This has elicited apoplectic responses from marriage neutering advocates, who regularly express outrage that homosexual behavior would be compared to consensual incest. They do this even when the comments do not equate homosexuality and incest, but rather, as Department's paper did, the comments simply note that states are allowed, as established in precendents, to have certain restrictions on marriage licensing and recognizing marriages created in other jurisdictions.
It is no more equating homosexuality with incest than we equate a person's dislike of broccoli with the same person's allergy to peanuts. The point is that neither will be eaten, even if it is for different reasons.
[Much more below the fold; make the jump if you want to read it.]
But in their condemnations of citing the inability of an uncle and niece to have their marriage recognized by a state, most marriage neutering activists assume or outright declare that incest is wrong or harmful and should not be allowed or sanctioned.My question is – why?
Keep in mind, I'm talking about consenting adults, not molestation or rape. As an example, take this case, where this man's adult daughter evidently not only had intercourse with him, but posed nude for him for pictures featured on his business website, and got a tattoo celebrating her status as his girl. Arguing that incest is sickening takes the same approach that many have taken towards homosexual behavior – they find it personally repugnant. The same goes for the argument "it is illegal". And don't bother to cite religious doctrines or traditions, or what is best for society. We can't stand in the way of love or attraction, after all, and we must treat all couples equally. Yes, the Smiths were, according to police, involved in other crimes, but I'm sure that is mere coincidence, or that they wouldn't have been doing those other crimes if society would have been more affirming of their love.
Some may try to argue that homosexuality is their genetic mandate – that they were born with that orientation and the same isn't true when it comes to incest. However, there are those who experience what is being called Genetic Sexual Attraction, some featured in major newspapers and in major network television news magazines, who would disagree. And taking into account not only those cases with adult children finding lost parents, and full-blood siblings who grew up together, but cousins, stepsiblings and half siblings – whether playing doctor or other childhood games or something less innocent - a higher percentage of the population has no doubt at least experimented with incest than has experimented with homosexuality.
In condemning incest, marriage neutering advocates are usually taking the same approaches that marriage defenders have taken in opposing the neutering of marriage.
Ah, but consenting adults engaging in homosexuality are not hurting anyone else, whether or not they are hurting each other and themselves, but (heterosexual) incest can increase the likelihood that resulting children will have genetic problems.
Well, that argument might be acceptable – if it is coming from someone who does not also recognize "reproductive rights" and "privacy rights" and is also willing to outlaw reproduction between others with an increased likelihood of passing along health or developmental problems to their children.
In other words, would it be okay if the siblings were sterilized? If they pledged to use abortion should contraception fail? Besides, isn't having a child - or not - a private, personal matter? (That is cited when a same-sex couple uses third party reproduction, or when anyone chooses abortion.) And we do not prevent people with inherited genetic diseases from reproducing.
Haven't we separated sex from reproduction, sex from marriage, and marriage from reproduction, anyway? Haven't we established that marriage is about love and attraction, not children?
Taking all of this into account, some marriage neutering activists give up opposing incest, and in a bid for consistency in supporting their own cause, sacrifice some of their morals qualms to claim that no, there shouldn't be a restriction against incestuous marriages, either. Most of these people secretly disbelieve this assertion, but they are at a loss to explain why, if equality for couples and "freedom to marry" is the goal and is a right, incestuous couples should not also be able to get marriage licenses. Some would argue that a same-sex incestuous couple should be allowed to legally marry because they can't reproduce, but that is still a violation of equality if that "right to marry" is not extended to a brother and sister, or a grown daughter and father – thereby defeating the supposed purpose of their current campaign.
I'm fully aware that the incest lobby isn't nearly as large, organized, and powerful as the homosexuality advocacy lobby. That still doesn’t justify the hostility – some would call it bigotry - that marriage neutering advocates show towards incestuous lovers.
I could write an entire essay on why incest is wrong and bad for society, but I've been repeatedly told not to force my morality on others – by people who turn around and try to force their morality on others.
This is why human beings naturally find incest disgusting. Quit being disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteSpot on.
ReplyDeletePF, did you even read what I wrote? Not all couples have children, you know.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Personal Failure, harmful genetic traits like hemophilia do not just occur from siblings mating, or from parents and children, or uncles and nieces, or even first cousins mating. They can occur whenever two people who carry the recessive gene mate, no matter how distantly related they may be.
ReplyDeleteBut is this also the reason why people find the idea of sex between two brothers or two sisters revolting? Who's being disingenuous here? How is the danger of deformed children going to be an argument against incestuous marriages once SSM is legalized? Barring allowing incestous marriage only for heterosexual couples, it won't work anymore as an argument.
Yes, the possibility of deformed children is increased with incestuous matings. And in a long term biological sense, that may have much to do with our revulsion at the idea. But does anyone really think that's what's going through the head of the average person who sees a brother and sister kissing and recoils at the sight? Let alone two brothers or two sisters? That the person who sees this and is disgusted is thinking so far ahead of themselves as to be saying "Oh, their children will be deformed?"
No. The possibility of genetic deformity is an argument against heterosexual incest, yes. But the biggest reason people recoil against it, for heterosexuals or homosexuals, is because the very idea of it seems to threaten a non-sexual relationship which is very important to the individual, and important in large part because it is non-sexual. That is, the very idea that you even could think of your sibling sexually revolts people because they do not want to even consider such a relationship with their own siblings, because their sibling relationships are too important to them in their non-sexual nature.
And similarly, one of the biggest reasons people revolt at the idea of homosexuality, and particularly at same-sex marriage, is because it seems to threaten another type of relationship which is very important to people in its non-sexual nature.
Gabriel Rosenberg, a strong advocate of neutered marriage, hit at it right in regard to the reasons for culture's prohibition of incest or incestuous marriage, while not following through on the idea to see why this similarly applies to the reason for not neutering marriage:
ReplyDelete"The problem remains, though, one of role conflict. If sexual relations were permitted with close kin that would sexualize such relations. Siblings, for example, could no longer be as close with the knowledge that it was legally permissible for a sexual relation to develop whether or not such a relation actually develops. Similarly the knowledge that a spouse is legally permitted to develop a sexual relation with another inhibits the development of a close relationship between the married couple. I should note these harms occur for all, even those opposed to such relations. Permitting homosexuality does similarly affect the relationships between men (and those between women). (Italics mine).
Up till now, I think Rosenberg has hit the nail on the head. But after this, he gets it wrong:
The effect is not so significant, though, because unlike adultery and incest it's not interfering with the more important family relationships. It only affects general social relationships like business contacts.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Friendships are much more important social relationships than business contracts, and for children before they begin forming sexual relationships, friendships are particularly important, easily the most important relationships they form outside the family.
To paraphrase Rosenberg, if sexual relations (or, more importantly, legalized marriage) were permitted between friends that would sexualize such relations. Friends could no longer be as close with the knowledge that it was legally permissible for a sexual relation, or marriage, to develop whether or not such a relation actually develops. (Oh, and yes, I know, it's possible for heterosexual men and women to be friends. Psychologically, however, this requires self-discipline, and to this day it is frequently problematic. How many married men are really comfortable with all their wives' opposite-sex friends?)
http://gabrielrosenberg.typepad.com/galois/2004/02/slippery_slope__1.html
Oh, and saying (as Danderhall did in response to my previous posting of this in another thread) "Well, I accept SSM, and I've got plenty of friends of both sexes, gay and straight", is no refutation. Changes in social attitudes depend on the marginal cases, and you may not be the marginal case. Also, you are probably still internalizing the old idea of marriage even if you reject it ideologically. The social effects will be different for those who grew up with neutered marriage, and have thus internalized the concept, than for those who did not.
In short, I think that, over the course of a generation, as the new generation internalizes the idea of neutered marriage, it will be as damaging to friendship relations, particularly for the young in both their pre-sexual and adolescent years, as sibling marriage would be to sibling relations. And that this will have devastating effects on the culture.
ReplyDeleteR.K. I have never thought of it that way and yet it seems obvious now. Male male and female female friendships are non sexual. When same sex sexual relationships become visible in society it turns these friendships upside down. There are modes of behavior specific to those of the same sex and those of the opposite sex.
ReplyDeletePF: This is why human beings naturally find incest disgusting.
ReplyDeleteWhat does reproduction have to do with marriage, PF?
Excellent point, op-ed. It is strange how, on the one hand, neutered marriage advocates insist that procreation is irrelevant to marriage, yet when discussing the possibility of incestuous marriage, suddenly procreation becomes very relevant.
ReplyDeleteThose royal marriages were not, as far as I can see, incestuous marriages by US definitions. They were the types of marriages that can be contracted in most states of the US. Furthermore, hemophilia is transmitted by whoever is carrying the gene and so can transmitted by the carrier to whomever he/she marries.
ReplyDeletePersonalFailure confounds the concept of heredity with incest. We know that many diseases are transmitted hereditarily but such people are not prevented from marrying.
If one knows anything about animal breeding programs one understands that selective inbreeding can be highly beneficial in transmitting the finest qualities of the individual specimens. The problems generally develop when there is prolonged inbreeding over several generations as in ancient Egypt or certain communities of the Amish and Hasidic Jews where there is little infusion of new genetic material.
An isolated case of a brother and sister marrying is highly unlikely to produce any problems in their offspring. Depending on the couple, the offspring may come out healthier and stronger than average.
With the enormous increase in IVF practices the likelihood of incestuous marriages and reproductive incestuous affairs will be greatly increasing.
We should remember that the psychological theories of the Oedipus (Freud) and Electra (Jung) complexes indicated that there was a natural inclination (orientation) for boys to sexually desire their mothers and girls their fathers.
Although there may be something to individuals growing up together in nuclear families that brings about aversion to sexual relationships among themselves, the aversion seems to be brought about primarily by imbedded social constructs, social taboos. The aversion to homosexual relationships is primarily related to the unnatural, aberrant use of the sexual organs.
Good points Jose. "many diseases are transmitted hereditarily but such people are not prevented from marrying." Exactly - marriage is a basic civil right that everyone equally is entitled to, as is procreating within their marriage. We do not examine people's genes or heritage and prohibit anyone from marrying or procreating. They aren't separate, either. But public relationships are equally ruled out for everyone (though it varies by jurisdiction what relationships), and that ban on marriage is intended to be a ban on procreation, as marriage and only marriage is official conception rights. Just as we don't have to allow people to marry siblings, we don't have to allow people to marry others of the same sex - those are all public relationships, being ruled out for ethical reasons (which don't have to be explained).
ReplyDeleteThanks Jose, your comments make a lot of sense.
ReplyDelete"The aversion to homosexual relationships is primarily related to the unnatural, aberrant use of the sexual organs."
ReplyDeleteJose, I take it you're talking about anal sex, as oral sex and masturbation are women's preferred way to reach orgasm with their boyfriends or husbands.
It is in the nature (and therefore natural) for all men, gay and straight, to get excited by a man's (if they're gay) or a woman's (if they're straight) behind. A woman's behind gets men more excited sexually than just about any other part of a woman's body. It's an interesting question why that is; I would enlighten you if you ask.
So anal sex is not unnatural. It is not aberrant either. It is just that heterosexual men can't get any. It's jeolosy.
I think it's more about wanting to be everything, to experience everything. Anal sex lets men, in the words of Pete Townsend, "know what it's like to be a woman". Well, one of the main things we have to come to grips with is that we all can't know and do everything. We can't all be at the top of Kilimanjaro, we can't all go everywhere and experience everything for ourselves. Men have to learn to let women experience womanhood, and not feel they need to know how it feels. The only thing anal sex has going for it is that it's equal for everybody, because everyone has an anus, and neither men nor women get pregnant from it. Growing up means accepting that your circumstances are not shared by everyone else, and you can't share other people's. It is indeed jealousy that wants to deny everyone's special unique experiences and replace them all with experiences that we all can share. Accepting that men can't be mothers and women can't be fathers is casting aside jealousy and learning to live as a part of a larger whole.
ReplyDeleteSexual excitement is hardly the best guide for determining the boundaries of human sexual behavior in general, much less the boundaries of marriage.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the NHSL contradicts what arturo claimed about women and orgasm. For the vast majority of married women, sexual desire and sexual intercourse leading to orgasm is predominantly experienced via good ole faithful coitus.
The NHSL reports that most married women, by far, do NOT find oral sex appealing.
The related category is not intrinsically sexual. Nor is the same-sex category. That is to say, these large categories are not defined by sexuality.
ReplyDeleteIt is only in certain contexts that a subset of either category might be sexualized.
Indeed, it is important to social cohesion that these categories NOT be generally sexualized. By default, these large categories ought to remain nonsexual.
Closely-related does not equal sexually incestuous. Same-sex does not equal homosexually orientated.
The latter are subsets of the former.
It is in the nature (and therefore natural) for all men, gay and straight, to get excited by a man's (if they're gay) or a woman's (if they're straight) behind. A woman's behind gets men more excited sexually than just about any other part of a woman's body. It's an interesting question why that is; I would enlighten you if you ask.
ReplyDeleteArturo, I cannot speak for every man, and perhaps not even most, but I can honestly say that that is NOT the part of a woman's body which attracts me most, and that I have honestly never been excited by that part of a woman's body or a man's. And I am very introspective of my feelings. Are you perhaps projecting here? Does this make me a freak in your eyes? In any case, Jose was not talking about being attracted to that area, he was talking about a particular act.
BTW, I am leaving for a few days, so I will not be able to post till I get back.
I'm more of a boob guy.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've heard from friends and family, (straight and gay) anal sex isn't exactly the most enjoyable experience for the person on the receiving end. Oral sex, on the other hand, now that's something more popular for both genders(except that one time I had a gal use her teeth, but she was crazy anyway). Yeah, I know, not the most "enlightening" post I've ever done, but hey, they're not all winners.
But on the flip side as well, good ole Jose seems to put in that opinions against his are "unnatural, immoral, brainwashed, bigoted, etc." so I wouldn't trust much of what he has to say, simply by that account. Rather than putting facts behind what he states, I've seen mostly harsh worded opinions.
Unnatural basically means "does not occur in nature." So, by this idea, God is unnatural, because god doesn't happen in nature. So, belief in god must be a bad thing. If it occurs in nature, it is natural. Anal sex happens in nature. So, it is not unnatural. It may be abnormal, but it is actually natural.
And to clear things up before I stop writing, no I don't want this post to be a "Religion is stupid" post, more a "stop using unnatural for things you don't do."
This is a version of the slippery slope argument that uses incest acceptance as the final outcome of marriage equality. After reading up on incest to make sure I knew my points it did surprise me to learn that it is more prevelent than I had expected.
ReplyDeleteThere is no clear explanation why same sex attraction happens, although it seems more and more likely that there ae biological elements to the cause.
Those of us who are GLBT shouldn't be forced to suffer a life of living alone when we can find the person we love and live a life together in harmony with our community. The people who attempt to restrict the freedoms of others should remember that the values they teach their children are going to be tested by what their children see.
In this new age of information children will learn much more than we did at the same age, so taking away their ability to see a gay married couple by denying that couple civil rights will not provide children the ignorance which you seek them to have.
John, as I do believe I've picked on the Traditional Marriage people too much here, I'm going to ask you, why is this a "civil right?" I mean, it sounds fair on paper, to promote the faithful cohabitation through an entity like marriage to the GLBT community, but does it constitute a "civil right" to be married? If this is the case, I've been denied my civil rights at this point, for I'm pretty much a single schmuck.
ReplyDeleteMy aunt is "forced to suffer a life of living alone" as well, and she's 15 years older than me. But this is because she hasn't found the right person. If the situation is right, the person is right, all that, she wouldn't be forced to live alone. But, being single, according to the above mentioned quote, sounds like a violation of civil rights in that case.
I know, its a bit of an absurd stretch at that one, but the right to cohabitation with a lover isn't something that is in question. Many gay people do live with their significant other. The question is why marriage should be a "civil right." I don't have an answer for that, as I'm sure conversations have pointed out. Perhaps you have some better insight to offer me.
Smokezero, Jose can speak for himself (and I think you mischaracterize Jose's remarks about marriage and SSM), however, I want to ask you if what you said also applies to whether or not (or how much) you trust/distrust what SSMers have to say about marriage and SSM.
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase, you said: opinions against [theirs] are unnatural, immoral, brainwashed, bigoted, etc. so I wouldn't trust much of what [they have] to say, simply by that account.
Seems to me you would distrust much, if not all, that is said by the SSM campaign. The first axiom of its argumentation fits the paraphrase precisely. And just about everything else that is said depends on that axiomatic assertion.
Smokezero, words have meaning; meaning and ideas have consequences. In this instance I think your request is for people to try to communicate more clearly, right? The consequence would be greater mutual understanding instead of continued misunderstanding. Yes?
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Jose, PF, and arturo have used the word, unnatural (and its variations), the way that you did.
PF referred to a natural aversion to certain sexual behavior (or rather a natural aversion to the possible outcome of such behavior). This aversion can and does occur, according to him. Apparently he feels this aversion.
Jose referred to unnatural or aberrant use of sexual organs. Clearly he did not mean that this behavior does not occur or cannot occur. Apparently he assumes anyone might indulge in such behavior. I think your own comment strongly suggests that, too.
Arturo talked about natural feelings or responses to visual stimulation. Perhaps there are no unnatural feelings or responses since feelings and responses of all kinds can and do occur. But I don't think that is what he meant, given the context.
But he might have meant what you said: that whether or not a feeling or response is natural depends on the person. But that's a cul-de-sac since that just means that the individual's response is natural just because it occured. It doesn't get him out of the cul-de-sac to say that this type of person has this type of response -- because that just means the response defines the person and since that type of person has the response it is natural. Supposedly if that type of person had a different response it would unnatural. But if he felt the response then ... well, on and on.
Do you see the problem this presents for your request that people not use the word unnatural for things they don't do? No one here has used it that way, except perhaps yourself.
You also attempted to tie others into knots but ended up tieing your own hands when you said: Unnatural basically means "does not occur in nature." So, by this idea, God is unnatural, because god doesn't happen in nature. So, belief in god must be a bad thing.
Newton's rule of thumb summary of Occam's Razor might help you cut the knots you tied around your wrists: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."
Maybe he used natural in a way that is unnatural to your thinking about these things?
Just teasing.
The more likely problem here is that you are assuming, rightly, that people are prone to resort to the Naturallist Fallacy. I don't think anyone has, except for you, perhaps.
ReplyDeleteYou also said: If it occurs in nature, it is natural. Anal sex happens in nature. So, it is not unnatural. It may be abnormal, but it is actually natural.
You have gone full circle. You cited Jose whose remark was in the context of aberrant behavior. Here you have used the notion of what is an is not abnormal and open yourself to the same sort of attempt to be tied into knots that you have tried on Jose (and others) here.
In the spirit of trying to reach mutual understanding, maybe a good rule of thumb is to read each other more generously and to seek clarification if something seems contradictory.
For example, I think JHG is relying on court opinions which, in my view, over-stated the rights-based aspect of marriage licensing -- in years prior to the recent SSM campaign's court cases.
If we put the rhetoric of those opinions aside, and focus on the reasoning, the basis for recognizing marriage is its core meaning (we could use shorthand and refer to "the marriage idea") and that meaning's societal significance. It is not an empty shell, the word marriage. Nor does it refer to a private arrangement. We could refer to the marriage idea when we discuss the nature of marriage. That is, there are essentials, universal features, that distinguish the social institution of marriage from the rest of the full range of human relationship types and kinds of living arrangements. Marriage is a public relationship, by type, and a sexual relationship, by type; its sexual aspect gives marriage its public meaning.
But what is that sexual aspect?
The answer to that question provides the basis for the discussion of the lines drawn against some related people. This is where clarification is needed and unfortunately some people love to make a huge leap over that.
As I said at the top, words have meaning; meaning and ideas have consequences.
It is not ignorance, but knowledge and wisdom, that marriage defenders wish to impart to future generations. Marriage means far more than SSM -- even according to SSM argumentation. Instead of promoting the false view that marriage is indistinguishable from nonmarriage, as per the SSM rhetoric, we seek to reaffirm the core meaning of marriage and to strengthen the social institution and its positive influence on society.
ReplyDeleteSSM negates the very idea of marriage as a social institution; it negates the societal significance of the sexual aspect of marriage; it negates the centrality of responsible procreation; it negates the centrality of sex integration; it directly attacks the opposite-sexed basis for the lines drawn around marriage -- such as the boundary that bars some related people.
This is not a slippery slope argument. It is pointing out the obvious problem with the assertions made by SSMers. They emphasize sexual attraction but have no principled basis to deny marriage to people whose sexual attraction is, as Playful Walrus's original blogpost explained, described as Genetic Sexual Attraction. Indeed, if sexual attraction is the trump card, then, eligibility rules will be unsustainable.
If instead the trump card is the pro-SSM rule of argumentation that says -- if (fill-in the blank) is not a legal requirement, enforced absolutely, then, it is not an essential of marriage. Afterall, there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction in anyplace that SSM has been imposed or enacted. There is no sexual orientation requirement; no one is ineligible based on sexual orientation. So SSM is not a public type of relationship for which the chief distinguishing feature is sexual attraction. Likewise, there is no romance requirement. No love requirement (what kind of love, by the way?).
SSM is not distinguishable from closely-related arrangements -- sexualized or not.
The imposition of a merger of marriage and SSM would remove the sexual aspect for which marriage is a public type of relationship. Indeed, SSMers promote the SSM idea -- that SSM is a private arrangement and whatever sexual aspect it might or might not entail is nobody's business.
If the SSM merger would mean that marriage is not a public type of relationshp, and is not a sexual type of relationship, and has no sexual aspect that merits the public's attention, then, the line against even the sexually incestuous relationship types becomes unsustainable.
That's not a slippery slope. That is built-into SSM argumentation.
All that SSMers can claim at that point is that the arbitrary use of governmental power can force the line on people who are ineligible. But that ineligibility is drawn from the opposite-sexed basis of marriage and cannot be drawn from the lack of a public-sexual aspect of SSM. SSMers can't depend on what they have derided and attacked and, with a merger, abolished. The opposite-sex basis of marraige is at issue.
And SSMers complain that this basis is arbitrary. Hence their emphasis on sexual orientation despite their own rules of argumentation. If they want to chagne the rules for the boudnaries,t hen, they invitge the discussion of incest.
What is "natural" for the human being is not determined by whether or not animals do it nor even by what certain human beings do. Human beings have sex with dogs and dogs with human beings. Is that natural? The dog can be taught not to hump your knee but it seems harder to teach homosexuals not to engage in anal intercourse. There is nothing "natural" about inserting things into the anus. The natural function of the anus is to expel feces not to have things inserted into it. There are "unnatural" anal insertions that can be beneficial such as possibly for an examination or an operation.
ReplyDeleteAnal intercourse has no natural or beneficial function and is actually a thoroughly vile, disease-ridden practice. That it provides pleasure to some no more justifies its practice than do sado-masochistic practices, pedophilia, zoophilia and all the other philias that are nothing more than perverse activities. In contemporary poly-perverse society it has become very difficult for many to recognize any sexual practice among consenting adults that demonstrates moral turpitude and depravity. The sophomoric defense of these perversions amounts to merely the declaration, "Dah, what's wrong wit dat?"
Smokezero, Jose can speak for himself (and I think you mischaracterize Jose's remarks about marriage and SSM), however, I want to ask you if what you said also applies to whether or not (or how much) you trust/distrust what SSMers have to say about marriage and SSM.
ReplyDeleteI don't mischaracterize his remarks, as that has been the EXACT treatment I have seen each time I have talked with him. If my opinion is different than his, I must be brainwashed by the liberal media. If I say I mistrust religion in matters of law, I must be bigoted against christians. Even the last bit of his statement, The sophomoric defense of these perversions amounts to merely the declaration, "Dah, what's wrong wit dat?" displays a sense of dismissal as if the opposite opinion is juvenile.
Yes, I have dismissed MANY SSM proponents for their exact arguments, and I will do it again. I do believe you've seen me dismiss these arguments in other forums, I am quite vocal about rude behavior towards your opponent in an argument. I don't think that being rude means you're wrong or right, it just means you lack the necessary skills to win that particular argument.
Smokezero, words have meaning; meaning and ideas have consequences. In this instance I think your request is for people to try to communicate more clearly, right? The consequence would be greater mutual understanding instead of continued misunderstanding. Yes?
Sorry, trying to get through a bunch at once, your points are good, I do enjoy reading your posts, even if you have managed to dismantle some of my objections. I would say, yes it is about not only communicating points more clearly, which is why I am still undecided, though leaning towards MF marriage slightly. It seems that the arguments dance around certain positions in issues, neither budging or giving an inch on one view being right or another. If you'd managed to read some of my other posts, you do see I enjoy mashing ideas together, as I see more truth when two seemingly conflicting ideas merge together for one really good central idea. That's what I see here, though a more futile effort seems to be taking place. I would love to smash SSM and Traditional Marriage ideas together, until something really good comes out of it.
Onward still: I don't think that Jose, PF, and arturo have used the word, unnatural (and its variations), the way that you did.
No, they don't use the word the way I have, and that was more or less my point. Each has their own definition from where they stem from, and backing it up with what fits a natural law and what doesn't isn't a good stance if you have nothing to cite which would prove it natural law, (though I did realize, later, that my "God" pick was probably not as good an illustration as I had originally thought).
Finally, (and I know its not finally) a note to Jose: My biggest problem is that with a language display such as Anal intercourse has no natural or beneficial function and is actually a thoroughly vile, disease-ridden practice. That it provides pleasure to some no more justifies its practice than do sado-masochistic practices, pedophilia, zoophilia and all the other philias that are nothing more than perverse activities. the burden for proof (at least for me) is a big one. Cite a source, show a record, link SOMETHING that says exactly why your language is so harshly pointed when you pull out a claim like that. The same can be said, again for SSM people who claim intolerance, bigotry, and homophobia, without using citations, pointing to sources, or even bothering to fill me in on where you get such hard language claims.
I'm sure I'll have more to say later. I know I have knots in this argument, because frankly, and I've said this before, I don't know exactly where I stand and that bugs the hell out of me. NO one has put a definitive proof that I can go AHA! to, and until that happens, I figure that bouncing around trying to see what makes sense, "knots will be tied."
Host-G: This is a version of the slippery slope argument...
ReplyDeleteThis just demonstrates Hosty misunderstands not just the argument, but basic logic. That incest supporters want to use the same arguments as neutered marriagists is not a "slippery slope" argument. Neutering marriage is alread about as far down the slope as one can get. Incest is a proof by contradiction that the arguments for neutering marriage are false. They apply equally to neutering marriage and to incest yet the same people who accept these arguments reject them when they are applied to incest. That is a contradiction and it certainly puts the lie to the sloganeering "marriage equality" since it highlights the exclusivity at the heart of neutering marriage. See The Contradiction According to Fairhurst for an example of the contradiction.
There is no clear explanation why same sex attraction happens...
Not why "GLBT" happens? Or are they the same thing?
Those of us who are GLBT shouldn't be forced to suffer a life of living alone...
Who is advocating that? Straw-man much?
so taking away their [children's] ability to see a gay married couple by denying that couple civil rights...
Note the real "right" Hosty points to is the right to access other people's children. To the hard-core neutered marriagist, neutering marriage isn't about affecting the lives of same-sex couples. It's about affecting the lives of everyone else, particularly children.
The statement of mine for which Smokezero asks me to "cite a source" has three parts:
ReplyDelete1. anal intercourse has no natural or beneficial function
2. it is a thoroughly vile and disease-ridden practice
3. pleasure does not justify its practice anymore than for the numerous philias
One. The burden of proof is on you if you think it has some natural or beneficial function. I do not see any and you cannot ask that a negative be proved. I say there are no unicorns. If you think there are it is incumbent on you to prove it. That's philosophy 101.
Two. Because of anal intercourse "homosexual men are disproportionately vulnerable to a host of serious and sometimes fatal infections caused by by the entry of feces into the bloodstream. These include hepatitis B and the cluster of otherwise rare conditions, such as shigellosis and Giardia lamblia infection . . . known as the 'Gay Bowel Syndrome."
Dr. Jeffery Satinover
Other diseases common to homosexuals because of anal intercourse include "campylobacteriosis . . . anorectal infections with Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, Treponema palidium, herpes simplex virus and human papilloma viruses."
D.E. Koziol et al., "A comparison of risk factors for Human Immunodefieciency Virus and Hepatitis B Virus Infections in Homosexual Men." D. I. Abrams, "The Relationship between Kaposi's Sarcoma and Intestinal Parasites in Homosexual Males in the United States." T. Takeuchi, "Sexually Transmitted Amoebiasis. . ." B. E. Laughon et al, "Prevalence of Enteric Pathogens in Homosexual Men . . . ."
And there is much more. You see the anus is not meant to be penetrated by penises, fists, etc. Unlike the lining of the vagina the membrane of the anus tears comparatively easily allowing fecal matter to enter the bloodstream and causing all sorts of diseases. Anal intercourse is an unnatural, vile and unhealthy practice.
Three. Recognizing what the function of the anus is and how anal intercourse is the cause of a great many diseases, the perverse pleasure derived by some cannot justify its practice among homosexuals or heterosexuals. Sexual pleasure is to be derived within the normal heterosexual experience within the confines of the matrimonial state. For a wholesome lifestyle and a decent family life, people must not engage in the host of aberrant sexual practices that are becoming increasing common today, impairing interpersonal relationships through the riot of fantasies engendered by a perverse human imagination that is even being tragically introduced into the minds of today's youth.
One. The burden of proof is on you if you think it has some natural or beneficial function. I do not see any and you cannot ask that a negative be proved. I say there are no unicorns. If you think there are it is incumbent on you to prove it. That's philosophy 101. Didn't ask you to prove its lack of benefit. Just proof that it is "vile, perverse, unnatural, et al."
ReplyDeleteAs for proof two, finally, got some sources, looked them up, read the articles briefly, thanks for the information. Anal sex isn't something I'd want to do anyway, but its nice to see some research on the topic.
The one line I do have a problem, and perhaps you can clarify, either with sources, or some other points is "For a wholesome lifestyle and a decent family life, people must not engage in the host of aberrant sexual practices that are becoming increasing common today." I do not see how sexual practice would make a less decent family life. Perhaps a less healthy life at certain points, but how would anal sex cause a drop in family life?
Smokezero said: "two seemingly conflicting ideas merge together for one really good central idea"
ReplyDeleteWell, if we strip away the identity politics of the SSM campaign, then, the SSM complaint amounts to a plea for protections based on needs that arise from certain vulnerabilities outside of marriage.
The nonmarriage category is very broad and is not defined by gayness.
Instead of the false equivalency embedded in the bumpersticker mentality of "marriage equality", SSMers could recalibrate and focus on protection equality.
The provision for designated beneficiaries has long-existed and is a nonmarriage option. It, too, is not defined by gayness. It is expressly not marriage and does not carry the baggage of the social institution -- you know, that baggage that an SSM-merger would toss-away. It is based on affidavit and, as such, leans heavily toward a privatized arrangement as per the plea of SSM argumentation. This provision does not compete with marriage because the special reason for the special status of the social institution is not directly attacked.
Protection equality is the solution that emerges when you mash together the various contradictory assertions of SSM argumentation, filter out the gaycentricism, and recognize what distinguishes marriage from nonmarriage and instead focus on the long list of commonalities between SSM and the rest of the nonmarriage category.
During oral argument in the Prop 8 case, the SSM side conceded that equality can be achieved without marriage. Of course, they also demanded a merger of nonmarriage and marriage. But their concession shows that protection equality is the solution rather than the assertion of a false equivalency of marriage and nonmarriage.
Smokezero, when you seek clarification regarding "family life" please keep in mind that the context for the discussion of sexual behavior is the point raised in the original blogpost above -- about incestuous sexual behavior of consenting adults. Remember, also, that marriage is not just this or that instance of a husband and wife, but rather it is a social institution that extends across generations -- into the past and into the future. Maybe, between yourself and Jose, the substantive issue is the influence of the marriage idea on "family life" versus the influence of the SSM idea.
ReplyDeleteAnd that idea is bereft of a public sexual aspect as per SSM argumentation.
Since you linked all three parts of my statement I thought I should address them all as it as it appeared you were seeking evidence for all. The "vile, disease-ridden practice" is addressed in part two. "Vile, extremely unpleasant / vile, smells, foul." The engagement in anal intercourse is an immersion in feces. This is certainly a vile pursuit.
ReplyDeleteAs for "less decent family life" I think that if you have certain standards of decency you should be able to answer your own question.
I must run now.
Smoker zero, marriage is a civil right as defined first by Loving v. Virginia 1967, and in several court decisions since then. The principle of it being a civil right survives the fact that the 1967 case was about interracial marriage, but I am sure others will disagree and try to dismiss this point with race.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between your Aunt and I is the fact that she is not banned from marrying who she loves when she does find them. Many in the GLBT world have found their love but are banned by their government from having the same recognition and benefits only because who they love is the same sex. Aren't our laws made to afford the due process of our actions and merits? Why then should we put that aside in this instance?
Given all things careful consideration the benefit of GLBT being married is that they will be happier. If they are happier they are more productive and their happiness spreads in our society as it does in all other people and circumstances. Those who accuse that GLBT equality will cause our society harm have an obligation to prove what they accuse beyond a reasonable doubt before society should act to restrict such inalienable civil rights.
I have lived with my spouse for almost 15 years now, and we were married in 2007. Our neighbors love us, our family accepts us, and we have not found one person who can honestly point out anything that we have done to harm society. Why then would we give up that joy for the sake of someone's unfounded fears?
Is Hosty-G arguing for neutered marriage or incestuous marriage? His argument applies just as well to either.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteStraight men have an anus, but believe me they're not out looking to get penetrated. Anal sex is how gay men connect with the masculine of another, not because they're trying to experience womanhood, but because their nature is not so lacking in the feminine. Straight men's aversion to being penetrated does reflect an aversion for what is female. It is society's job to lessen this natural heterosexual-male aversion to the female. Not by encouraging anal sex, of course, since practicing anal sex does not change anyone, as I think I've explained.
That's why two gay men can make a good married couple, while two straight guys trying to do the same would end up killing each other by the end of the week. That's why two gay men raising a child is a good thing, while two straight guys walking into an adoption agency wanting to adopt would be funny.
R.K.,
I did not say that a woman's ass is what every men finds the most sexually desirable part of a woman.
Chairm,
Any ladies here would like to confirm or deny that oral and hand stimulation make sex better?
Jose,
Anal sex is actually very clean, if done right. It is also healthy-safe, more so than vaginal intercourse. With fewer sexual encounters, and many fewer partners, the consequences of heterosexual vaginal sex for women are awful: they can die in childbirth. I'm not saying you're inconsistent. Since at the core of anti-gay prejudice is anti-women prejudice, you may be ok with that.
Regarding my question to women here, are there actually any women reading this website? Or am I right that it's really just men, with few exceptions, who want to deny marriage rights to the homos.
ReplyDeleteThe Loving opinion (its reasoning) repudiated the assertion of supremacy via group identity.
ReplyDeleteThe right that was discussed in Loving is the right to enter the social institution of marriage. No viable social institution lacks the coherency of a core meaning.
This presents a couple of insurmountable problems for SSM argumentation.
SSM is defined by the gaycentric version of identity politics. Otherwise, it lacks a core meaning. The thing that holds the SSM movement together -- the thing that gives it coherency -- is the assertion of gayness as a trump card.
While some SSMers embrace these problems as intrinsic to deconstructing sexual norms, most SSMers try to dodge these problems.
They deny that marriage has a core meaning. They disparage the reality that marriage is first and foremost a foundational social institution. They seek to persuade people that marriage must be reduced to an incoherent bundle of bits and pieces that comprise a menu for a purely private arrangement -- or one that is very nearly purely private since it is licensed. They will say that the meaning of marriage is marital status; and marital status is marriage; but they can't state the special reason for this special status. In other words, there is no special reason, no core meaning, no coherent whole, no social institution. What is left, they concede, is the arbitrariness of government endorsement of private arrangements.
Ask about related people and they will often shrug. Ask about polygamy, another shrug. But they do feel that the phrase "slippery slope" helps to mask the ambiguity of such shrugs.
In their use of this strategy of denial and elision, they might describe SSM but not marriage.
When a social institution's coherency is undermined, it can rapidly fall apart and, weakened, its influence fades. When the social institution is indispensable, this erosion can deeply harm society.
Marriage is such a case.
If someone advocates that marriage should come to mean less and less, then, his goal is one which would harm society.
If his stated standards of argumentation actually destroy his own arguments, then, he detracts from his otherwise valid assertions. If those standards are used only to attack the core of marriage but are abandoned when those standards are used to test his arguments, then, he detracts from the public discourse.
SSM argumentation rejects the core meaning of marriage. It denies that there is such a thing as a core meaning. Indeed, SSMers typically disparage the anthropological fact that marriage is first and foremost a social institution of civil society. They assert that Government creates and owns marriage.
This is a deliberate strategy.
Ask an SSMer to distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category. But don't hold your breath for a substantive answer.
SSM is defined by the gaycentric version of identity politics. Otherwise, it lacks a core meaning that distinguishes it.
Since SSM has no core, the SSMer feels it necessary to assert that marriage, also, lacks a core. This opens the way to rehtorically equating nonmarriage with marriage.
No right that is based on group identity can withstand the repudiation that was reasoned-out in the Loving opinion. The assertion of a gay identity trump card is no exception.
Marriage has a core. The authorities regulate the lines drawn around that core. Pressing identity politics into marriage law -- and into constitutional jurisprudence -- was unjust in the case of racialism and would be unjust in the case of gaycentrism.
Arturo, I cited a very highy respected and very large social survey of Americans. You cited nothing but now want to do a straw poll here? Oh well.
ReplyDeleteChairm, are you saying that straight sex without oral and hand stimulation of the female is better?
ReplyDeleteI know it's somewhat different than what I said before, but the point is that Jose believes body parts should not be used for what they were not made for. The mouth was not made to put a penis in, and a man's tongue cannot get a woman pregnant.
Sorry folks but I have no intention of providing a manual for how a married man and woman may have sex, for how they may kiss and caress themselves. What I have talked about is the vile, disease-ridden practice of anal intercourse, the primary means by which homosexual men have sex.
ReplyDeletePlease understand that any sexual act between two or more men or two or more women, or combination of men and women cheapens the people engaging in such practices. The pleasure that you may derive from such acts does nothing to elevate the human relationship any more than deriving great pleasure from having sex with a dog dignifies the human being. Two men having sex with each other is actually worse than a man having sex with a sheep or a dog because in the former you have two men debasing themselves while in the latter only one man.
Jose, you can chose to live in the dark ages. We still love you.
ReplyDeleteAs I'm sure you do not know Arturo, the "dark ages" is quite the misnomer as it was an age in which there were great accomplishments and considerable enlightenment. It was the time in which the Roman Catholic Church was sending missionaries to convert the Barbarians who had sacked Rome.
ReplyDeleteUnder Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) they began the relief of refugees, feed the poor and ransom captives. Tens of thousands of Benedictine monks dedicated themselves to this great cause for hundreds of years in these "middle ages." These same monks also dedicated themselves to preserving and copying all of the great volumes from ancient history. It was a time of great advances in science, architecture, agriculture, literature, etc. It was the time when great universities were being established. It was the time of Anselm of Bec, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Abelard, Bonaventura, John Scotus, William of Ockham and many other great minds. It was the time of great artists Donatello, Giotto, Brunelleschi, Ghiberti and many others who laid the foundation for the Renaissance.
As Prof. Thomas Williams has said, "Far from being "Dark" Ages, this was an era when faith was not blind and reason was not godless, when the great philosophers and the great theologians were the very same people, and no one saw anything surprising about that."
Of course this is not the place to give you a primer on this great period of history, which I taught for some years, but do take a good course at your local college.
Now, what you need to really avoid today is involvement in the rapidly spreading culture of death and depravity. People will no doubt look back some day at this most decadent period as a truly dark age, when the immediate pleasures of the body ruled and reason to a considerable extent went bankrupt.
Adiós.
In the dark ages, owning other human beings (slavery) was considered the natural way of life. Social order was "acheived" through torture as punishment. Women were considered inferior to men. The advances in science (etc) that you claim for the dark ages took a thousand years, while in our decadent age we see it every decade, really less than a decade.
ReplyDeleteIn the present time there are still places stuck in the dark ages, like Saudi Arabia, who live by your idea that men shouldn't be women and women shouldn't be men. You'll feel right at home there.
The dark ages in the west had a slow death. The sixties sexual revolution finally put the final nail on the coffin.
Adios Jose. 'Til next time.
Quite a long discussion, but my points still stand.
ReplyDeleteJHG wrote:
"Those of us who are GLBT shouldn't be forced to suffer a life of living alone when we can find the person we love and live a life together in harmony with our community."
And, as you point out later, you were already doing just that for many years. A state marriage license is not necessary to do that.
Walrus, a marriage license is needed to secure our rights. I listened to a man whose partner died after 30 years and he had to get that man's estranged relatives to order to funeral home to pick up the body. Marriage is something that prevents a host of issues like these that people don't stop to consider until those rights are needed, but by then it is too late.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine what it would be like for my spouse to have to go through that, but fortunately for me I don't have to.
Funny, my neighbors don't seem to even know we are married. It's kind of hard to gauge the negative impact when there isn't one. ;)
There are other ways of addressing these issues.
ReplyDeleteBut do you say that siblings who, say, act on their claimed Genetic Sexual Attraction and live a life together shouldn't have those same rights? Why should a woman who lived a life with her brother have to defer to his children in dealing with his body?
Arturo's last post was a perfect example of what Charles Murray notes:
ReplyDelete"For some years a metaphor has been stuck in my mind: the twentieth century was the adolescence of Homo sapiens. Nineteenth-century science, from Darwin to Freud, offered a series of body blows to ways of thinking about human beings and human lives that had prevailed since the dawn of civilization. Humans, just like adolescents, were deprived of some of the comforting simplicities of childhood and exposed to more complex knowledge about the world. And twentieth-century intellectuals reacted precisely the way that adolescents react when they think they have discovered Mom and Dad are hopelessly out of date. They think that the grown-ups are wrong about everything. In the case of twentieth-century intellectuals, it was as if they thought that if Darwin was right about evolution, then Aquinas is no longer worth reading; that if Freud was right about the unconscious mind, the Nicomachean Ethics had nothing to teach us.
The nice thing about adolescence is that it is temporary, and, when it passes, people discover that their parents were smarter than they thought." (Italics mine).
Full speech here: http://www.aei.org/speech/100023
Oh, and by the way, Arturo, reread your own 6/26 7:11 post again and tell me again how you were not so generalizing: "It is in the nature (and therefore natural) for all men...."
JHG, as PW points out, there are other ways besides marriage. A Civil Union defined as "marriage, but without conception rights" would not only give you all the same rights (except conception rights, of course), but would be much easier to get federal recognition and more states to enact it. You could even still use the word marriage, it would only say "Civil Union" on the license back at city hall.
ReplyDelete"But do you say that siblings who, say, act on their claimed Genetic Sexual Attraction and live a life together shouldn't have those same rights? Why should a woman who lived a life with her brother have to defer to his children in dealing with his body?"
ReplyDeleteI would not contest any arrangement that I could not prove would be detrimental to others, nor do I think it is the responsibility of our government to impose social values on its citizens.
John Howard, if all that was different was the word on the contract then how would that "protect" people? How is seperate but equal justified in this instance when our courts have already determined that it is unconstitutional when applied to other instances?
That wouldn't be all that was different - it wouldn't have conception rights. (wasn't that clear?) So it wouldn't be "separate but equal", it would not be equal, and therefore constitutional to be separate.
ReplyDeleteBut in all other ways it would be equal, and that is how it would protect same-sex couples.
I would not contest any arrangement that I could not prove would be detrimental to others, nor do I think it is the responsibility of our government to impose social values on its citizens.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least now you and On Lawn and Jose all agree: we should allow incestuous marriage, and indeed allow everything, because otherwise it's totalitarianism (except same-sex marriage though, inexplicitly).
Well, at least now you and On Lawn and Jose all agree: we should allow incestuous marriage
ReplyDeleteLOL!
Aww, poor John isn't getting anyone to buy off on his fascist adventure. So now he's going to start engaging in more dishonesty.
Sorry John, you failed. Face it.
Dishonesty? So you don't want to allow incestuous marriages? Talk about dishonesty, what do you call accusing me of fascism for wanting to preserve the right of everyone to marry and the right of all marriages to procreate with their own genes, and wanting to ban cloning and genetic engineering and same-sex conception and incest? If prohibiting incest is fascism, then every single country in the world is fascist.
ReplyDeleteKeep twisting in the wind John.
ReplyDeleteAnd speak for yourself :)