Bush renews call for same-sex marriage ban, Kerry also against same-sex marriage

[barman]

DP, I'm hearing you and yes, this makes several posts in a row where we're both jiving a bit better..oh my

D: The reasons are that marriage has family implications


BAR: For many hetero marriages, this is true. For many others, it is not, especially for people who are in their late 30s and above (That's ME!). I bet it's close to even when all ages are taken into account. I know you didn't intend it, but your statement suggests a vision of only 20somethings getting married, and yes, that demographic is likely very much about kids in large % of cases.

D: and while yes, gay couples can have families via adoption etc. ....it is more complicated and so probably children would be the exception and not the rule. For a gay couple to have children you need another straight couple somewhere who abandons their baby

BAR: It's only more complicated when viewed thru the paradigm of "Male/Female marry, get pregnant, have baby, raise it together".

I invite you to consider a new paradigm, which is real and expanding daily to more couples. That is a gay female couple who has a surrogate sperm donor. Or a gay male couple who hires a surrogate female to receive one of the male's sperm and then carry the child to delivery.

And I also echo Marco's statements about straight couples who get pregnant by 'accident', don't want to raise the child, but also don't wish to use abortion.

D: From the straight couples' perspective would you not think that raising the baby themselves would be favorable!?

BAR: The question is a bit generic, so I couldn't respond accurately, but I will acknowledge that to an 'outside straight person' (in this case, you, commenting on this topic) it may indeed appear that keeping the baby within the straight parent family would be preferable.

Nothing shocking about that since this is the paradigm you've been raised with and are most familar with in your life. But again, I invite consideration of a very real paradigm shift in our world - a shift that is taking place whether you, or I for that matter, endorse or agree with it.

 

[DarrylParsons]

Marco,

I'm referring to the tendency of people to subconsciously do what is expected of them when they have no strong opinion on what to do themselves. There are powerful forces out there: media and people with positions of authority like teachers, doctors, judges, clergy etc. whose official opinions carry great weight in how people go about their lives. These people's opinions, in turn, are influenced by the associations they belong to, which are influenced by the current political environment.

If a couple is sure about what they want to do with an unwanted child, then these influences don't matter too much, but if they are vacillating between this option and that option (like many are), then they may (consciously or subconsciously) do what society is trying to pressure them into doing.

Bar,

I am not one to fear change. In fact, change is a wonderful thing IMO and I am glad to see increasing tolerance for alternative lifestyles. These are good things. But, I wonder how far it would go before another generation makes the old paradigm the new new paradigm.

A good analogy to this gay marriage thing is prostitution. Here is something that has been around since the dawn of man and no person in his right mind would seriously expect that it will ever go away (although some conservatives are foolishly trying to achieve this). So, like it or not, we must accept that prostitution will be a part of life for as far as anyone can see into the future. But, does that mean it should have the same status as other jobs!? If you ask prostitutes, they will invariably say they are doing it because there is no other way for them to get the same standard of living doing something else. In a way they consider themselves semi-forced into it. Similarly, if you ask the clients, they will say they don't have the time or the energy to get their sexual desires fulfilled the other way, so they resort to this less-than-optimal, but still better-than-nothing method.

So even the participants themselves admit that the profession/activity is ranked below others in terms of desirability. This fact, I believe, has been constant throughout the ages. What has not been constant has been the third party tolerance of it. I think modern Holland is an example where third party tolerance is at maximum levels and I would welcome that same level of tolerance in many more countries. But even there it is not on par with mainstream professions in terms of status or desirability.

Maybe the analogy to gay marriages is not the best one, but at least this illustrates that you can have maximum tolerance and respect for something, even if it never becomes the most desirable among the various alternatives. In the equilibrium world after all the various paradigm shifts back and forth, this is about where I see it coming out.

 

[DarrylParsons]

I should add that I think taking a radical new paradigm too seriously is dangerous, for we are still carrying a great deal within us from as much 10-20 thousand years ago. If you look at any detailed account of history you will see yourself in the lifestyles people had. We really are not that much different than we've been for the past 10,000 years. If a paradigm has been around that long, it is likely for a reason. To consider "now" as a special time is similar to considering "here" as a special place. History has taught us both that we tend to consider our own circumstances special and that it is folly to do so. To be objective we must step outside ourselves, and that means recognizing that the space and time we occupy is nothing special. This could be a source of what you see as conservative "fear", but it also has strong basis in rationality IMO.

 

[barman]

Interesting comparison, prostitution.

I think in evaluating prostitution's acceptance in society, we first have to know how much legal danger is present.

Where the women (we'll ignore the small % of male pros for now) are at significant risk of being charged as criminals, the dangers and negatives of the profession are increased and exacerbated.

Where the women are at little or no (it's legal) risk of being charged as criminals, the dangers and negatives are greatly reduced.

In both cases above, the relative risks and dangers to the pro and to the client are equally increased or diminished based on whether criminal charges are possible.

Prostitution is like any adult consensual activity. If it's criminalized, all the possible negative aspects are increased, and all of the possible positive aspects are diminished.