Gay Marriage

[Kaz]

Reality shows that the society is affected, greatly, greatly so. No one, in reality, has any doubt about this what so ever. Only when theorizing, such as you are here, do people make up stories to the contrary. Of course people are free to make up arguments on why the earth is flat. What should you do with children? Children are not born adults. What are you going to do when a child runs in front of traffic, breaks your window, is left hungry, etc? The society absolutely interferes. It makes up rules and laws to manage the situation and in the process imposes on the individuals.

It's not that it affects society greatly so. It is to what end can regulation curb that and is there any justification? You yourself advocate liberty principles when it comes to economics, and there is no doubt that the ongoings of consenting individuals in a market place can affect the society at large as well. So in that sense, there are two standards.

Moreover, if affecting the society is what matters...then damn near everything does. If to safeguard against harm against the individual or society is the justification of law, then it can also be the justification of a police state. It is laws like these that criminalise victimless crimes like drug use. They purport to help the society by banning drugs. Are you for drug laws too?

Marriage is a contract between not just the individuals but between the society and the individuals where the custody of children is granted to the parents should there be any children. You can say that gays can do the same or you can say that poor people should not be allowed to have children, or whatever, but the society has a say.

That is your conception of marriage, it is not a definitive one. Furthermore, I am surprised I hear this from you. You seemed to be the standard barer when it comes to liberty on this site. This kind of measure is rather tyrannical. Who says the state grants parenthood at all? God - or the creator, or what have you - does. You do not need the state to have children. The fact that society has a say through sheer force has little to do with rights or consistencies in upholding the law for all individuals. It is because society sees fit that it interferes in this instance. That in itself does not legitimise the act. Essentially, Democracy is tyranny of the majority.

But again, the question is, where does it end and why gays? Do we start screening people before they have kids to allow some and not all people to have kids? Do you possibly think this kind of tyrannical invasion of the basic rights of people will be upheld? The problem is that gays are in the minority, so it is easy to uphold it against them. But if you use the same principles - safeguarding harm to society - then you bring in the whole populus, and no one will agree on that.

 

[arashinho]

I've seen some of these arguments before. I noticed that the article makes a few references to "non-exclusive homosexuality" which is really just bisexuality. It also keeps bringing up homosexual animals (which I've heard many times before), but this still doesn't prove that it's necessarily normal. Animals can also be born with missing or extra limbs just as some humans are. What does that prove?

Also, natural selection hasn't eliminated Down's Syndrome or Autism either. Does that make them normal?

Why compare homosexuality to autism? Why not to having red hair or being very tall? As the article mentioned there may be other reasons for it that make it evolutionarily advantageous. First, it could be kinship selection: roles fulfilled by homosexuals promote survival of species. Second, it could be linked to another advantage: gene is mutated leads to homosexuality but promotes survival under another condition. Finally, gays and lesbians can still have children, biologically. I guess my point is how do you define normal? Something may not seem normal at some point in human history (red haired people were discriminated against, interracial couples were not considered normal) but over time can gain acceptance. If you are making a biological argument then it I think it is incorrect to group homosexuality with diseases.

 

[Motori]

But again, the question is, where does it end and why gays? Do we start screening people before they have kids to allow some and not all people to have kids? Do you possibly think this kind of tyrannical invasion of the basic rights of people will be upheld? The problem is that gays are in the minority, so it is easy to uphold it against them. But if you use the same principles - safeguarding harm to society - then you bring in the whole populus, and no one will agree on that.

Concur!!

If bearing children is society's yard stick to stamp the validity of a marriage, then marriage among millions of infertile heterosexual couples must also be considered nonbinding.

 

[Flint]

You don't have to agree with something or, as you put it, be fan of something, to agree with other people's right to do it. How people in Iran consider this is totally irrelevant.

You missed my point. I am saying that there are social issues that us Iranians passionately advocate in English but would rather die first before saying the same thing in Iran in Farsi among family. I had the same argument with "cotton champ" when he was going around demanding free birth control pills for girls. I said say this in Farsi and he was never heard of again, which means he doesn't really believe it. He has to say it because he is a Dem.

 

[arashinho]

I will gladly say it in Farsi or to family in Iran. I have already had arguments about this with my cousins. Almost anyone who has lived long enough in the united states has had neighbors, coworkers, close friends, etc that are gay or lesbian. They have normal relationships just like everyone else and should not be denied the right to marry.

 

[Flint]

Where are those who at every turn ask "how are you going to pay for it" in response to every public policy? I don't hear that now. Tax implications of this action alone is huge.

 

[lordofmordor]

We dont live in Iran and left it so we dont have to deal with hezbolahi mentality of Islam that you do proudly advocate here.

We are pro individual freedom. Something that is very hard for narrow-minded self absorbed people who go around putting their nose into other people's business and try to tell them how to live their lives.

Flint, have you ever thought about becoming an Ayatollah?

You missed my point. I am saying that there are social issues that us Iranians passionately advocate in English but would rather die first before saying the same thing in Iran in Farsi among family. I had the same argument with "cotton champ" when he was going around demanding free birth control pills for girls. I said say this in Farsi and he was never heard of again, which means he doesn't really believe it. He has to say it because he is a Dem.

 

[Motori]

You missed my point. I am saying that there are social issues that us Iranians passionately advocate in English but would rather die first before saying the same thing in Iran in Farsi among family. I had the same argument with "cotton champ" when he was going around demanding free birth control pills for girls. I said say this in Farsi and he was never heard of again, which means he doesn't really believe it. He has to say it because he is a Dem.

You can openly and willingly give thumbs up (aka OK) gesture to any one any where in the U.S, but if you do the same to a cabdriver in Tehran you will receive couple of dark blue eyes for giving him a "bilakh".

If the society in Iran opens to a level in which the true meaning of civil liberty is relatively understood I'll be the first congratulating my amoo and shohar amoo for their matrimony.

 

[lordofmordor]

Whenever there has been push for social freedom and rights such as those of Blacks, and women movements, there were those who objected and tried to stay back in time. Same way, that we look back at those who oppose blacks being free from slavery or women voting and judge them as being backwards, same will be said about those that oppose the Gay freedom now.

You are looking in a progressive society, get with it.

 

[IranZamin]

Why compare homosexuality to autism? Why not to having red hair or being very tall?

Because having red hair or being very tall has nothing to do with one's drive to to engage in procreation. Homosexuality does.

As the article mentioned there may be other reasons for it that make it evolutionarily advantageous. First, it could be kinship selection: roles fulfilled by homosexuals promote survival of species. Second, it could be linked to another advantage: gene is mutated leads to homosexuality but promotes survival under another condition.

This is all very vague and based on what "could be". There is really no specific, concrete evidence to support either scenario.

Finally, gays and lesbians can still have children, biologically.

Anatomically speaking, sure. But their sex drive is not geared toward reproduction. As I said before, any species in nature whose sexuality is directed toward the same sex will go extinct within one generation. Recent technological advancements in artificial insemination still don't argue against the abnormality of the gay sex drive.

I guess my point is how do you define normal? Something may not seem normal at some point in human history (red haired people were discriminated against, interracial couples were not considered normal) but over time can gain acceptance.

These common analogies are based more on political correctness than anything else. Red haired people and interracial couples, if straight, are still driven to pass on their genes and propagate the species. And to be clear, my definition of "normal" here is strictly from a biological point of view and not a moral or social one. Since sex drive is one of the basic instincts directly related to survival of a species, biology is the most relevant judging criteria.

If you are making a biological argument then it I think it is incorrect to group homosexuality with diseases.

Not really. People often say that since people can be born gay and that it can't be cured then it must be normal. Well, many disorders fit that exact description. What is really not correct is the emotional comparison of homosexuality to race, height and other such traits, as none of those interfere with a person's drive to reproduce.

The ultimate goal of every aspect of evolution has been to increase the odds of survival and reproduction. All the things we find aesthetically pleasing in a sex partner are directly related to their suitability in making an offspring even though we may be completely unaware of it. Women tend to find strong men "sexy" because physical strength is indicative of health and good genes and the ability to protect the woman and child. Men tend to find big breasts visually exciting because breast development signals that the woman is fertile and able to bear children. Once we understand the underlying evolutionary principle behind sex drive, all logic will point to the fact that homosexuality is a disorder, even if it's not "sinful" or "immoral".

Roger that. and I don't believe we could call the existence of worker Bees as biological failure. As you mentioned (paragraph below) they contribute in different manner to survival of their specie than just passing genes. Just like a LGBT.

But how, Rasoul jan? The worker bees have very specific and crucial roles in a bee colony, to the point that without them the colony wouldn't survive. Can we say the same about Gays? What specific role do they play that can't be performed by straight people?

Jury is still out on that. We use our own criterion to call the condition anomalous or a disorder. Until we figure out exactly why nature does it I personally will not call it abnormal or a disorder, until then I'll call it exceptional.

But we have figured out the basic principles governing sex drive. I went into more detail about that in my reply to Arash.

Does a homosexual have an option of not being gay?

Does a person with autism or any other disorder have an option to not have it?

As I said we are using our own yard stick (science) to call the condition unnatural, in that case (using science) monogamy which is widely accepted as natural thing becomes unnatural, because in accordance with the same science (biology) a woman is designed to have multiple sexual partners in a single setting, its why it takes her longer to satisfaction and why the uterus and its motion during orgasm plays such an important role in pregnancy. It is attempting to dip into a pot of mixed sperms.

Monogamy may not be natural, but it has actually been devised to help with the survival of species by creating a stable environment for raising children. This has a lot to do with the fact that unlike most other animals, human children don't become self-sufficient until many years after birth. It's for the same reason that human females also evolved to engage in casual sex - To provide the male an incentive to stay around and help raise the child.

 

[IranZamin]

As for the argument of it being normal...I guess you can't say it is normal because definitively it's occurrence is a small minority of sexual behaviour. One could argue that it is natural because it occurs in nature.

Sure, but congenital blindness and all kinds of birth defects also appear in nature.

Although I take IZ's point regarding homosexuality being seen as a defective genetic trait; I think we may get on dangerous grounds here. For in our society it really is unimportant and it just serves to let people dehumanise homosexuals.

I understand your concern, but that's also the kind of reasoning behind most of political correctness that I want nothing to do with. I don't think speaking about the truth should ever be considered dangerous or inappropriate no matter what level of importance is placed on it. These good intentions have led us to the point where we're even supposed to pretend races don't exist just to promote harmony and tolerance

I guess blacks could say that having white skin is defective because you are far more likely to get skin cancer.

Each race has its own vulnerabilities to certain diseases. I don't think speaking about that is ever wrong. What would be wrong is arguing that people should be treated poorly or discriminated against based on those differences. And just because some would make such conclusions shouldn't prevent the facts from being spoken about or for myths to be passed off as reality. I don't think homosexuality is normal, but I also don't consider Gays to be evil or undeserving of living in society.

 

[Behrooz_C]

You are looking in a progressive society, get with it.

Progression is open to interpretation. To some gay marriage is progression while for others it's digression. I quite understand that.
Unless of course you believe we can do anything as long as we stick a "progressive" label on it. If so who knows, maybe even Rasputin is right, sex with underage girls could become acceptable in the future as part of some progressive society!

 

[arashinho]

Autism does not impact sex drive either but you chose it as the comparison to homosexuality. Your view of evolution is extremely limited where you view the reproduction of an individual as the key. However, it is the survival of the species that matters. Thus, you can have differentiation of responsibilities within a group that can promote the reproductive success of the entire group but be actually detrimental to some of the individuals. Also, many homosexuals actually have the drive to have children. Sexual attraction is only one manifestation of the evolutionary drive to reproduce. People also look for partners that can help in raising kids. I know many gay and lesbian couples that want to have kids in the same inexplicable instinctual way that most heterosexuals do. In that respect they are very normal. Using speculative evolutionary arguments that are not yet vetted by science can be used to marginalize a whole group of people.

 

[Kaz]

IZ jan, I don't disagree with what you say. I am just saying that people tend to use those truths/facts to dehumanise gays. It was an observation. Regardless, though, I, like you, don't think that disqualifies them from the same legal rights as others.

 

[IranZamin]

Autism does not impact sex drive either but you chose it as the comparison to homosexuality.

Both Autism and homosexuality in their own way have adverse effects on the likelihood of a person to procreate. Both are also comparable to the extent that they are widely considered genetic and incurable.

The reason your analogies don't hold up is because having red hair or being tall wouldn't threaten the survival of a species even if every single member was a tall redhead. But if all those tall redheads lost their interest in the opposite sex, their species would disappear much sooner than later.

Also, many homosexuals actually have the drive to have children.

I wouldn't say it's many, but the ones that do usually adopt children produced by straight couples.

Sexual attraction is only one manifestation of the evolutionary drive to reproduce. People also look for partners that can help in raising kids.

I already said that sexual attraction considers suitability for both producing and raising an offspring. I was very clear about that and even gave you examples.

Using speculative evolutionary arguments that are not yet vetted by science can be used to marginalize a whole group of people.

It is not speculation by any means. Once you understand the basic principle behind sexual attraction, once you understand that even the internal and external structure of our genitals are shaped to help with reproduction, there is no way you can conclude that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. The only logical conclusion is that it’s a deviation of the sex drive. In fact psychology considered it a disorder on these same grounds until the 1970s. It was only then that they stopped categorizing it as such, not because there was an ounce of new evidence to prove its normalcy, but only because there was cultural pressure to call it normal. Of course I'm not opposed to Gays being treated decently, but I am opposed to having to pretend something is true when evidence and logic shows otherwise.

 

[Flint]

Whenever there has been push for social freedom and rights such as those of Blacks, and women movements, there were those who objected and tried to stay back in time. Same way, that we look back at those who oppose blacks being free from slavery or women voting and judge them as being backwards, same will be said about those that oppose the Gay freedom now.

You are looking in a progressive society, get with it.

Tell that to Obama. HE is the one who said marriage is a state matter. He postured but is not willing to do a damn thing about it. Instead he says don't look at me. Interesting that you are hiding blacks. Blacks are among the largest groups who are against this. I guess they are not progressive enough for you.

 

[Flint]

You can openly and willingly give thumbs up (aka OK) gesture to any one any where in the U.S, but if you do the same to a cabdriver in Tehran you will receive couple of dark blue eyes for giving him a "bilakh".

If the society in Iran opens to a level in which the true meaning of civil liberty is relatively understood I'll be the first congratulating my amoo and shohar amoo for their matrimony.

We are talking about beliefs, not gestures! There is not a single belief of mine that I won't express in any language among any number of people anywhere in the world.

 

[ahmad-a]

We are talking about beliefs, not gestures! There is not a single belief of mine that I won't express in any language among any number of people anywhere in the world.

If you are Shia, I hope you believe in Imam Zaman. If you don't, you may get in a big trouble if you openly discuss your belief in Iran.

 

[Flint]

OK, I grant you that. If I suspect I will be hung by my toes I will probably keep quiet. I was thinking more of a family night. I guess I assumed too much.

 

[payan]

it is about the different societies and different prespectives. we have law,tradtions,culture,habits .the first one should be obied and two should be respected and 3d one is personal .however the all could be challegned with human intelligence .but again the factor of fear of change ,in other words the conservatism is obsticles.
well, we have heard in our country for a long time the homosexualties have been practiced .but in all honesty even i saw some fiminsh act by some individuale but i had not seen with my own eyes .once a awhile we heard some act of cirminal in all news though .however in my 1 year ,half serving in court of law those cases were amongst the lesser ones, either it was hush hush or other reasons then i don't know .
in our country the friendship of men and men and women with women were norm .men kissing eachother in their face(side ) but kissing man in lips was not really acceptable .
having said that .i guess that in is matter here as well, not really pleasant to watch .even woman kissing other woman on lips not real appropriate .
so why we have streched our imagination to something that we are not related to .i have known many gay friends ( work places,different occasion),they were very respectful .
so ,why bullying other people ,because they are others . we respect every human in society .