to balance the desires of those seeking to create children and the rights of the children thus created. I believe a child has a right to be raised by its biological parents in the ideal situation. We shouldn't try to circumvent the child's right to a father and a mother.

I agree that it's the ideal situation, but I think when people talk about wanting the ideal, they often stop thinking in real world terms that the ideal can't always exist, so we have to do what's fastest and safest in each case for the child in question.

Ignoring the irrelevant and unnecessary accusation of "bigot", I think we humans should consider long and hard about making such changes to our creation of children.

That's what bioethicists are for now.

I'm not confining them. Biology is what biology is.

I did make it clear that by "roles" I was speaking broadly in terms of biological differences.

Biological differences are fine as long as you don't use the old reasoning of things like "Since women have the babies, they should stay home with them in every case".

I disagree. Women have baby feeding organs, and men don't. There are other differences that naturally flow from our gender/sexual differences.

Anatomy is a large part of it. Ignoring the role of gender in our being is not rational. The roles of father and mother are not irrelevant, and there are a plethora of studies to back that up.

Breast feeding is no longer what it used to be and it might be medicine's idea of "best" which fluctuates every few generations, but with formula and milk banks, that's one less reason to confine a role to women simply because of biology. Women are not always by nature the ones who should stay home with the children just because they are the ones who give birth. Ignoring it totally isn't rational, but relying on it as a standard that is never questioned is also irrational. The roles may not be irrelevant, but the idea of "This is what a father and mother do and nothing else" without respect to individual parents in a situation or their psychological makeup is dangerous.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by xilman

Largely, but not entirely true.

A tiny minority of men can lactate naturally. A larger number are able to lactate after a simple hormone treatment. Some men take this treatment to enhance their bodily appearance (in their opinion, of course) rather than to feed children.

A significant minority of women are either unable to lactate or unable to produce enough milk to feed an infant. The use of wet nurses and bottle feeding in such cases goes back a very long time, certainly millenia and (IMO) probably longer.

For what it's worth, I bottle-fed my youngest brother --- he is 14 years younger than I am. I also took care of the other end on occasion, but that's another matter.


Paul

Thank you Paul. I'm glad someone besides me knows these things.