Homosexuality and Social Policy

by Perry 42 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Perry

  Excellent comments everyone. I realy was surprised to get so many well informed comments!

  But, I can see where this is going .....great comments and few policy stands. Maybe some feel the issue to be too controversial or is just too private to state a policy stand publically. I can understand that. I appreciate the ones that felt comfortable enough to take one though.

  What I can't understand is how we were taught that if we just do nothing, think nothing, and question nothing everything will be all right. Jehovah will simply take care of you. We have all seen sometimes tragically how we were "taken care of". That attitude has no place in a democracy.

  So, I'll put my money where my mouth is and fess up to a poilcy I would support. I would probally choose stand (C). Here's why.

  First of all this is a democracy. Something that you won't hear on TV is that democracy demands that their be winners AND losers. What! Losers in a democracy? Yes, that is the nasty underbelly of democracy. The best we can do is try to make the winners more sensitive and responsible to the losers and cap the winners somewhat, and then try to lessen the harsher effects to the losers. But the stark truth is everybody cannot win. Anybody who tells you different is selling something.

  I would say that every possible individual right of the gay person should be protected, civil rights, job discrimination of any kind(even in schools), military status, health care, etc. But because homosexuality most likely can be socialized in many cases, society should fall short of equal staus in the case of gay marriages, because it sends the message that it is an equal ideal in society to that of hetereo marriage.

  The reason is that the majority of parents would like their children to grow up into hetero relationships, believing that to be the ideal for thier children and for society. However, if a child turns out to be gay, you can bet the most conservative parent will start to bear their teeth if their baby is discriminated against.

  If we truly believe in democracy, the the bar must be very high in order to overturn the will of the majority. The alternative?; outright socialism or cultural marxism.

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 

  gravedancer

  Celibacy is hereditary too.
• 

  Abaddon

  Perry; "Equality is not absolute and is often used as a marketing word"

  Do you mean equal in rights (as per Universal Declaration of Human Rights), or abilities?

  If the latter, I agree with your statement.

  I don't think I'd have used your example.

  We're talking about consensual sex here, no matter what the mix of genders is, thus my assertion that creating any differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is a flagrant denial of equality (of rights).

  The reason that the age of consent is set as it is (with regional variations) around 16, is that this is the 'best guess' age of someone being mature enough to have consensual sex, as in wanting to AND knowing what it 'means'.

  Paedophiles wanting the age of consent lowered are wanting people who most agree are NOT capable of having consensual sex moved above the age of consent so they can have sex with them, and I see no link with that and homosexuality - not that you were making that link in an derogatory fashion.

  But just because there's reasonable evidence that homosexuality is partially inheritable, and some evidence that some paedophiles may have some inherited trait does not mean they're good examples to use because of the chasm of consensuality between them.

  You go for option c "Protect every individual right of the gay person but fall short of equating the gay relationship as an equal societal ideal to that of married heteosexuals? (constitutional/legal interpretation."

  I personally think society doesn't have a business setting 'societal ideals'. It's indivduals who have personal ideals that form, through their communaility with other indivduals, societal ideals. Being told on a constitutional/legal basis that your fifty year long relationship with another man is not the societal ideal is irrelevant and insulting. If it has to be written in a law book it's probably not that obviously true. I also disagree that " homosexuality most likely can be socialized in many cases", but thanks for starting an enjoyable thread.

  Frenchy; The reason I don't think ;'normal' is a helpful word is that the kid who walks funny gets told 'he's not normal'. The black kid in a white neighbourhood gets told they're not normal. In issues of differences bewteen humans, normal is too often used to mean right - not that you did it yourself, but it does happen.

  Using the word natural defuses this pointless semantical feedback loop.

  As regards some nasty things being natural; well yes, nature is a wonderful cold machine. But to list "Incest... Killing for sport... Infanticide... Cannibalism... robbery... suicide..." is missing the point that a homosexual relationship doesn't intrinsically cause harm to those in it, whereas most of your example do intrinsically result in harm.

  John; nice to see you here again. You phrased that beautifully, and your point about the non-gay twin in the study possibly conforming to the societal montype is very good.

  joel; I agree with you in the most part - in fact, I've not used the word marriage because your point about creating "specific legal mechanisms that track with our relationship needs". However, in an instance where a gay couple were having children and raising them, there should be no differentiation (in rights, what you call it is a moot point that doesn't bother me (for once)), as if there were if would only be based on the gender make-up of the relationship, not on the function and result of the relationship.
• 

  joelbear

  Frenchy,

  I mostly agree with your points except for your use of the term normal. I would say that homosexual unions are instead in opposition to established social norms. This is changing but I think they are clearly still not "the norm".

  I think that the constitution provides equal protection to all US citizens. Therefore, if I have a domestic relationship that I happen to share with someone of the same sex, I should be able to build that relationship similarly to that of an opposite sex couple.

  I have no interest in mimicking anyone.

  Joel
• 

  tyydyy

  Wow!

  I love the issue but who can stand to read all the statistics and studies done by biased groups?

  I am of the opinion that if you go down to the courthouse and apply for a marraige liscense gender should not be on the application. If someone chooses to make someone of the same gender a mate then what right does the government/majority have to say about it?

  I say, Who cares why someone is gay? Who cares if their brother or sister is gay? All that matters is this person chooses this lifestyle to be happy and it doesn't interfere with the liberty and happiness of others.

  TimB
• 

  funkyderek

  I think marriage is outdated. I think any pair (or larger group) of individuals should be able to enter into any sort of contract with each other, regarding their behaviour and finances if they so wish. Doing so should not give them any rights they do not possess as individuals, nor should it detract from their rights as individuals.

  --
  "Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." -Robert A. Heinlein
• 

  Abaddon

  "All that matters is this person chooses this lifestyle to be happy and it doesn't interfere with the liberty and happiness of others."

  Exactly tyydyy. I don't give a monkey's really as long as that's held to. I wouldn't care if only human beings showed homosexual behaviour either, as it's right because it's non-harmful to others and consensual, not because of any other reason.

  I just have this compulsive desire to batter anyone who doesn't believe anything quite so fundamentally obvious over the head with handy statistics hoping that something will filter through.
• 

  2SYN

  What I'd like to know is, why are people even bothering to discuss this? I long for the day when it will be so normal that it won't even be noticed.

  
  "...the greater will be the beneficial effect, because you get more of the ultra-violet rays, which are healing" - The Golden Age
  [SYN], UADA - Unseen Apostate Directorate of Africa.
• 

  Perry

  Ok, why must I continue to post on this thread? Guess I'm just a glutton for punishment. :-)

  And by the way, I curse all "three" of the conservative posters on this board who value tradional family values for not helping me out here!

  Just kidding! You guys make VERY good arguments for the rights of the individual. And, since you sincerely believe that to be the best course, no one will condemn you for not argueing the side of the opposition. But, I'd like to point out a couple things.

  So what you are saying is that you personally don't mind your children growing up in a world where there are same sex marriages as well as opposite sex marriages? Right? And as a result of society placing a stamp of authenticity on same sex marriages you will have no problem with your child who might otherwise be hetero, becomming homo just because it may be fashionable?

  So, your sixteen year old daughter tells you one day that guys are jerks and that one of her teachers says, well maybe you are really gay and don't know it. So, she tells you that she's going to start looking for girls to date to compare.

  Instead of encouraging her to look for certain qualities in guys that are generally not popular in the teen world like stability, delayed gratification, long term goals, and thereby sharpen her perception powers.... you'll just say, "sure honey, check it out...ya never know". What if you do say that and she accuses you of just being old fashioned, because homosexuality is common for enlightened people, hell every body is doing it Dad!

  So instead of understanding that her companionship choices make a huge impact on the quality of her relationships, she just chooses the societal norms instead as an easier path. You'll be comfortable with that?

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 

  Perry

  I think marriage is outdated. I think any pair (or larger group) of individuals should be able to enter into any sort of contract with each other, regarding their behaviour and finances if they so wish.

  I took a course on Family once that stated that the nature of family is changing. No one ever bothered to determine if it was for the good or not. Everything the professor stated was unchallenged and accepted as verified gospel by the students ( who were about 8 to 10 years younger than me.)

  I kept silent but was really steamed at her agenda. It reached a blowing point when she listed the new criteria for determining what constituted a family. keep in mind that these definitions determine where our tax dollars go. Here was the list:

  1. The pair or group share the same residence.
  2. They share resources (money)
  3. They rely upon each other emotionally
  4. They negoiate domestic responsibilities
  5. They share a long term commitment

  She stated that if they shared these commonalities then society (yours and my tax dollars) should support their plight. Meaning welfare, tax credits etc.

  When I pointed out that her criteria described to a tee a modern day crime gang of a cult, she simply said that I had a good point and moved on to te next discussion.

  So in response to your statement, I have no problem with anyone entering into any contract with anyone else....get an attorney and draw it up. But, don't ask me to spend my tax dollars to support an agenda that the majority of citizens consider to be outside the area of social sanction.

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America