Again, everyone makes excellent observations. And if you read my posts carefully what I am really drawing attention too is how individual rights and democratic principles sometimes clash. It is definitely not about gay people per se.
So far this discussion has gone far better than I expected. It would have been easy for each side to label the other with names like "homophobe" or "Are you sure you are not gay?" I've seen it turn out that way, and while much more sensational in the tradition of Jerry Springer, the real issues just get buried. Thanks for everyone staying focused.
Just a short footnote before my rebuttal. I work in an industry where ther are lots of gays. The educational level is very high among those in the field regardless of sexual orientation. As, a result I have several gay friends. We share many commonalities and enjoy each others company a great deal. They have shared some of the struggles in the gay world we me and I'm glad they felt comfortable enough with me to share. I have shared similar struggles in the hetero world with them since I'm single. It's amusing because neither of us wishes to be in the other's shoes. Another gay friend I've had for many years drove several hundred miles to visit several months ago and we had a blast. That, with a background in sociology, has I believe, made me at least as aware of gay issues as the average American and possibly more. The comments indicating that for many, is not an easy lifestyle is an understatement.
But, for those that wonder why this discussion is even brought up; it is because of its complexity, controversialness, genetic implications, social implications, and individual rights vs. rights of the majority. Personally, I have no agenda other than examining how something as complex as this as well as other tough questions plays out in a democracy.
I wrote:
When I pointed out that her criteria described to a tee a modern day crime gang or a cult
tyydyy responded:
Sorry I can't agree with you there Perry. I've never heard of a cult that was made up of 2 people.
Tyydyy, agreed. My critique was on the professor's characterization of what constitutes a family, and that criteria was directly related to social policy formation. Social policies dictate what we support as a society in terms of education, welfare policy and other tax considerations. Her criteria fits a variety of circumstances including those of a crime gang family and some cults. I only make such outlandish connections because the criteria will definitely be exploited by others it was not intended for once it becomes the basis for such social sanction. You are welcome to revise the criteria and see if it might be a better fit. I presented this as an example of what is now presented as fact in many universities.
I wrote:
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.
tyydyy responded:
No one is asking you to spend your tax dollars on a social agenda. Only that you don't discriminate, with tax dollars, against people just because of your religious views.
In a nut shell, this statement is the core issue here. Should the majority be forced to pay for the social policies of a minority. If so, why have a democracy? Why not just socialism?
I do take issue with your characterzation of the traditional family structure as religious. That would be like someone saying that you were un-american if you were a draft dodger during vietnam. Acting on higher principles is neither religious nor un-american. Such characterizations are meaningless to the higher principles involved.
Many people believe the traditional family to be the ideal for strong character building and happiness. It is simply a widely held opinion regardless of religious affiliations or lack thereof.
My question to you is: what criteria would you use define a family?
Abaddon wrote:
This is where you lose me Perry. For a start, you quoted a survey and left out the most important bit - that the twins studied had been raised seperately. This means that 'fashion' and 'environment' alone are not the sole factors influencing a persons sexuality, as at least 42% (53%-11%) of it is physiological/in-built psychological factors.
Not true Abaddon. Read it again. The fact that they were separated at birth was THE reason I brought it up. I plainly stated that fact immediately. You are only drawing attention to the genetic linkage and not the social one. To be fair, both must enter into the debate.
We do have an example from the historical record that applies somewhat loosely to this discussion. The ancient city/state of Sparta in the Grecian world stamped homosexual unions as a societal norm. Most aspects of the "family" were taken over by the state. Boys were socialized into homosexuality primarily for military purposes. Leaders believed that homosexual warriors to be superior in battle while fighting side by side with their lover. After a few years in homosexual relationships with an older man and when the socialization process was complete, a young man would have naked girls paraded in front of them for the purpose of chooosing a "wife". The purpose was so that the society would't die out from lack of procreation. The "wife" took care of the "home" while the young man continued to live in the barracks. He "visited" her occasionally and would produce childrren. The state provided for the care of the "wife" and children".
Now, let's not draw wild and crazy assumptions and illogical parralles here. The only point this piece of history illustrates is that society can and has in the past drastically impacted the sexual orientation of its citizens.
So you saying that "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", is, to be blunt, rubbish.People will not, except in a vanishingly small number of cases, become gay just because society sanctions gay relationships.
How can it be "rubbish" when it is entirely possible and some would say likely that over time society transforms and molds its future generations?
Now, if we were talking about a particular race, the handicapped, or mentally challenged being denied full social authenticness in marriage, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Those minorities are clearly 100% of the time free from their characterizations being due to socialization aren't they?
Likewise, if it could be demonstrated that homosexuality is due 100% of the time to genetics, then I'd say the will of the majority needs to butt out and not indicate what is an ideal or not. In the absence of such compelling evidence, it is not only the right but the democratic responsibility for society to state what it believes to be its ideals. Will individual "rights" be slighted at times. You betcha. Such is the nature of democracy. Socialism may be a better model for your position, but then much of our individual say in government will be lost.
SYN; you ask why talk about it? I agree. I think it's obvious. But does that mean I should shut-up when someone who thinks contrary to that states their opinion? They're entitled to their opinion, as I am to addressing it.
Now, I'm laughing. The beautiful thing about democracy and a post JW life IS that your opinion DOES matter. I never knew how precious that gift was while a JW. I do now. Furthermore, If all we ever did was discuss things with people who agree with us.... how much fun would that be? How would we grow in our reasoning powers? How would we avoid "group think"? How would we keep our leaders honest if not for rigorous debate?
Do we really want to live in a world where dissenting opinion is simply laughed at by the majority? My conservative views are certainly the vast minority on this board. To simply laugh them away without examining the basis is tantamount to how we were treated as a non persona in the WBTS. I can't believe anyone here would really want that.
While some sensationalism has entered into the discussion, (Abaddon, I know you can't help it) I believe that the various issues have been fairly covered for the most part. My challenge still stands though. Proof that homosexuality is 100% genetic is the only way to totally take the issue away from the democtatic process. I will be the first to lead the discrimination charge in the issue of gay marriage if that can be proven.
Again, the issue here is balancing individual rights with the will of the majority in a democracy. It is not about homosexuality per se. It is just an example. The clash betweeen political ideologies is fundamental to the lifestyles we create for ourselves and our children.
This clash of "rights" between the individual and a democracy expresses itself in many other ways. I will bring up another issue shortly in another thread that will amplify these political ideological collisions even more.
I thank everyone for a most enjoyable discussion and the scholarly comments.
UADNA-TX
Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
