I’m Confused And Scared
Now I’m so confused. He seems to make sense, but he can’t be right! Can He? Maggie Gallagher told me The Gays don’t deserve to have marriages. And what is this he said about considering my wife to be property? Can I have that kind of marriage still? Oh and is it wrong for me to think he is attractive?
Brilliant unfortuantely those with a closed mind will not uchange. BTW I’m not gay and used to buy into that Orange County, CA ultra-conservative scheisse when I was a kid.
[Reply]
I love this site.. it’s amazing and the videos are the best! ;]
[Reply]
I’m very glad someone took the time out to look at and analyze the argument on the anti-SSM side. I didn’t here a lot of good arguments like I did here and it was very nice to see that change.
I thought I might suggest something. I’m part of the Queer Straight Alliance at my college and we do a lot of campaigning and one thing we advertize is a brochure that is titled “1,138 federal rights denied to same sex couples”. I don’t know how updated it is but I know it’s fairly recent, and unfortunately I also don’t know how it pertains to civil unions/domestic partnerships. But it does coorelate(sp?) to mini DOMAs that were passed in individual states(I think 15) after it was signed by Bill Clinton in 1995? I wish I could be more specific but this is all off of memory and I don’t currently have access to all the info.
But I thought that 1,138 rights would be good to point out about the whole “Why not civil unions?” argument.
[Reply]
MsMkie Reply:
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 am
@Deborah Smith, incest is illegal because of the dangerous potential do procreate and create overly homozygous children (see Charles II of Spain, who was so inbred that his genes were more similar than those of a brother-sister union). Of course, that is not to say that a brother-sister incest union can’t exist without sex, but it is an orange and Gay marriage is an apple. Incest has potentially genetically dangerous implications, and was made illegal for that reason.
Gay marriage activists – or activists for equal marriage rights – are fighting to eliminate the orientation-based segregation that exists in our country, where we the heterosexuals will only let gays & lesbians get a second-rate union, while we get to call ourselves “married”. At present, only 1/2 of the nation is allowed to marry men, and that’s because of our birthright: the vagina. Letting the other half of the nation marry men won’t affect anyone at all other than the two men who want to get married, and due to obvious procreative issues, are 100% less likely to give birth to a genetically at-risk child, or give birth to another child to contribute to overpopulation. (Well, gay men, that is.)
[Reply]
Bobby Jones Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 4:32 am
@MsMkie, What if a sister wanted to marry her sister? There would be no birth defects or disease then. And if you made exceptions for them, wouldn’t you have to for a brother and a sister as well? If not, homosexuals would then have more rights then heterosexuals and this is all about equal rights, right?
[Reply]
I find the arguments presented by both gays and religious conservatives to be… humorous.
My first question to the gays would be WHY? Why do you want to enter into a marriage? What do you have to gain?
From my perspective, it’s an archaic ritual steeped in religious fanaticism. I’m married – and without the documentation stating as such, I’d have the same relationship with my spouse of 14 years as I’ve had with it. What exactly is this worth to gay people?
And of course the “slippery slope”. He’s apparently dodged the consensual incest argument that would more likely derail the discussion. Leave the goats and pedophilia comments to the 700 club – no rational person takes them seriously. However, if a man were to want to marry his consenting sister, should he not have the same right as a gay person? That doesn’t strike me as any more or less unsavory than a gay relationship, nor do I think it would affect my wife, children, or my children’s children. Is this comparison offensive to gays? I would certainly hope not – it would be hypocritical in the extreme.
Choosing marriage as a battleground for acceptance appears masochistic at best. Sure, you’ll make more headlines riling the zealots, but you will also garner the ire of people like myself that previously had no real interest in a non-issue. Women demanding access to all-male military academies come to mind.
[Reply]
Kitty Moone Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
@Jason,
marriage is not just a sheet of paper and a ring.
There is a whole host of financial and tax benefits as well.
A single person won’t get as much tax return money as a married person. A married college student can get much, much more in financial aid and grants than a single student.
Homosexuals should have the right to experience those financial benifits as much as heterosexuals.
When renting an apartment, landlords are more likely to lease to married couples than to single people.
When applying for a job, married people are seen as more “stable” than single people, and are thus more likely to be hired.
[Reply]
Helen Reply:
July 15th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
@Jason,
Don’t essentially disagree with anything you’re saying, and Kitty makes some great points too.
However, whether you believe it a worthy enough cause to fight, doesn’t change the fact that illegal same-sex marriages is structural discrimination which must be challenged.
It’s not really marriage itself. It’s that denying it to same sex couples sends a message saying “you are not equal”.
[Reply]
Ben Reply:
July 20th, 2009 at 11:07 am
@Jason,
The very fact that you are married is a perfect example. You loosely threw away that fact. You are married. You have entered and can do something that gay people are not allowed to do. If you only think of it as a piece of paper then why did you do it? Why are you married? Clearly there is something special about it otherwise you wouldn’t have done it. If someone told you you couldn’t get married you’d be outraged because it does mean something.
As for the sister thing i would still consider that as outrageous as the goats as there is probably as many cases for goats as there are for siblings. The gay demand however is much higher with a huge community of people. I do see your point but society is about evolution and change. A hundred years ago a black person couldn’t step on a bus and was considered sub-human. Things change and its the little changes that make a big difference in life.
[Reply]
Bobby Jones Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 4:27 am
@Ben, What if a sister wanted to marry her sister? There would be no birth defects or disease then. And if you made exceptions for them, wouldn’t you have to for a brother and a sister as well? One more point, what does the amount of people that support it have to do with anything? Isn’t this all about equal rights?
[Reply]
Unicorn Dick Reply:
August 19th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
@Jason, Ass hole.
We have plenty to gain because we belong to each other in the face of others.
[Reply]
hallowed hypocrisy Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 6:13 am
@Unicorn Dick,
excuse me sir Dick, but i believe it is unfair to shout names at someone who is simply stating their opinion of the situation. Besides, im sure you get called plenty of names and do not appreciate it so lets not be hypocrites. In no way did he mean to offend you- he said so. People are raised with a set of morals, ethics, and personal values, and with his, he expressed his views. This is all in response to a video so let us try to be civil to the responses of others. Afterall we may not yet have legal gay marriage but freedom of speech has been there for ages and you should not judge without at least trying to see from another perspective. Besides, if you’re fighting so hard for your rights as a gay couple then the way to win is not to push away people who could be persuaded to potential supporters in the matter…
[Reply]
Adam Flanders Reply:
September 28th, 2009 at 3:16 am
@Jason,
Incest is illegal between two adults of the opposite sex in order to prevent disease and birth defects in offspring. Relationships between same-sex couples do not result in genetic disorders.
[Reply]
Re: slippery slope to bestiality/pedophilia/polygamy…
These reporters are from a different generation. And, I would say a socially uneducated one at that. Perhaps they watched “All In the Family” and adopted the stereotypes of yesterday. There are many who associate homosexuality with pedophilia, because they were told at a very young age that these things were wrong. It’s sad because through all the verbal diarrhea, they aren’t saying what is really behind it all… FEAR! Fear that equality makes them just another Joe, and nothing special. (Sorry to those named Joe) I compare it to a rich CEO who just refuses to give his employees raises because in his righteous mind, no one is more deserving than he/she. Ultimately, we have no right to judge someone else.. on both sides. It’s sad that we have not evolved passed the need to ‘throw tea in the harbor’ to make effective change. We want something, and we want it now! I believe patience is a virtue that we all need to nurture. No backlashing at those who are anti-gay marriage. I’m not suggesting a passive role, rather a very aggressive one in educating the children of America’s future!
[Reply]
I think I’m in love. You know, the less special gay kind. Can I borrow him for the next Pride Fair so we can ditch the protesters early?
[Reply]
I just wanted to add to the slippery slope argument because I have the same one. I am a Catholic married to a Jew. It wasn’t until I was committed in this relationship that I learned that there are people who find our marriage invalid or even disgusting. Even in this day and age, people view us as different races. Seriously. If we allow religion to influence who can get married. Which religion gets a say and how long is it until my own marriage is revoked?
[Reply]
I’m surprised no one’s mentioned the fact that pedophiles *are* allowed to marry children. All they need is the consent of the parent *and* the child. And viola, perfectly legal marriage between an 80 year old and an 8 year old.
And yet, it’s not legal for two 30 year old men to get married to each other. Because, gasp, making that legal might lead to legalizing pedophilia. Oh wait….
[Reply]
[...] Found here: http://www.giantgayrepellentumbrella.com/2009/05/im-confused-and-scared/ [...]
don’t hate me for trivializing ur argument, but your really hot!
[Reply]
It is maddening that we can’t be considered equal. That so many people get to be critics and more importantly get to vote in a decision of whether or not gay people can marry each other… It’s legal for us to be gay, it’s legal for us to live together…but it’s illegal for us to marry? How does this become something that others can decide? Why? This subject would be open and shut, and we would have our rights if it weren’t such a great media distraction while the world affairs, global economy and the atmosphere go to shit.
I’d say patience is virtue.
[Reply]
What? I thought this was a anti-gay marriage web site. Whats up with all gay pride? I’m confused. This will be the last time I ever visit giantgayrepellentumbrella.com!!!!!!!!!!
[Reply]
fail Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
@Fabulous Fanny, wow, have you NOT noticed the sarcasm in which everything has been written? seriously its pretty obvious
[Reply]
Adris Reply:
June 18th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
@fail,
How thick do you have to be to not realized that most of the people in the video are gay and gay supporters… honestly I am posting this on fail blog under.. “Ignorance WIN”
[Reply]
The attempt to portray homosexuality as a genus, define its species, or give it a classification is beyond comprehension. Homosexuality is a sexual act and nothing more. To claim that homosexuals reserve the right to marry, or to obtain insurance or other monetary benefits for their same sex partners, is like demanding that sadomasochists should be allowed to claim their whips,chains,and handcuffs as a business expense on their tax returns. Any individual that chooses to commit homosexuality behind closed doors, and in the privacy of their own home, cannot reasonably expect to receive acknowledgment, praise, and legal justification. Heterosexuals do not receive praise and admiration because they are having sex, nor does a reasonable heterosexual advertise or exploit their marital sex acts. A reasonable heterosexual views sex as a private act. Heterosexuals do not receive recognition as a union or partnership because society says so. It has been stipulated as such by God since the beginning of time. This was God’s will and purpose. Period! There is written proof of God’s intentions and existence that dates back thousands of years. However, where is the proof that a ‘homosexual’ gene exists and that homosexuals were born that way? I have yet to see these medical journals. Do not be fooled by the fallacy that violence and abuse does not exist among homosexuals. Numerous studies have been published that show a high rate of violence, abuse, and infidelity occurring in homosexual relationships. Hey, what homosexuals choose to do behind closed doors will always be between them and THEIR God, but these constant attempts for public recognition and infiltration need to stop. Humanity was created by the one true God, and his intentions for humanity were quite clear. You can argue it to the death, but the end result will always be the same. This is why homosexual relationships always contain one effeminate partner and one domineering or more aggressive partner; because when all is said and done, even homosexuals recognize that a union requires balance between estrogen and testosterone.
[Reply]
Tomáš Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 11:06 am
@Janet, You discredit your own argument and yourself by the use of religion as a pivotal point in your argument. It’s wrong to instill and force YOUR religious views and values on others, so please try to refrain from doing it.
As to the gay gene, you show yourself to be woefully uninformed and ignorant, since there simply cannot be ONE single gay gene. Homosexuality (at least in males) is caused by a wide array of factors, from the number of older brothers that a specimen has (because with each consecutive male child a woman has, she becomes more and more apt at ‘feminising’ the foetus with antidotes and hormones, especially estrogen and dopamine), to change in receptors for testosterone (which can be caused by hundreds of different genes), to pure randomness (mutation on the Y chromosome).
Or if you’d like to take a less scientific approach in finding out whether gay people are born gay or choose to love members of their own sex, simply ASK US. Just pose a simple question, “Did you choose not to be straight?” You’ll get a uniform answer, no matter how many people you ask. “No.” Why would anyone deliberately make their own life harder? Especially if you happen to be born in Alabama or Texas or Utah… where they’ll hate you and disown you, or even Uganda or Saudi Arabia where they’ll hang you for being gay. It’d be illogical and suicidal. Sexuality is not a choice, and if you believe it is you’re quite frankly not very bright, or extremely brain-washed by a hateful delusion called religion.
And no, not all homosexual relationships contain a submissive and a dominant partner. Plenty of couples alternate roles. If thinking about this makes you sick, perhaps you shouldn’t have gone into it in the first place.
I usually understand when men bash gay people because it’s natural for men to want to appear manly and macho, but women like you always strike me as interesting. How would you like it if someone were to invade your life and start taking away your civil liberties on the grounds of WHO YOU ARE? Let’s say a woman. What if you were fired from your job simply because you’re a woman? Would you like that? I hope not.
[Reply]
Janet Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
@Tomáš,
I find it interesting that you choose a plan of attack that inolves persection, yet, you claim that the civil liberties of homosexuals are being denied. The facts are the facts, and stating that I am ‘not very bright’ or ‘hatefully delusioned’ will not change that. Everything in life bares a risk. Homosexuals chose to live a life of consequence because they felt that the gratification from their sexual addiction was worth it. Your rights as an individual are protected. As an individual, you have the right to insurance, employment, etc. However, you do not reserve the right to change the law of God that this country was founded on. My belief in God and the fact that this country is a nation under God is not a religion itself; as you do not know whether I am Catholic, Baptist, Nazarene, Mormon, etc. The scientic argument that you present sounds more like an environmental pursuasion than a genetic one. Antidotes, hormones, and testosterone receptors are factors of environmental introductions into the body, not genetic ones. It is unlikely that birthing seven males will ensure that hormones introduced during the next three births will be ‘feminising’. To accomplish this, a female would have to environentally alter her hormones and genetic disposition. Your argument borders on the same old, same old. You cannot accept the answer to the question, and you are throwing a temper tantrum to get your way. Homosexuality is a private sex act that should be kept behind closed doors; just as any reasonable heterosexual would do. It does not deserve recognition or rights; as it is a thing, not a human being.
[Reply]
Tomáš Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
@Janet,
I think you’re being a little bit confused, here. Your country was founded on separation of church and state, was it not? Not on God, not on Christianity. It was founded by puritan Europeans fleeing from religious prosecution as a state of liberty and equality. One of the fundamental rights built into your constitution is the right to marry. Now I understand that you may not accept homosexuality as a genuine state of being, you think it’s a choice. You think we choose to act on our desires, when really what we are doing is following our heart. We don’t get to choose whom we love the same way you don’t get to choose whom you love. It’s that simple.
And frankly, your assessment of hormones and receptor changes as environmental is a pure lapse in judgement. Hormone levels in the womb are dictated by genes and are highly hereditary – genetic. (Studies have shown up to 1 out of 7 gay men’s homosexuality is caused by fraternal birth order.) Testosterone receptors in the amygdala and frontal cortex are – again – dictated by genes. Now this is not to say that because genes play a determining role that this is all set in stone. The genome is not a blueprint, it’s not a plan of how the body should be built; it’s a set of switches which can be activated by environmental triggers and which exert most of their influence through timing, not through simple ON or OFF. This is why it’s very difficult to pinpoint specific genes for most aspects of the human being (except for one-factor cases, such as Huntington’s), because even incredibly subtle differences in timing (determined by the aforementioned receptors) can amount to huge differences in the end result. It’s like baking a souffle. Timing is crucial, perhaps more so than slightly altering the ingredients. And just like with a souffle, you can’t break down the end result and expect to see primary components. You’ll find crumbles, not flour and eggs. Which is why you simply can’t discredit a whole group of people who have nothing wrong with them just because just because there isn’t a single gene for their difference. You can’t use that as evidence that sexuality is a choice.
I’ll give you one thing, though. You’re trying to equate who a person is to who a person sleeps with. I’m sure you wouldn’t like this to be applied to your life either, as it is degrading and dehumanising, so why do it to us? Doesn’t that go against the very religious views that you seem so fond of? Do onto others as you would have them do unto you?
All we want is equal status before the law. We don’t ask you to accept us for who we are, we just ask you not to spread hate. What is it to you if two women who love each other get married? Does it somehow make your marriage less valuable, less valid? No. In fact, does it any way, shape or form affect you or your marriage? No. So why, why do people like you keep doing all they can to prevent other people from being happy? Isn’t your religion supposed to be one of peace, one of compassion?
@ Thomas
It is a shame that so many people confuse love with sex, and hate with non-acceptance. The love that we hold for another human being is never based on sex Thomas. It is based on friendship, compassion, sharing common interests, trust, respect, etc. A reasonable human being will spend 90% of each day in the responsibilities of life, not sex. You are confusing the love and respect that you have for your friend with a sexual act. Love and respect does not demand touching, or acts of sexual desires. It demands working together to reach a common goal. It does not require health insurance, marriage, or special accomodations. Marriage is a contractual agreement that was developed to prevent males and females from engaging in permiscuous relationships; as they are detrimental to offspring and to an individual’s health. It was meant to bond the family unit together to prevent fornication and the threat of an absent parent; as children need both the male and female influences. Marriage should be fully recognized between males and females, because together, they have the capacity to pro-create. For those that do not, and in cases of adoption, a child still requires the influence of a male/female relationship to become well rounded. Also, because I refuse to accept homosexuality as nothing more than a sexual act, it does not mean that I hate the individuals who commit such an act. I understand that homosexuality is an addiction that requires treatment. Both the mouth and the anus have never been the proper receptacles for the seed, and you know this. I should not have to point out the anatomy of males and females. The object of sex is to pro-create (as 90% of life is spent working, socializing, and tending to household duties). Same sex partners cannot pro-create. The anatomy of a human being was never designed to accomodate homosexuality. Just because a homosexual has found an alternate way to sexual gratification, does not mean that it should be given rights and special accomodations. It is against the law to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded room, uless a fire actually exists. Unfortunately, this is what homosexuals are doing. You are raising awareness about a sexual addiction and asking that it be treated as a separate genus or species and given special rights. In the meantime, impressionable young children are being exposed to this twisted information and are becoming more and more confused about their sexuality. They are experimenting with bi-sexuality to see which way is the best fit, and they are being brainwashed into thinking that this alternative lifestyle is acceptable. It is driving teenagers that have never questioned their sexuality before, to question it now. It is being crammed down our throats on National television, to the point that you have to turn almost every channel to secure yourself and your children from exposure. Don’t get me wrong, steamy sex scenes between males and females give me cause to turn the channel as well; as it inspires children to become sexually active before they are mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions. This is an argument you just can’t win Thomas. Anatomy is against you. Homosexuality is a sexual addiction, and should be treated as such.
[Reply]
Tomáš Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 6:25 am
@ Janet
What would you do if your child was gay? Would you stand by your
claims? Would you have them go through pointless torturous therapy
because of who they are? Would you ostracise them because of who they
are? Would you hate them because of who they are? If you would, you’re
not a very good mother and indeed not a very good human being.
And as far as your argument that anatomy is against me is concerned,
as well as your claim that human sexuality is a choice, why not look
to the professionals for the answer? The American Medical Association,
The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological
Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association, The American
Academy of Pediatrics and the National Association of Social Workers
have all stated that homosexuality should not be treated as a mental
disorder and that they oppose attempts at reparative or conversion
therapy and that sexual orientation is not a choice and CANNOT be
changed.
We’re all people. We’re equal. I trust that it is your firm belief
that we are all created equal before your god. So why discriminate
against innocent people who have nothing wrong with them on the basis
of whom they love? And don’t equate gay love with gay sex. Same-sex
couples are just as loving, just as caring, with the same drama and
problems as heterosexual couples. And studies have shown that children
brought up by same-sex couples fare no worse than children reared in
more ‘traditional’ families. In fact, their social skills and general
success in life were above average. This is of course not to say that
they are better than a one-man-one-woman households, it is just to
demonstrate that a same-sex couple’s family is just as valid as yours,
and that it is much better for a child to be in such a family than to
spend its childhood in an orphanage.
Take my country for example. Our orphanages are bursting at the seams,
filled to the brink with children growing up without any semblance of
family support. Legally, every citizen has the right to adopt a child
from an orphanage (as long as they fulfill the legal criteria).
However, by entering into a civil partnership, one loses this right.
Thousands of potential families who would love to welcome a child in
their care and bring it up lovingly are denied adoption, while
children who would give anything for a functioning family are forced
to grow up in dreadful conditions.
Homosexuality has always been a factor in human society. It is not
just an alternative lifestyle as you like to call it, it’s embedded
into the very essence of who we (and by we a I mean me and hundreds of
millions of others) are. The only reason why it wasn’t very obvious in
western society throughout the last two millennia is because of the
religion-based oppression and stigmatisation. In particular
Catholicism and Christianity as a whole, as well as Islam.
So please, don’t meddle in matters that do not concern you and, most
importantly, don’t spread hate. (Yes, hate. At the heart of the
matter, that is what it boils down to. Hate and intolerance.)
[Reply]
Janet Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
@Tomáš,
Interesting. You have me tried and convicted before I even had a chance to answer the question. This is not the first time you’ve attacked my character during our debate. Why does the truth scare you so? I have been able to stick to the issues without criticizing your personality, your character, or your gender. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and checked your sources.
You lied to me Tomas. The American Medical Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, et. al, have mixed opinions on homosexuality and are at war amongst themselves over the debate on treatment. I have also done much research on children raised in same-sex homes and found that you lied to me again. These children have no choice in the matter….in one hand is an orphanage with very little freedoms and little attention, and in the other hand is a same-sex home. These children are not given the right to choose. If they were…they would choose to be with their biological mothers and fathers. Homosexuals that consider themselves the great saviors of the world should think again. These children are not well adjusted, they are brainwashed. Homosexuals take them when they are too young to know better and then they brain-wash them into believing that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle. In tracing these children’s lives into adulthood, they are found to suffer from mental health disorders, nervous conditions, and irresponsible behavior (i.e. drugs, alcohol, permiscuous relationships, etc.).
You claim that orphanages are bursting at the seams, yet your solution is to allow homosexual adoptions? How is that treating the problem? You are slapping a band-aid on a festering wound and calling it a day. Unbelievable! If you want to stop overcrowding in the orphanages, then start encouraging moral behavior. Set up workshops to teach young mothers and fathers how to cope with parenthood and help them learn to care for their children. Teach them how to live on a budget and help instill a solid work ethic. Counsel men and women on the importance of abstinence until they are ready to commit to a life of parenthood.
The same goes for insurance. If our country is suffering with a health care crisis, then find a way to bring affordable health benefits to all citizens; don’t make this a same-sex marriage issue.
Stop being so selfish Tomas. Stop making everything into a gay rights issue and start working on a solution to the real problem. Stop turning the truth into ‘hate’.
How convenient it must be to say that everyone hates homosexuals every time they disagree with you. Any reasonable human being does not hate you Tomas; they take issue with your sexual addiction, and they take issue with the fact that you spew rhetoric in an attempt to brainwash them into believing that human anatomy is just a figment of their immagination.
[Reply]
Excellent arguments. He points out the exceptionally poor logic used by NOM, et. al. Two arguments that could also have been used:
For the “Think about the children” argument, I think that almost anyone would agree that children are better off being raised in a nurturing, loving, and supportive same-sex family than they are being raised by the state.
As for the “polygamy, bestiality…” rant, they flat out say that it is a slippery slope. For those unversed in the rules of logic:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
[Reply]
DPG Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
@Gregor,
To be fair, not all slipperly slope arguments are fallacious. If argued for they can be perfectly reasonable. But that’s largely an aside; you’re correct to cry ‘fallacy!’ in this instance. All those arguments amount to is vitriol.
Okay, with that out of the way, I have a few things to say:
1) I do not know whether homosexuality is a choice, sometimes or always. I don’t think we know enough about the human animal to say without a doubt that sexual orientation of any kind is not to *any* degree a choice. I DO, however, believe this to be immaterial. If it were a choice, what would change? Do we really only allow same-sex relationships to occur because the participants can’t help it? I don’t see why anything would change if sexuality were a choice. Same-sex relationships, intercourse &c should be accepted because they harm no one (excluding the plethora of bigots, fanatics &c out there; but if their supposed ‘harm’ stems from their ignorance (which, perhaps somewhat ironically, IS quite plausibly chosen), their interests are no more worth considering than those who lost out from the abolition of slavery) and produce happiness for many (even indirectly through those who are strong proponents of the cause).
2) The argument from nature is absurdly pervasive for one so plainly fallacious. Firstly, what is ‘natural’? There seem to be two options, if we are to believe that what is natural is good and vice-versa (reasons which I borrow from Mill):
a) If the natural is anything outside of human artifice, we have restricted far too much; everything we do, from cultivating crops, to eating our meals, to walking along a path, involves artifice.
b) If the natural is everything in the natural world, we have restricted nothing; humans are part of the natural world, as are all of the things avaliable to the aid in the fruition of their ends.
Personally, the second seems much more plausible. How can anything in our natural world, performed by inhabitants of our natural world, using other components of our natural world, be unnatural? It seems patently false that anything could be. But either way, the argument from nature (and its normativity) is quite clearly vacuous.
3) A point on some of the ‘terrible’ consequences of which the aforementioned slippery slope argument forewarns us. Personally, the only one of the three listed the pernicious of which I would need little convincing of is paedophilia (the considerations being quite similar to those the speaker in this excellent video gave). Bestiality and polygamy, are, in my view, rejected too hastily through an assumed propriety. I implore you not to misconstrue me: I do not wish to defend either off-hand. I simply believe that their qualities should be considered more carefully before dismissing either, especially as regards polygamy I have similar concerns regarding incest, about which I wish to make a quick cursory note. Some posters on this site have claimed that incest is illegal because of birth defects. This argument, standing alone, seems wholly unpersuasive. We should think carefully before placing a blanket ban on any procreation which might proliferate congenital birth defects, like disabilites, various illnesses/conditions etc. I believe the likelihood of birth defects in children of 1st cousins are identical with (perhaps even less than, although this information is tenuous (i.e. from memory) and I suggest independent research and adjudication, of course) children of women of 40 or over. I doubt many would intuitively wish to make it illegal for such women to consider procreation. In sum, I think that careful deliberation and deference is due with respect to all issues like these; not just an unconsidered conformity to the demands of propriety (consider the fact that it is a kind of propriety against which proponents of SMM are rallying).
Finally, I would like to say how impressed I was with this video. The arguments were eloquently, clearly and persuasively expressed. Which is odd, because the vile polemic on the anti-SMM side might lead me to believe that such qualities in a homosexual were unprecedented.
[Reply]
DPG Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
@DPG,
Ugh, I should have proof read.
1. ‘Reasons which’ should read ‘options which’
2. The first the in ‘the aid in the fruition’ is superfluous
3. ‘Pernicious’ should read ‘perniciousness’
4. A full-stop is missing between ‘polygamy’ and ‘I have similar concerns’
I’m going to add a kind of footnote to my point on incest and birth defects; incestual couples do not have to have children (or might be same-sex, as others have stated). I doubt many rational people would wish to argue that no couple not yet prepared to raise children should have an amarous (or otherwise intimate) relationship.
[Reply]
DPG Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
@DPG,
I want to make a further addendum, to clarify a point I made. I said I was unsure whether homosexuality is or is not a choice. Now, I am not ignorant of research into genetic (among other) components of homosexuality. What I mean to assert is not an out-and-out agnosticism as much as an acknowledgement of our limitations. I do not deny that homosexuality may be, as far as anything is, outside of choice. What I take issue with is a definite assertion either way (note that I would take no exception to statements like “homosexuality is probably not a choice” or belief-statements), since even our most gifted psychologists, geneticists and etc. are not certain. But really what I was trying to show was that it is unimportant, not that one side or the other is right, or even ‘more right’.
Why is polygamy wrong? I mean it obviously CAN be wrong for certain people, probably most people, but why is it always wrong? I don’t want to marry multiple women, but if all parties enter into it willingly, with INFORMED consent, then what’s the problem?
And with same-sex couples raising children, the only reason I can think of that the children will be worse off is that they would lack of an internal working model for a specific gender. But that happens with single parents, so surely same-sex couples are likely to be better parents than single parents, what with them having more time between them. It obviously won’t always be the case, but are they saying we shouldn’t let single parents keep their children?
[Reply]
You mentioned how people who know gay couples tend to support gay marriage. That is a valid point, and I support gay marriage, and you had me right up until your bigotry at the end there.
How many people do you know in plural marriages? They are no more likely to involve abuse than monogamous marriages.
For pete’s sake, you want to get into bigotry? Do you know how many different cultures and religion’s practice polygamy?
Where do you get off saying “My family is not inferior to yours, but we are both superior to that family of abusive degenerates”.
You are using polygamous marriage as a scapegoat to make your own fight easier. Its easier to say “Give our group equal rights because we have a chance at popular support, and ignore those unpopular families also being persecuted. If you will but spare us your scorn we will turn on them with you”.
[Reply]