Homosexual marriage II

[hectorberlioz]

Therefore I don't know why you brought up The Pea and the Planet influence thing.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

According to the Genetics Organization, major and highly similar differences between men and women have been observed across the vast majority of civilizations and cultures in our world. Men have had major differences from women in their roles in society. If men and women were mentally pretty much the same, you would see a roughly equivalent number of societies in the world that are dominated by women, to those in which men have been the leaders, military and aggressive gender. History shows no such sameness. This is a strong evidence that differences between men and women aren't cultural, but are rather biological.

Like almost all behavior, it is a combination of culture and biology. You are slipping too far into either/or arguments.

There a certain behavioral traits a vast majority of the male population share, but not all males share them to the same degree. There are also certain traits that the female population shares, but not all females share them.

If you looked at a population of males, 10-20% might appear far towards what we define as "female behavior", just as another 10-20% might be defined as "excessively male" in behavior. The same is true of females. Some of this is upbringing, and some of this may be biological (i.e. hormonal balance).

If you paint a with a broad brush as you do, there are males, and there are females. But, if you look at reality, the behaviors overlap so far that in some cases you will have females who are behaviorially "more male" than some males are. You don't need a study for this, you can observe it in everyday life.

This is why, eventhough a vast majority of cultures were dominated by males in the past, there were a few that were not. Do some study into the Queens of England if you don't believe that women can be dominant.

What you are basically saying is: "The majority of people are this way. Thus, all people are this way."

Also, I'm not saying that "men and women are the same". I am saying that there are enough differences in behavior within each gender as to render your "gender matters in terms of a relationship" as moot.

[Lief Erikson]

That comes down to you and I having different interpretations of our personal experiences with people.

I strongly disagree with your 10-20% femininity among males or masculinity among females, though. I've only seen this kind of variation in perhaps 5% of those I've met from each gender, if that.

England has had many more male rulers than female rulers, because the bloodline went from male to male until there weren't any left, and then out of necessity the succession went to women.

What you are basically saying is: "The majority of people are this way. Thus, all people are this way."

I'm not saying that. I am saying that "The vast majority of people are this way. A decidedly large enough majority to make laws that take gender into account."

You don't refrain from laws preventing stealing because there are a few random thieves who do good by stealing. And the vast majority of the laws we have for the protection of our country are made with the knowledge that some people will be improperly treated under them. They are improper for that small minority of cases.

For instance, we have a court system even though we know that sometimes, justice will not be kept in it. We have a medical profession even though we know our doctors will occasionally make mistakes that kill their patients, or result in their patients' deaths. We can have laws about gender that govern the vast majority of cases, even if they don't hold up for every example. Sometimes, that kind of law is necessary for the good of the country.

The evidence concerning masculine dominance in cultures throughout history certainly implies, in my opinion, a larger difference than a 10-20% off-shoot variation within each gender. My own experience implies the same to me. I'll wager it wouldn't to you, and that I would interpret your experiences differently if they were mine.

So we have our own different interpretations of the evidence I have presented and our personal experiences. As we're now just getting down to personal interpretation of our experiences and the data, and those interpretations differ, I suspect that in the absence of additional evidence, we're left without anywhere further to go in this line of conversation.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

England has had many more male rulers than female rulers, because the bloodline went from male to male until there weren't any left, and then out of necessity the succession went to women.

And some did a very good job of it once given the chance. Better than many of the males.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm not saying that. I am saying that "The vast majority of people are this way. A decidedly large enough majority to make laws that take gender into account."

A vast majority was against interracial marriage some southern states, but it was struck down. A vast majority was against giving women the right to vote, for many of the gender-related issues you point to. Time and experience with things the public fears often proves these fears to be unfounded.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As we're now just getting down to personal interpretation of our experiences and the data, and those interpretations differ, I suspect that in the absence of additional evidence, we're left without anywhere further to go in this line of conversation.

Except for me to say once again, give it a chance. Maybe try to get to know some homosexual couples, and by that I mean adult couples, not people in their teens or early-twenties who are often not good examples of general hetero- or homosexual behavior.

Approach it with an open mind. That it is a positive relationship until proven otherwise, as opposed to the other way around.

In my mind, even just one healthy, loving homosexual couple is enough evidence to give them the priviledge, since we have absolutely no behavioral requirements for heterosexual couples to get married.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

A vast majority was against interracial marriage some southern states, but it was struck down. A vast majority was against giving women the right to vote, for many of the gender-related issues you point to. Time and experience with things the public fears often proves these fears to be unfounded.

You misunderstand me. I was saying that a vast majority of women fall into the expected feminine gender role, and a vast majority of men. By which I meant the feminine women and masculine men numbers were bigger than 80-90%, in my experience.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In my mind, even just one healthy, loving homosexual couple is enough evidence to give them the priviledge, since we have absolutely no behavioral requirements for heterosexual couples to get married.

So if one person has a rare disease which makes cigarettes healthy for him, as a counter for the disease (I've heard of this happening), we should announce to the world that cigarettes are fine based on his experience alone.

That's what we do with homosexual marriage. Give that relationship marriage laws and you declare it to be healthy. You also make marriage definition strictly arbitrary, and it could change to almost anything else in the future and becomes meaningless. You also implement laws which, while they might benefit a handful of homosexual relationships, might be very damaging to the vast majority of them because they aren't designed with that different kind of relationship's biological needs taken into account. That also may harm heterosexuals, who could become entangled in legal problems because of two relationships blindly being made equivalent under law, without any evidence having been produced showing that they are equivalent.

Doing this makes no sense, in my view.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So if one person has a rare disease which makes cigarettes healthy for him, as a counter for the disease (I've heard of this happening), we should announce to the world that cigarettes are fine based on his experience alone.

Cigarettes are not "fine", but they are legal, eventhough they are obviously dangerous.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Give that relationship marriage laws and you declare it to be healthy.

Not at all. I've already given examples of cases where heterosexual marriages have a high likelyhood of being unhealthy, yet they are still legal.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You also make marriage definition strictly arbitrary, and it could change to almost anything else in the future and becomes meaningless.

Marriage, in a legal sense, has always been meaningless. There are no requirements for two people to get married. There are no requirements for two people while they are married. And there are no requirements that two people stay married.

It's perfectly legal for a man to marry a woman, and then for both of them to go off and live the rest of their lives with someone else.

The problem is that you are imposing the religious meaning behind marriage on the legal process of marriage. Something that does not, and has never, existed in practice.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You also implement laws which, while they might benefit a handful of homosexual relationships, might be very damaging to the vast majority of them because they aren't designed with that different kind of relationship's biological needs taken into account. That also may harm heterosexuals, who could become entangled in legal problems because of two relationships blindly being made equivalent under law, without any evidence having been produced showing that they are equivalent.

This seems to be a favorite diatribe of yours. I'd like to hear an example or two, even hypothetical, how two men or two women getting married would effect other relationships or their own in any way.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Cigarettes are not "fine", but they are legal, eventhough they are obviously dangerous.

Good. The same reasoning goes for homosexuality. Just as cigarettes are not "fine" but are legal, homosexuality should be allowed but not legal. But since we don't know that this kind of relationship doesn't harm people who participate in it, saying we do is irresponsible.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Not at all. I've already given examples of cases where heterosexual marriages have a high likelyhood of being unhealthy, yet they are still legal.

And I already responded that while culture can be gotten around in most cases or changed, people's biology will not change, and it frames the nature of a relationship. Hence, laws can be taylored to suit its individual needs.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Marriage, in a legal sense, has always been meaningless. There are no requirements for two people to get married. There are no requirements for two people while they are married. And there are no requirements that two people stay married.

Marriage has never been meaningless. There are treated as one under law. Their property is unified. Special divorce laws exist for the couple. In the past, upon marrying the woman ceded some of her rights to her husband, so historically too the relationship has always had meaning, in the legal sense.

If marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, though, and homosexuals can marry, you'll also get polygamy legalized and probably other kinds of relationships too. Laws that apply properly to one kind of relationship might not, to another, and may end up having to be discarded. Legal messes will result, when people with different kinds of relationships are butting heads with an inappropriate law. Marriage laws probably would need to be changed. Heterosexuals would be affected. Eventually, marriage laws would probably have to be discarded altogether.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

This seems to be a favorite diatribe of yours. I'd like to hear an example or two, even hypothetical, how two men or two women getting married would effect other relationships or their own in any way.

Here's one hypothetical example that relates to how homosexuals, specifically, might be negatively effected. I believe that homosexual relationships are substantially more promiscuous than are the majority of heterosexual ones. Divorce laws, which involve the division of property, hence might do major damage to homosexuals, when applied to them after their property is unified under legal marriage. We can't know what may occur with this until more studies are done to find out.

But regardless of whether this example is on-track or off, and I know you'll think it's off, the point remains. They are clearly, based on the strong evidence that men and women are substantially different genders, different kinds of relationships. So before we can apply the same laws that apply to heterosexuals to them, we need to find out what kind of a relationship it is we're saying is "fine" by giving it marriage status.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief

homosexuality should be allowed but not legal

The law does not recognize any such status.

Originally Posted by Lief

I believe that homosexual relationships are substantially more promiscuous than are the majority of heterosexual ones. Divorce laws, which involve the division of property, hence might do major damage to homosexuals, when applied to them after their property is unified under legal marriage.

With a heterosexual divorce rate at 50% and higher, and society still surviving, I think there is substantial evidence that divorce laws do not do as much "damage" as you think they do.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And I already responded that while culture can be gotten around in most cases or changed, people's biology will not change, and it frames the nature of a relationship. Hence, laws can be taylored to suit its individual needs.

The same argument was used against interracial marriages. You can't change the color of your skin. And others at the time argued that blacks were different behaviorially because of biology (i.e. not as smart, more prone to violence, etc.), and there were studies to back it up. Of course, the major reason for those differences were related to education and economic standing, not the color of their skin.

Blacks are biologically different than whites. Just as asians are biologically different than europeans, and women are biologically different than men. The question is whether these differences are great enough to allow discrimination between what we do and do not allow in any given set of adults.

In my mind, universal human intelligence, reasoning and compassion trumps any comparatively minor biological differences, whether between race or gender.

Homosexual relationships can be healthy, you are just unable to admit the possibility and are thus unable to see it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The law does not recognize any such status.

I'm not sure where I said that, but I must have miswritten. I meant that homosexuality should be legal, but the government shouldn't be saying it's healthy or fine by applying marriage laws to it, when it's still a seriously understudied kind of relationship, and they don't know it's fine.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

With a heterosexual divorce rate at 50% and higher, and society still surviving, I think there is substantial evidence that divorce laws do not do as much "damage" as you think they do.

Actually, I think there is huge damage that has been done to society by our high divorce rate. I think that it is a key factor behind the weakening of education among our youth, and thus can damage their long term futures. It also causes a great deal of pain, often, when it occurs. Healing relationships, on the other hand, helps people a lot. Divorce hurts people on more than one level, and hurts their children in multiple ways too. Not only by causing emotional pain among many children, but by keeping them from having either a mother or a father.

I think that there's a lot of damage that's obviously done by divorce.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The same argument was used against interracial marriages. You can't change the color of your skin. And others at the time argued that blacks were different behaviorially because of biology (i.e. not as smart, more prone to violence, etc.), and there were studies to back it up. Of course, the major reason for those differences were related to education and economic standing, not the color of their skin.

Those factors should have been taken into account. Blacks with less opportunity should have been compared to whites with less opportunity. Tests on homosexual relationships should be also compared with heterosexual relationships, not merely with heterosexual marriages.

The studies that regard gender have been taken across mutliple countries, cultures, and religious differences. The fact that in spite of all that variation in the testing, they continue to show greater aggression among men and more nurturing among women indicates that these are the result of biology rather than just socialization. The fact that men dominate civilizations across the world and always have is also an evidence of this, for if men and women were even roughly the same in brains, you'd see women dominating many civilizations.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Blacks are biologically different than whites. Just as asians are biologically different than europeans, and women are biologically different than men.

But the fact and way in which men and women are biologically different is strongly supported by evidence. Evidence suggests that racial differences don't mean that someone of one race is any less intelligent than people of other races. That, you can easily prove from classroom test scores, or just a few examples of expert black mathematicians.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In my mind, universal human intelligence, reasoning and compassion trumps any comparatively minor biological differences, whether between race or gender.

Homosexual relationships can be healthy, you are just unable to admit the possibility and are thus unable to see it.

Not one of the arguments I have been making has assumed that they are unhealthy. Your arguments have been assuming they are healthy. One of my arguments is just that we need to find out.

I'm also arguing that arbitrarily offering the same laws we give to heterosexual marriages to homosexual relationships without knowing that they fit that kind of relationship at all is irresponsible.

Your arguments are based on assumption.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The studies that regard gender have been taken across mutliple countries, cultures, and religious differences. The fact that in spite of all that variation in the testing, they continue to show greater aggression among men and more nurturing among women indicates that these are the result of biology rather than just socialization. The fact that men dominate civilizations across the world and always have is also an evidence of this, for if men and women were even roughly the same in brains, you'd see women dominating many civilizations.

Actually, the gender differences in leadership have very little to do with brains and much more to do with physicality. Remember, up until the last hundred years work was physical work and tending children and a home was a 24/7 job. Women fell into the home role because survival demanded it and men fell into the work role for the same reason. As a result, men were much more likely to become leaders because they were the warriors and later the business leaders.

Fast forward to today, when success is much more about what is in your head, and technology has allowed homemakers a lot more free time in their lives, and you are slowly seeing equity among the genders in all roles in society. We are still in the first few generations of this. But in another 100 years or so male/female roles may be completely interchangeable in society. There will be husbands staying at home just as often as wives, and females just as likely to hold positions of power.

This is because, mentally, they are more or less the same. There is no role in society, short of actually carrying a baby, that is exclusive to any one gender when physical strength no longer is a deciding factor in the equation.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Not one of the arguments I have been making has assumed that they are unhealthy. Your arguments have been assuming they are healthy. One of my arguments is just that we need to find out.

I'm also arguing that arbitrarily offering the same laws we give to heterosexual marriages to homosexual relationships without knowing that they fit that kind of relationship at all is irresponsible.

Your arguments are based on assumption.

My argument is to give them a chance. If all hell breaks loose, we can easily change things back. Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for a while now, and it doesn't seem much different.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Actually, I think there is huge damage that has been done to society by our high divorce rate. I think that it is a key factor behind the weakening of education among our youth, and thus can damage their long term futures. It also causes a great deal of pain, often, when it occurs. Healing relationships, on the other hand, helps people a lot. Divorce hurts people on more than one level, and hurts their children in multiple ways too. Not only by causing emotional pain among many children, but by keeping them from having either a mother or a father.

I think that there's a lot of damage that's obviously done by divorce.

And there is also a lot of damage done when people stay together who no longer love one another. The simple act of "marriage" has nothing to do with how well or how badly children are raised. Children need love and attention, and if parents are distracted by a bad relationship they don't get it. The key is love. Marriage is just a word.

Also, many people who get divorced either get remarried in a better relationship or can become very good single parents.

My wife got married at 20 to her highschool sweetheart when she got pregnant. He is Catholic, and he thought it was the right thing to do. After a year, it was over. Not because they were bad people. They just didn't work for one another anymore.

Now she's remarried (obviously ), and so is he. And our oldest has two happy, solid families to share his time with. And a lot of brothers and sisters.

The key, in my mind, is that they both realized early on that it simply wasn't working and had no problem ending the relationship amicably. They did it for themselves, but they also did it for their child because they realized that their own happiness would effect how well they could raise that child. And he's one of the most well-adjusted, mature 11-year-olds I know these days. Almost too much so.

He's also a straight-A student.

So don't get too worried about divorce rates. Many times it is a good thing in the long run.

[The Gaffer]

As a side note, here's where the debate's at in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6297107.stm

The Equality Act, due to come into effect in England, Wales and Scotland in April, outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

Tony Blair has promised a decision next week on whether Catholic adoption agencies will be able to opt out of [these] gay discrimination laws.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If all hell breaks loose, we can easily change things back.

You said this before, and my reaction was NO WAY! (but I didn't post it). It would be a nightmare to change it back! But I suppose all the lawyers would get rich off of it (you aren't a lawyer, are you, brownie? )

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Actually, the gender differences in leadership have very little to do with brains and much more to do with physicality. Remember, up until the last hundred years work was physical work and tending children and a home was a 24/7 job. Women fell into the home role because survival demanded it and men fell into the work role for the same reason. As a result, men were much more likely to become leaders because they were the warriors and later the business leaders.

You can see gender roles indicated even in women and men's physical bodies. Men having more physical prowess was genetically encoded in our species. Women having breasts were clearly designed to take care of children during their infancy. That men and women should have been genetically encoded to have mental gender differences to best support them in fulfilling these functions is only logical.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Fast forward to today, when success is much more about what is in your head, and technology has allowed homemakers a lot more free time in their lives, and you are slowly seeing equity among the genders in all roles in society. We are still in the first few generations of this. But in another 100 years or so male/female roles may be completely interchangeable in society. There will be husbands staying at home just as often as wives, and females just as likely to hold positions of power.

This is because, mentally, they are more or less the same. There is no role in society, short of actually carrying a baby, that is exclusive to any one gender when physical strength no longer is a deciding factor in the equation.

Male dominance spans almost all the civilizations of world history for thousands of years. If women were "more or less the same" mentally, even with men being physically stronger, you'd still expect women to have equality with men in many cultures. If they were mentally about the same, they probably wouldn't have submitted to male dominance. If they had as much aggression as men in their natures, they would have gotten sick of their condition and thrown off male dominance long ago, probably violently. At least they would have somewhere.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So don't get too worried about divorce rates. Many times it is a good thing in the long run.

I agree that a situation where the mother and father are constantly sniping at one another is very unhealthy and hurtful for the couple and their children. I don't think that divorce is the answer. I've heard a marriage counselor say that in 100% of the cases he's seen where couples are thinking of breaking up, he's seen the relationship healed through marriage counseling if the couple are serious enough about trying to fix their relationship to be willing to give something up in the effort to heal and revive it. So breaking relationships can definitely be healed. It's just that people are often too selfish to take that course.

And contrary to what you say, I strongly feel that there is usually a lot of hurt when a parent loses custody of his or her child to the other parent, and a lot of hurt for the children as well. Also the splitting of relationships frequently will hurt one or both of the people breaking up. I heard that from a pastor of my church who was divorced, and confessed how terribly deep the wound still went for him.

I know one young woman who was in her twenties, had a job and was pretty successful, and she was helping me and a few other people to lead a church youth group. She confided in me at one point, at the verge of tears, that she was still hurting deeply because her parents had divorced when she was a child.

It can be very difficult for single parents too, to manage a job and taking care of their children, as I've witnessed firsthand from another woman who got divorced. She is constantly trying to get my family to look after her children, because she is trying to make ends meet. She's doing a pretty good job with her children, but it is very hard. I know her daughter pretty well now (because she and her brother are here so often, naturally), and she is determined never to have a divorce ever, because of what it has done to her family life. She greatly cherishes how beautiful a family structure is, because of seeing ours and not having that in her own life.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Male dominance spans almost all the civilizations of world history for thousands of years. If women were "more or less the same" mentally, even with men being physically stronger, you'd still expect women to have equality with men in many cultures. If they were mentally about the same, they probably wouldn't have submitted to male dominance. If they had as much aggression as men in their natures, they would have gotten sick of their condition and thrown off male dominance long ago, probably violently. At least they would have somewhere.

Open your eyes man!

Look at America TODAY!!

Male dominance is rapidly declining and there's every reason to believe that after a few more generations there will be parity more or less between the genders as far as "dominance" goes, no matter how you choose to measure it.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't think that divorce is the answer.

I didn't say it was always the answer, but sometimes it is the best answer. My relationship is living proof, as are others I know. I also know people who have been married to the same person their entire life and are perfectly happy. My parents, for example. And I know happy healthly single parents.

Bad parents come in all shapes and sizes as well. I also know some couples who are wonderful with one another, but are kind of lousy when it comes to parenting.

My point is that "marriage", or the lack of, has nothing to do with it. It's about the people involved and how much they chose to care about their kids, whether or not they still care about one another in the same way.

How old are you Lief?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Open your eyes man!

Look at America TODAY!!

Male dominance is rapidly declining and there's every reason to believe that after a few more generations there will be parity more or less between the genders as far as "dominance" goes, no matter how you choose to measure it.

The way things are currently going is a rare abberation in the scope of world history. It is based upon a false assumption that men and women are mentally basically the same. Its likelihood of prevailing in the long run is small, in view of the available evidence that already shows a strong difference between men and women. I believe that the evidence supporting that conclusion is likely to continue to accumulate.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I didn't say it was always the answer, but sometimes it is the best answer. My relationship is living proof, as are others I know.

Living proof for you. Not for me, because I don't know your wife, her son or her former spouse, or any of these other couples you know. If I did, I might draw different conclusions from what I observe than you do.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

My point is that "marriage", or the lack of, has nothing to do with it. It's about the people involved and how much they chose to care about their kids, whether or not they still care about one another in the same way.

And my point is that divorce causes brokenness and is certainly avoidable. Relationships can easily be healed, if the partners want to heal them. Deep hurt often emerges from divorce, however. I've stated my experience on this already.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

How old are you Lief?

My grandma is in her mid or late eighties. Based on her experience, she feels the same way as me about divorce AND gender differences . How old are you compared to her, may I ask?

Unless you're in your nineties, maybe we should leave age out of this .

[brownjenkins]

I'll be 40 in a few weeks.

Keep an open mind is all I can say. There are many ways to lead a happy life in this world.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'll be 40 in a few weeks.

Keep an open mind is all I can say. There are many ways to lead a happy life in this world.

Truer words were never spoken my friend.