Question 5
Allard
First, to say that the government cannot guarantee happiness only the pursuit of happiness is one thing. But to claim that the state cannot pass law that could help the attainment of happiness is another thing.
Like we saw in question 4, love as very little to do with marriage, and marriage is not a guaranty of love. In the same way, wanting to be married has little to do with happiness, and a lot to do with the economic advantages that come from the union. If marriage was a requirement for happiness, then why are so many married couples so miserable?
Is pedophilia a sexual orientation? A simple answer is no. A more complete answer is that in pedophilia there is no mutual feeling. To claim sexual orientation, you need to have reciprocity of feeling. Gay, Bisexual and heterosexual couples can claim reciprocity with their counterpart, Two man, two woman or a man and a woman can declare their love for each other. A pedophile can’t make the same claim, because pedophile will use subterfuge to prevent the child from speaking of their relation. Pedophilia is also age restrictive, i.e. that when the child reach a certain age the interest from the pedophile vanishes.
Attraction to animal or inanimate object is also not a sexual orientation since there is no reciprocity from the animal or object. Nothing prevent these person to claim that they are married, but no one, including the state, has to agree with them either.
Should bisexual have the right to marry a man and a woman? Again, no but they can or should be able to marry either a man or a woman. The reasons that were mentioned before are that polygamy is illegal and a contract is between two people or parties (I’m unable to find an example implicating 3).
Is sexual orientation a choice? No. What defines it, it is unknown. A good example is what determines if we are left or right handed. Do we choose one or the other? No. We just are either left, right or both, like people are gay, straight or both. They just are, they don’t choose which one they are. A man who said he was gay and got married to a woman later probably was bisexual to begin with.
Gay people can’t reproduce, yet they still exist which might mean that they are a natural, although rare, occurrence in society.
Life is not fair, yet it doesn’t mean that society doesn’t have to try to make it fairer? If people believe that being married will help them be happier, why should the state stand in their way? If someone is blind or becomes blind does it means that we should make sure that these people have a miserable life? Or shouldn’t society try to find ways to help people with handicap be the most autonomous they can?
Briggs
As is well known, the right to pursue happiness in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence—Happy Birthday, America! May you outlive your enemies, foreign and domestic—was the right to property. It was changed for aesthetic purposes (unfortunately). Anyway, since my happiness isn’t your happiness, the government in passing its laws to “allow” happiness must choose which happiness is the better. And that is what we are discussing.
Allard: “why are so many married couples so miserable?” I instead ask you: Why are so many married couples so happy? I next week attend the 50th wedding anniversary of my parents, a not-rare occurrence among my relatives.
Although I agree with Allard that it is not, pedophilia is increasingly claimed as an “orientation” by—who else?—academics. “To claim sexual orientation, you need to have reciprocity of feeling.” Well, children have feelings, do they not? Dogs reciprocate their love towards their masters routinely. Which is why some are arguing for interspecies “marriage.” Yes, they are. What arguments are there to refute them? As long as we can cobble enough votes together to pass the redefinition, then it shall be “Man and Sow”, or “Man and Hog”, if that be your preference.
Polygamists are also calling their proclivities an “orientation”, and the call is increasingly being made that polygamy should be allowed. No use pretending this is going to go away. If “marriage” is whatever the majority say it is, then any habitation can be called “marriage”.
As distressing proof that I have been right all along and that the only argument the SSM crowd has is “I want it!”, I offer the above (and the comments in Part II). Philosophical and legal argument cannot just focus on what a mass of people are screaming and marching for now, at this instant in time. It must consider all possibilities, and these possibilities cannot be dismissed because “‘Nobody’ wants that now.” For one, as I’ve shown, it’s not “nobody”. For another, it’s irrelevant whether anybody is now asking for, say, dog-man “marriages”. We have to be able to show why such unions are wrong or right. And this must be something beyond a raw, unsupported, unsubstantiated “I don’t want it!”
Fact is, there just is no justification for SSM except “I want it!”, and to deny undesirable “unions” we only hear “I don’t want it!” But science and natural law offer a consistent, justifiable, intelligible solution for both. However, in the next and last part (tomorrow), I shall show my political solution to the whole mess.
Allard: “Is sexual orientation a choice? No.” This is simultaneously false and unproven. It is false because we have direct evidence that some people chose with what or whom they seek their physical pleasures. And we have direct evidence that some people have changed their minds about these activities over the course of their lives. Some “gays” choose to switch to heterosexuality, for example. And in the acronym LGBTQIA the “Q” is for “questioning”, which admits some are unsure. The only response to this direct evidence is to say, dogmatically, “I don’t believe it!” or (of those who switch from gay to straight) “He was no true Scotsman in the first place.” Well, I can’t talk you out of your love of theory.
The claim is also unknown because, despite an earnest search, no biological or environmental factor has been discovered which makes an “orientation” (besides normal, of course). This does not prove that such factors do not exist, but it is rational to suspect that they do not; or rather, that there exists simple “switches”. Human behavior is too complex for such simple explanations.
About being blind or lame, Allard asks ought we not to “help people with handicap be the most autonomous they can”. Yes, of course; absolutely yes. But this does not mean that we should call the blind “sighted” or the lame “whole and able” to protect their feelings. And it would be the very epitome of absurdity to create laws which force the populace to go along with these redefinitions. Right?
Whoever does not act like a lady or gentleman in responding will be banned.
@Briggs:
“Dogs reciprocate their love towards their masters routinely.”
And for that matter, why *exactly* do we need reciprocity? Is not marriage a social, all too-human convention? So on what authority do we now impose “reciprocity” on it as a requirement? So I can kill a cow to eat it and take its hide for clothes but I cannot marry it? Muuuu
Allard: Your circular reasoning is really showing. Can’t marry more than one person because it’s illegal? So is gay marriage in 32 states. The majority says it’s illegal. So no SSM by your reasoning.
Pedophilia is just as much natural as homosexuality. (Note to Briggs: I am saying if one is natural, the other is, not that either is necessarily natural.) There is no argument out there that has proven that pedophilia is not as natural as homosexuality. In fact, virtually all arguments made to support the idea that homosexuality is natural apply to pedophilia too. There are no studies because that would be career suicide.
Reciprocity is not part of love. Never has been, never will be. Some people prefer to marry where there is reciprocity, some marry for money (like 32 women marrying rich 80-year-old men–the women may love the money, not the man).
It is not society’s job to determine fairness. As noted by Briggs, whose definition does society use? What about those who are treated unfairly by treating someone else fairly (as in the case of SSM)? What of the person who is offended by homosexuality but forced to sit through “sensitivity” training telling them homosexuality is okay and there’s no more to be said about it. One person’s behaviour is unfair to the other. It’s unavoidable.
Mr. Briggs,
The law says that I am the legal mother of my adoptive daughter, but it has not stopped you from saying that I am NOT the mother in a previous post. You obviously don’t have to redefine it and accept that I am the mother. (Yes, I don’t forget, and I am the kind of person who could carry grudge against someone forever. Just think of the reason why I am writing this. Well, who cares, I am just a reader and a stranger. ^_^)
Now, replace “mother†with “SSM.†So why would the legalization of SSM force you to go along with the definition of SSM?
You evidently don’t understand why the post about mother is degrading to me. You would probably say, “but, I am just stating the absolute truth by science and natureâ€. So, I don’t think it’s helpful to further point out why your writings in Part I are degrading toward my gay cousin and nephew.
(It seems that a word can only evolve if you say so, e.g., diversity and marriage. And since when you think that science and nature can tell you the truth.)
JH–you are the legal and practical mother of your adoptive child. However, by strict biology you are not. Otherwise the child would not have a “birth mother”. That term exists because biology is in conflict with sociology when it comes to terminology. To me, it does not mean one is right and the other is wrong. Each is correct in its own way. I understand adoptive parents saying they are the parent of child, since they raised the child, the child shares their name, etc. but by strict biology, the child’s birth mother still exists in the sense that she gave life to the child.
It has been explained over and over and over why we are forced to go along with SSM. We must service them in business or be sued. A Christian is forced to allow same-sex couples to rent a room at the bed and breakfast, thus facilitating a behaviour they find offensive. It is NOT just about marriage. It is about FORCING everyone to agree that this is morally acceptable and pummeling if they don’t do along.
@JH
This “degrading to me” is accusing somebody of using an ad hominem argument. Saying that somebody is using an ad hominem argument while he’s is not is as bad as using an ad hominem argument.
The point of an argument is to convince somebody else using logic that your standpoint is better. If one is inclined to feel hurt when loosing the argument, then don’t argue. Or win the argument.
There are two feelings after an argument. Joy, because you you lost and now have found a better standpoint. Or joy, because you won and still have a better argument.
Reposting since I didn’t get an answer. Maybe went unnoticed the first time.
Briggs
Would you consider this acceptable as free speech for an Imam to say something like that:
“Christians (or Catholics) who want to remain in their lifestyle and proselytize vulnerable young people that civil law should discriminate against them;
Our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse . . . if we do not say no to the christian desire to socialize your children into accepting something that is clearly wrong.â€
Anne Coulter said after the Boston bombing that the wife (a white American should be put to jail for wearing a hijab.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irqj87lNL9E
There are limit to free speech.
I’m obviously not Briggs, but I would have no problem with the Imam saying what you typed. He is entitled to his opinion and his religion. Now, if he starts saying Americans should die for this, that crosses the line. Or as in this case:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/muslim-imam-claims-women-who-dont-wear-hijabs-are-asking-to-be-raped-arrested-for-trying-to-rape-woman
The limits to free speech start when violence is advocated. Up to that point, one can say whatever one wants.
Sheri,
Polygamy is illegal in all fifty states and every western countries. But you left out the part that a contract is also between 2 peoples. How would the government split the inheritance or decide which contract as priority. Which wife would be in charge of deciding of medical care of the husband? Wife #1 or #3. How would you divorce multiple marriages?
Pedophilia is between an adult and a child who cannot consent to what will be done to him or asked of him.
Polygamy is still present in many Middle Eastern and Asian countries. In some countries it is legal for a ‘man’ to marry a twelve year old girl.
Who is treated unfairly when 2 men or women consensually get married? You! How by hurting your feelings? What about other people feelings? Rights are individual and are limited to your person. If the other doesn’t have the right to tell you what to think, why should you have that right. You would have a point if you were forced into marrying a woman. What people do in their personal life doesn’t concern you, even if your are offended. For example, I’m offended when people treat other people unfairly.
It seems that you believe that people right to discriminate against other people is more important than other people own freedom of opinion. this is why your are losing your argument.
The person that would hold the language given in the example does promote violence. They want violence (physical or psychological) done to a of people.
Briggs,
Why about 1/10 person are left-handed? Nobody knows for sure. There are theories, nothing more.
Exodus apologized recently for their failed attempts at converting gays.
That some gay people may have found happiness with someone of the other sex can easily be explained by bisexuality. Just like some people are ambidextrous. Why are there Gay-Straight Identical Twin or Right-handed/ left-handed Identical Twin. They both happens at about the same rate. Should we have the right to discriminate against the left-handed has we do the gays.
Sylvain: Marriage is a contract that most certain by redefined. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion. As for the questions, we can certainly address them when we change the definition of marriage, as we are doing now. Who its the “mother” when two men marry? Who is the “father” when two women marry? Now schools just ask for “parent” names. See, we can fix that easily.
Consent is not part of marriage in other parts of the world. Children cannot consent to medical care, but parents impose it on them anyway, saying it is for their own good. Who knows, maybe sex with an adult could be for their own good? After all, having two mommies is now for their own good.
Again, it’s not wether I am hurt by the marriage itself–it’s the fallout with being fired for voicing an opinion, etc. And who is harmed by no SSM? The gay couple gets their feelings hurt because they can’t do what everyone else can. So we have to let the SSM group get their way? Why? Why can’t they be unhappy???
There is NO discrimination in not allowing SSM. Any more than in not allowing child marriage or polygamy or marriage to one’s sheep. If you cannot discriminate for gays, you cannot in any way limit marriage if some group wants it changed. Otherwise, you are guilty of what you say we are–you don’t want people to marry multiple partners or sheep, so that stays illegal.
So, what is it? ALL marriages of any kind or admit your position is what YOU want and that’s the only justification?
My Dear Mr. Briggs,
Since it seems that the worthy and respectable majority opinion of SCOTUS and those of your readers haven’t convinced you and made you understand a bit more, I have no illusion that you’d agree with me at all. I know that I am no almighty, especially, I had exchanged my magic wand for a new ring on the day of my 25th wedding anniversary.
If I summarize all your arguments as follows: “You don’t want it, and you are having a tantrum over SCOTUS ruling†Now, what would you think?
Could it be “JH just doesn’t get it?†Or worse, in you usual snarky way (because you know who your audience is), “JH is a liberal and a progressive and an academic and a non-theistic Buddhist and a feminist, and so on, (i.e., everything you hate), …â€
When I compare your hetero marriage (HM) (and mine) to bestiality or incest or pedophile (BIP), I see many differences between them. Those differences also hold between SSM and BIP. It seems that by replacing SSM with HM in your arguments related to BIP can also be seen as arguments against HM.
When I compare SSM with your HM, they are the same in many ways. SS couples want the same many things. Whom should they ask for those same “privileges”? What’s wrong with wanting the same things entitle by HM and ask for it?
(I mean no insult. It’d not surprise me that you’d feel insulted by this comparison. Agree or not, imo, some of your writings can be used to promote prejudice, bias, and hate against gays.)
Do you buy my arguments? Probably not!
My Dear Mr. Briggs, again,
I’ve lost! Do you think so? (Ah, you want to win!!! Although I do think that TIME is on the side of same-sex couples.)
Yes, I’ve lost because that I don’t care to think more and come up with NEW augments. Evidently I also fail to convey clearly to you that my main point/concern is
“Is it possible that there are no absolute moral rules in the case of SSM, instead, we have different moral values and different priorities that decide which side we are on? “
The question should sound familiar to you. Your answer is “NO” since morally, SSM is absolutely wrong TO YOU. I disagree because your rules are in no way absolute. Why? Read all the words that have been put forth by many supporters of SSM. I don’t consider this a matter of losing or winning.
I am also trying to decide what kind of person you are. I am judgmental.
(No more comments on SSM from me. BTW, have you sent your posts to any of your gay friends?)
JH,
Time for a breather, old chap. I haven’t any idea where you got the notion I said “you lost.” You’re beginning to hallucinate.
Mr. Briggs,
I read too fast, so I misread. Pleases strike “I’ve lost! Do you think so?” in my comments. My points still stands.
You take time for a breather too, old chap.
The absence of evidence for a mostly immutable cause of homosexuality does not mean no such cause exists. Your logic is thus fallacious.
It is also, however, irrelevant. The case against gay marriage rests not on finding that nobody is forced by biology to be gay, but rather on stronger pillars, a number of which you have mentioned.
To me, the strongest argument against gay marriage (meaning, government recognized gay “marriage”) is that it will be used to coerce those who disagree, typically through religious conviction, to go along with it.
Make no mistake: every possible way in which the religious can be attacked using government sanctioned gay marriage as a club will be used. Every one. Gay activists have never shown the slightest sense of balance or decency. Randy Shilts reported how gay activists threated to poison the blood supply by donations of blood from know AIDS victimes, just because the blood banks were refusing blood from homosexuals – at a time when no test for infected blood exists.
In the same way, gays have viciously attacked churches, especially the Catholic Church, already driving some Catholic adoption agencies out of business. The fact that these agencies were performing a highly valuable service, paid for by co-religionists, didn’t matter. It was either adopt to gay couples, or get out.
This absolutism and viciousness is, in itself, a wholly adequate reason to not provide the weapon of gay marriage to those who would use it so badly.
Sheri,
I personally never got married and I have no plan to get married soon. But what I remember, from marriages I witness, is that both spouses had to answer YES at some point to get married. Consent is required.
In other part of the world children do get married without their consent but the consent of their parents is required.
I’m pretty sure that you are not suggesting that the western world should take lessons on individual rights and freedoms from old countries. Something like Ed Snowden complaining that the US government violate civil right and seeking asylum from countries that have little to no personal freedom.
Have you been fired for voicing your opinion? I’m pretty sure that your opinion could be protected by the first amendment, at least to a certain limit depending on how you voiced it. There is probably nothing that has been said on this blog that would justify it.
As for getting hired, It should not matter what opinion you have. Yet, just looking gay, black, Latino, will make the job hunt much harder. In the US people actually get fired for being gay.
The definition of marriage used by most people who opposes it, is the definition adopted by the state of Israel after the exodus. Back then Israel was a religious state.
Are left-handed people (about 10% of total population) less natural than right-handed people?
Gay population is not as clear cut since not all gays out themselves, but they constitute 1-5% of the population. Why should left-handed be natural and not gays. In both cases they don’t choose, In both cases we can’t explain why.
“This absolutism and viciousness is, in itself, a wholly adequate reason to not provide the weapon of gay marriage to those who would use it so badly.”
Yet republican have no problem letting gun land in the hand of criminals or the crazy. I don’t know much people who die because someone got married.
How would suggesting the western world take lessons on individual rights and freedoms from old countries be any better or worse than suggesting that “progress” equals SSM? New is not always better. Who’s to say the old way is not the best and who are we to suggest they might be wrong? That would be intolerant, wouldn’t it. Intolerant of intolerance.
As noted, parents can consent to their children marrying. Consent to marriage exists only in some countries. And we must be tolerant of other’s ideas so we cannot disparage those who have arranged marriages or marry off their 9 year old.
My opinion on gays is NOT protected by the first amendment. Not in a job. Whether or not I have been fired is not relevant unless you are assuming I am the litmus test for the claim. You certainly can be fired in England:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-firing-teacher-who-called-homosexual-sin-reflects-modern-british-valu/
Then there’s the good old USA
http://www.towleroad.com/2012/01/school-board-moves-to-fire-viki-knox-nj-teacher-who-called-homosexuality-a-perverted-sin-on-facebook.html
http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/california-labor-employment/fired-homophobe-offended-guys-hitting-987167466/a/
You are comparing handedness to sexual orientation? Okay, for years people that were left-handed were taught to use their right hand and they did so. No severe psychological damage occurred so far as I know. People learn to use their non-dominate hand if they lose their dominant one. So the handedness is NOT absolute. It can be and is relearned when the situation calls for it. So if the sexual orientation works the same way, heterosexuality can be learned by homosexuals.
Oh, 1-3% of the population are sociopaths–does that make them natural? Should we indulge their “normalcy”?
(As I recall, you were “gun-ho” for gun control, so it seems you are willing to impinge upon my rights. As for causing death, homosexuals have the highest rate of new HIV cases in the USA each year and the highest percentage of any group living with HIV. This is according to the CDC. So “gay” sex most certainly can kill and at a rate higher than heterosexual sex (only 27% of new cases).)
Sheri,
About the first case you presented I retain this excerpt:
“The judge disagreed, saying, “This case is not about the right of a teacher to hold sincerely held beliefs based on the Bible in relation to homosexuality or attendance at church on Sundays. It has been about how those beliefs and views are manifested in the context of teaching in schools with young people with diverse sexuality, backgrounds, and beliefs.—
In Canada, the law protect us from illegitimate firing. Employers needs to have a good reason to fire people.
About your second link. If she goes to court she will probably win because of this line “Do I treat them bad? If course not! Jesus never did that to ANYONE he meant”
Public school are supposed to be laic which means that teacher cannot imposed their personal belief on their students.
And this goes both ways. For example in some state people can be fired for being gay (1). Or doctor are force to lie to there patient and perform unnecessary procedure(2).
1) http://www.policymic.com/articles/11738/5-people-who-were-fired-for-being-gay-and-the-29-states-where-that-is-still-legal
2) http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/06/new-kansas-anti-abortion-law-orders-doctors-to-lie-to-their-patients/
About handedness:
Left-handed people who were forced to write right-handed did poorly in school and many suffered bad self-esteem and had a lot of trouble adjusting throughout their life. Those who were ambidextrous did better just like those who are bisexual.
http://www.anythinglefthanded.co.uk/changing-left-to-right.html#sthash.Bva70DGa.dpbs
Sociopath can do as they want as long as they respect individual freedom, when they kill they go to prison.
About gun control:
I’m for background check and the ban of some weapon that cannot be use as a hunting weapon. Even Scalia said that the government is justified to impose some limit to gun as long as he doesn’t interdict them completely.