Homosexuality from a Non-Religious perspective

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

I assume no such thing. I only offer speculation I have heard that homosexuality may in fact be selected for in nature. That may or may not be the case.


I once read that there is some evidence that the percentage of homosexuality fluctuates, and that fluctuation could correlate with population pressure in the larger group.

I'll have to see if I can hunt that citation down, it was interesting, but still in the early stages of speculation.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Post by _jskains »

asbestosman wrote:
jskains wrote:Ok, so if we allow homosexual marriage, is Polygamy allowable then too?

Why not so long as no coercion is involved?

Now if we're debating granting special governmental status to it, that is something else. The government doesn't give me special recognition for eating watching the sunset. But if we refuse to give homosexual marriage special status, we must then ask why we do so for heterosexual marriage--even when no children are possible (old people tying the knot). There are some interesting tricky legal issues there and you can find this discussion on MA&D by Confidential Informant.


That is why I wanted to start out with raw biology first. Then move to the implications of our human-only layer - civilization. Because eventually you do have to involve religion and it's influence on civilization and those implications.

It seems some people have a hard time discussing this issue without jumping on the emotional bandwagon. Look at Gad on the other board. He ran to the bigot label. Once you hit that wall, all bets are off, because civilized conversation has ended.

JMS
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

jskains' Question

Post by _JAK »

jskains wrote:
asbestosman wrote:
jskains wrote:While I am using an extreme, there are people attracted to children sexually. Do we embrace that as a difference or classify it as a chemical malfunction of the brain?

We classify it as immoral to act on because we currently believe that children do not have the capacity to understand and consent to such things. Whether it is a chemical malfunction or not is irrelavent when the behavior it leads to directly harms another human being.

People have all sorts of weird attractions. So long as it is consensual and does not harm others (without informed and capable consent), we probably should not concern ourselves with it. Perhaps we do not embrace it, but we need not combat it either.


Ok, so if we allow homosexual marriage, is Polygamy allowable then too?

JMS


jskains question:

Ok, so if we allow homosexual marriage, is Polygamy allowable then too?

First, there is little likelihood that “marriage” is likely. Perhaps a civil union. It would be a union which offers legal benefit for rights of survivorship and access to accounts or personal belongings.

Polygamy is an entirely different issue legally. Multiple wives up to large numbers is nothing like a one-to-one homosexual civil union.

So the answer to your question is that polygamy is NOT “allowable” in the sense that a civil union between any two people might be. The complications and complexities from a legal perspective would be impossible in the case of polygamy.

I’m sure you can appreciate that.

Culturally, we are moving closer to recognition of two people in a legal sense. It’s a matter of time and cultural shift. We already have homosexual couples even though they do not have the benefits of the law which heterosexual marriages have. The process of change is slow and will certainly vary from state to state.

JAK
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: jskains' Question

Post by _jskains »

First, there is little likelihood that “marriage” is likely. Perhaps a civil union. It would be a union which offers legal benefit for rights of survivorship and access to accounts or personal belongings.


I am not sure there is really a difference, other than giving it an alternative name.

Polygamy is an entirely different issue legally. Multiple wives up to large numbers is nothing like a one-to-one homosexual civil union.


No, but it is an alternative view on marriage. Homosexual marriages (which is what is being asked for) is an alternative view on marriage. Why is it not bigotted to allow one, but not allow the other? If three guys and a girl or three girls and a guy feel they have a right to all get married, are you not failing to validate their beliefs? Where is the line drawn? What if I wanted to marry my dog and felt that certain behaviors (she wags her tail when I mention it!) show the concent. Yes, extreme, but you are the one wanting to move the line. So where does the line get drawn now.

Culturally, we are moving closer to recognition of two people in a legal sense. It’s a matter of time and cultural shift. We already have homosexual couples even though they do not have the benefits of the law which heterosexual marriages have. The process of change is slow and will certainly vary from state to state.


But ultimately what is the impact? If statistically, a married man and woman provide the optimal home for a child, can you still make a preference for that in adoption? Or is this status change going to demand we ignore the differences for the sake of making two people feel better about themselves? Can we say "sorry, your not optimal" without getting the reprocussions of the bigot card? How do we handle that?

Yes, I know this is a dirty issue. Cases of debate over black children in white adoptive homes being wrong due to the inability for white folks to cater to their cultural needs is an ugly one. And no, I do not think that a black child couldn't be served well in a loving white home (or vice versa).....

But if homosexuality is a biological flaw, is it dangerous to put a child in a homosexual home? What about a pair of known alchololics (some claim another genetic fault)? Are we saying we can't even ask the question for fear of being labelled a bigot?

What about a child placed in the home of a former pedophile? If he has repented and a psychologist feels he is now ok, do we now have to accept his application BECAUSE we want him to feel validated that he moved on?

Questions folks. I think we should be ALLOWED to ask questions without fear of BEING labelled bigots.

JMS
Last edited by Guest on Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi Josh,

I appear to have done a lot more research on depression that you have.


Highly doubt it! ;-)

I don't think any psychologist would ever associate depression with a natural response like hunger.


I was simplifying but there are those who believe we have developed various neurochemicals for specific evolutionary purposes.

Clinical Depression can be dehabilitating and very hard to reverse.


Of course, no one is denying this.

Often there isn't a social trigger that fires it off. Many feel it is a plan and simple chemical imbalance.


Yes, it is a chemical imbalance. No question about this.

While I am using an extreme, there are people attracted to children sexually. Do we embrace that as a difference or classify it as a chemical malfunction of the brain?


We as a society have determined that it is not OK to harm children. What does this have to do with two adults engaging in mutually acceptable behavior?

Should we allow polygamy?

I have no problem with ADULT folks enjoying whatever form of alternative partnering they wish... so long as there is no manipulation, coercion, and children are not harmed I do not think it is any of my business.

I do NOT think there should be any legal system allowing multiple spouses... it is WAY too complicated legally, and it would be a total disaster for children.

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Post by _jskains »

Yes, it is a chemical imbalance. No question about this.


Then you now really don't make sense. Why did you try to equate it to a needed natural reaction? Hunger is not close to a chemical imbalance.

We as a society have determined that it is not OK to harm children. What does this have to do with two adults engaging in mutually acceptable behavior?


We as a society felt for a long time that homosexuality was not OK. Is social acceptance nessesary to make something true or accurate?

I do NOT think there should be any legal system allowing multiple spouses... it is WAY too complicated legally, and it would be a total disaster for children.


Some think children in a homosexual home would be a total disaster. What makes them wrong?

JMS
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Post by _JAK »

jskains wrote:
asbestosman wrote:
jskains wrote:Ok, so if we allow homosexual marriage, is Polygamy allowable then too?

Why not so long as no coercion is involved?

Now if we're debating granting special governmental status to it, that is something else. The government doesn't give me special recognition for eating watching the sunset. But if we refuse to give homosexual marriage special status, we must then ask why we do so for heterosexual marriage--even when no children are possible (old people tying the knot). There are some interesting tricky legal issues there and you can find this discussion on MA&D by Confidential Informant.


That is why I wanted to start out with raw biology first. Then move to the implications of our human-only layer - civilization. Because eventually you do have to involve religion and it's influence on civilization and those implications.

It seems some people have a hard time discussing this issue without jumping on the emotional bandwagon. Look at Gad on the other board. He ran to the bigot label. Once you hit that wall, all bets are off, because civilized conversation has ended.

JMS


jskains states:
That is why I wanted to start out with raw biology first. Then move to the implications of our human-only layer - civilization. Because eventually you do have to involve religion and it's influence on civilization and those implications.


Religion is involved only to the extent that politicians running for office are forced by interrogation to address religion. There is no question that religion today is playing a significant role in politics.

Karen Armstrong’s book The Battle for God is an intellectual discussion of how various religious groups are in fierce competition. She has written a number of books dealing with religion and society.

This book is the one to which I made reference.

Actually, religion is essentially irrelevant here. That is, we are considering a matter of law as we consider how the judicial system may or will shift with regard to same-sex unions.

Here is a list of books by this author.

Making space legally for same-sex unions is a legal matter primarily.

Religious myths are unreliable and generally irrelevant to rational consideration of policy – law.

jskains states:
It seems some people have a hard time discussing this issue without jumping on the emotional bandwagon. Look at Gad on the other board. He ran to the bigot label. Once you hit that wall, all bets are off, because civilized conversation has ended.


You have a point. Although I have not read the posts to which you refer, “emotional bandwagon” clouds issues and contaminates evidence regarding issues and facts.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Legal Issues and Complexity

Post by _JAK »

dancer states:
I do NOT think there should be any legal system allowing multiple spouses... it is WAY too complicated legally, and it would be a total disaster for children.


Yes of course. See my comments to jskains.

JAK
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi Josh,

Then you now really don't make sense. Why did you try to equate it to a needed natural reaction? Hunger is not close to a chemical imbalance.


Hunger (I'm talking serious food deprivation), is an extremely uncomfortable, painful state alerting the body it is in need of something (food), to survive. In other words, a state requiring a specific behavior to be eliminated. And, yes hunger is a chemical reaction.

We as a society felt for a long time that homosexuality was not OK.


It goes in spurts. ;-)

Is social acceptance nessesary to make something true or accurate?


We are not discussing what is or is not true or accurate. We are discussing what we will or will not allow in our society. Yes, this changes. Child abuse was accepted. Slavery was accepted. Owning women was accepted. This has nothing to do with truth.

Some think children in a homosexual home would be a total disaster. What makes them wrong?


What people think doesn't make anything wrong or right. Not sure what this has to do with anything. To answer your question however, what would make them wrong is the fact that it is untrue.

~dancer~

Hey JAK, yeah, I completely agree with you... I could just see it now, a woman has three husbands, who each have three wives, who have a few husbands, children are all over the place, some divorces, some remarriages, insurance companies trying to figure out what is what, schools at a total loss as to who or what parent is able to pick up various children... it would be totally chaotic to say the least. (I'm going with the reality that a law would never be passed in the US, where only men could have multiple wives... smile).
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Post by _jskains »

Religious myths are unreliable and generally irrelevant to rational consideration of policy – law.


But isn't it odd that religion (not everyone finds to be a myth - at least 78% of America doesn't) is told to keep quiet and we can not use religion to create moral law, but then secular movements march right in and make there own versions of Moral law?

JMS
Post Reply