The university quietly reinstated Angela McCaskill over the holiday recess, after some gay marriage activists called for her to be fired simply for petitioning to allow the people of Maryland to vote on the question of marriage:
Gallaudet University has reinstated its chief diversity officer after a 3-month paid suspension for signing a petition circulated by opponents of gay marriage in Maryland.
University President T. Alan Hurwitz announced the reinstatement of Angela McCaskill in an email to the campus community on Monday. The statement doesn't elaborate on the reasons for the reinstatement, and university officials declined further comment.Gallaudet is the nation's leading university for the deaf and hard of hearing, and the Washington campus has a prominent gay community. McCaskill was placed on leave in October after administrators became aware that she had signed the petition. The petition drive led to a referendum on gay marriage in Maryland, where McCaskill lives. Voters upheld the law, and same-sex couples began marrying in the state this month.
“I am not anti-gay. I never have been and I never will be,” says McCaskill. (AP)
61 Comments
Well, I'm anti-gay!
me too.
Yea, a winnable war moment.
I'm anti-ignorant. Nom's posting of Lonesome's comment once again shows their true colors. What a sad individual.
I'm anti-bastardizing language in order to lend an appearance of acceptability to sexual depravity.
What is really sad Stefan is that you are completely dependent upon the bastardization of language just so you can live with yourself for the choice you made; or do you do it to cultivate willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of your crimes against humanity?
Lol! The irony. Anyone looked up the definition of "randy" lately?
It's all about the sex with you, isn't it Randy? I don't know what choices you're referring to. Been happily married to my wife for 20 years. Crimes against humanity? What a nut.
You champion those who leave in opposition to nature Stefan; worst of all you think it makes you moral; it does not.
Try to find a word that gives your position merit; as opposed to playing the parasite.
Correction: "those who live..."
I'm anti-ignorant too. That's why i agree with this 'diversity' expert getting a 3 month paid vacation, compliments of the SSM trolls
Stefan: I'm anti-ignorant.
================
You're anti-yourself? Who knew...
It always saddens me to see how ignorant people who normalize homosexuality are. Their narrow-minded and self-serving views on sexuality do not require knowledge, so the fact that they are so ignorant doesn't bother them. In fact, they seem to have no awareness of it and think themselves very knowledgeable.
That's obviously the result of the dumbing down of people that happens in the current education system, combined with the media and entertainment industries being dominated by liberals.
It's time once again to restate the obvious. We have heterosexual equipment. Any child understands that. Having an urge, a yen, a desire to do or act in a certain way does not legitimize it being acted upon. Walking nude, urinating, have sex whenever and wherever you want does not mean it is acceptable to express those needs just because you want or need to. Society has ALWAYS put boundaries on certain activities. Homosexuals have working very hard to nomalize abnormal behavior. And unfortunately have been successful at it. It is time that homosexuality be called what it is, perverted.
I'm anti-radical secularism.
Actually, what is perverted is people who focus on one aspect of a person's life in order to call them perverted and deny them rights.
Pervert: an unusual or abnormal sexual act that is habitual.
Yet another word they will need to bastardized in order to lend an appearance of acceptability to their depravity.
I'm glad to hear that Dr. McCaskill has been reinstated. I was skeptical as to whether the "reinstate her immediately" cries from prominent SSMers were genuine, or more out of concern for the Maryland election (which was favorable to them) and future state battles.
But I'm glad Gallaudet made the right decision. Perhaps their ultimate concern was of a lawsuit from Dr. McCaskill. Who knows...
Teri Simpkins,
1. Do you deny that sexual behavior can be perverted? That even consensual sexual behavior can be perverted? What are your criteria for deciding?
2. Is the gay identity constructed from a sexual aspect of some people's lives? If it is not, then, what is the meaning of gay identity as a distinguisher from other social-political identities?
3. What rights are denied the individual based on his or her gay identity? There is no gay requirement for ineligibility to marry, for instance, nor is there a non-gay requirement for eligibility to marry. The bride-groom requirement is for sexual complementarity based on the core meaning of this type of relationship. That core meaning is not "anti-gay" identity. Nor is the legal requirement for bride and groom.
But you must think otherwise. Please explain.
Chairm makes excellent legal arguments that I'm sure we will see in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.
@Chairm
Let me help you out.
1.) Everyone can judge someone else's sexual behavior as perverted, but do they have a right to? If it's between two consenting adults, why does this third person have any reason to judge them? Sounds very prying of that person to judge someones sexual behaviors that has nothing to do with them.
2.) The gay identity has nothing to do with sexual activities. I define someone as gay as someone who loves, wants to start a life with, and raise kids with someone of their same sex. No where is sex involved in that. I think this is a commonly misunderstood concept.
3.) This is easy to answer. Would you want to be forced to marry someone who you weren't in love with? Gay people are not attracted to their opposite sex, so why would they want to marry someone of the opposite sex? Gay marriage is the popular opinion in America right now because of this
In the end, whether one believes homosexuality to be depraved, or to be an inborn variation of nature, the only thing NOM really stresses is the preservation of traditional marriage of one man, his wife, and their biological children.
Maintaining this as the ideal and the standard, though less than perfect circumstances may make this unattainable for some, is the goal. These other arguments are of no avail at this historical moment.
"You champion those who live in opposition to nature Stefan; worst of all you think it makes you moral; it does not."
Opposition to nature? As you well know, along with heterosexuality, homosexuality has been around forever. It is just as much a part of nature as anything else. And who are you, or anyone else, to define what is and isn't moral? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it immoral . You're the engineer in the crowd, always talking about male and female parts, how they go together, complement each other. How often do you, and Alessandra, and Lonesomerhoades and all the others on this site masturbate? Daily, weekly, never ever? Is that moral, self serving? Why do you even care what others do in the bedroom?
Why aren't NOM and it’s supporters addressing divorce, single parenthood, unmarried straight parents with children, heterosexual parents that give up, abandon, their biological children, going after the heterosexuals that rely on the baby making industry to have children? Oh right, as long as they're not gay, it's OK. It's too bad you're not gay, you might be a better person.
Chairm,
Sex of any kind can be labeled as perverted. To a couple that only practice sex in the missionary position, anything else is perverted. That you and others like you continue to call homosexual sex perverted is rather ironic, to be honest, since the same acts that homosexuals engage in can be and are enjoyed by many heterosexuals. Pot, meet kettle.
The gay identity isn't predicated on a sexual act. It is predicated on attraction. You can be celibate all your life and still be a homosexual.
The 'legal' requirements for marriage have and will continue to change as society changes. It's not based on the bible, no matter how much you want it to be. It's not based on if you can have children or not. It's a legal contract that two people enter into, one that can be broken by filing a divorce document. No matter how much you protest, same-sex marriages existed in the past and were blessed by several churches, and they will exist in the future and be blessed by several churches.
Reality, not fiction.
@ Teri Simpkins
You can even take sexual activity out of it.
We believe that it is valid, legitimate and helpful to have a word in our society that clearly names the committed man-woman union. The union that represents the human-species in its entirety. The union from which all humanity (with its sciences and technologies) has come from. The union that any of us man or woman can become part of. We believe that the societies conscious effort to eliminate any word that might unambiguously identify this unique union is harmful to our children.
Some of our children might naturally want to become, more than all else in their life, joined to the opposite sex because of what it represents in symbol and or for what can naturally come from it. To not allow them a word to clearly name what it is that they desire is in our opinion oppressive, violent, unjust and untruthful. Homosexuality has nothing to do with this desire to be able to clearly name within our community the man-woman union. Some ideologies might think that it is harmful to homosexuals and the children born of those unions for the man-woman union to be named and clearly identified in our society. While some of us believe that not naming such evident things as the opposite-sex union (pretending that it does not exist) is harmful to our children.
The inescapable problem is that the taking away of a useful, valid, unprejudiced and cherished word from people, who for very many have never in their life “judged” homosexuality, is creating an injustice onto the people. Insisting that the man-woman union should not be named and clearly identified within our community is unjust. Homosexuality has nothing to do with that. And that is the problem, the injustice, that will persist. (That babies can now be made without the union of the uniting of the man and woman only makes it more valid that the man-woman union be clearly identified by name.)
Immoral: : not moral; broadly: conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles
Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
@Stefan:
You are going to have to change the meaning of nearly every word just to lend an appearance of acceptability to the depravity you pimp as acceptable.
Deprave: to make bad : corrupt; especially: to corrupt morally
Corrupt: to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions
note: just because others may act out immorally at times does not mean that immorality must now be deemed moral.
Teri,
1) Can sexual behavior be perverted or are you saying that your answer is, no, that it is only a label that you reject? Reread the query and be forthright, please.
2) You say that gay identity is predicated (do you understand the meaning of that?) on sexual attraction. You agree that celibacy is a viable option. Is gay identity predicated on celibacy?
No matter. There is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction that defines the basis for SSM ... not in anyplace where SSM has been imposed and not in proposals advocated by the SSM campaign. No requirement is decisive against same-sex sexual attraction and,according to your remark, also against gay identity as legitimate basis for SSM law. You painted yourself into that corner.
3) There is no mention of the bible in my remarks. Focus on what is actually said, please.
4) You brought up churches, not I. However, you do not have real history on your side. You have fictive history shaped by a peculair identity politics.
5) As for the future, if you claim there is such a possibility as a brideless or groomless marriage, perhaps you can stick to reality and explain the essential(s) that distinguish SSM from non-marriage -- before the law enters the picture.You don't want to rely on a legal fiction, surely, so you must have in mind a type of relationship that is different from all other types of one-sexed types of relationship.
It must have a reality independent of the law otherwise you can not claim that the marriage is right or wrong. Nor can you claim SSM law is right or wrong.
Its reality is pre-law, right? That is, SSM law might be predicated on the essential(s) you have in mind. If not, then frankly, you have been blowing smoke.
Typo correction: otherwise you can not claim that the marriage law has got marriage right or wrong.
Following up with another thought on Chairm's post, there is something quite ironic with many of these countries that are pushing to legalize homosexual marriage or have done so on the premise that marriage doesn't have to be about children (because there are married couples without children), it doesn't have to be about procreation or fertility (because there are married couples that don't procreate), and it doesn't have to be about love (because there are married couples who don't love each other).
In fact, sometimes we come across arguments like this:
The secular view of marriage is mostly about love and intimacy. When the love one has for one’s significant other rises to the level that warrants commitment, marriage is the logical choice. Viewed in this light, without love what is the point of marriage. Marriage is a validation of the relationship. And if the relationship is missing love and intimacy then there is little point to the union.
In the end, many secular marriages end up being loveless and without intimacy. Some survive for the sake of kids or because divorce is taboo. But they have little utility when the spark is gone. So divorce is a wise, if not the only choice.
In general, this speaks to an overall secular attitude that places intimacy and love above nearly all other values. After all, all you need is love.
On the other hand, in orthodox Judaism, marriage is about much more than love and intimacy. It could even be argued that love and intimacy are of the least important aspects to a marriage.
(an interesting article here:
http://finkorswim.com/2011/10/31/loveless-marriages-can-be-valuable/)
=====================
What is ironic is that after saying that marriage doesn't have to be about anything really, the same State will rail against and persecute any foreigner who gets married merely in order to get some sort resident status.
It makes no sense.
And if marriage is about community forming (something I would agree with), nothing better than getting married primarily in order to get a resident status and be a part of the community you want to be a part of.
But in the lovely world we live in, you can only empty out marriage, if it is to normalize people with a dysfunctional homosexuality problem.
Talk about twisting words. Perverted by definition is an objective concept. It is a deviation from what is considered right or wrong. Therefore, if a group of people consider sex to only be right if it is procreative, then anything outside of that is perverted. By that alone, almost every person has, at one time or another, had perverted sex. Do I feel sex with another human being is perverted? No, I do not. And I believe that my original comment clearly showed that. If you want to twist my words, fine. That's your choice.
Predicate as I used it means to find or base something on. Sexuality isn't based on who you have sex with but who you are attracted to. I never said that celibacy is a viable option. I said that even if one were celibate their entire life, they would have a sexuality based on who they were attracted to, something that is proven by priests nearly every day. Or do you think their vow of celibacy shuts off their attractions?
Talk about going off on tangents. I said nothing of requirements for marriage other than the ones that people like you keep trying to say are in that legal definition of marriage. All of you keep trying to make marriage about having children. It's not and never has been. Go back and read the history of marriage. It was an exchange of property (a woman) in return for land or men willing to fight for the in-laws, or better still, woman for money. You keep claiming tradition is all that is needed to keep marriage the way it was. All I'm saying is that tradition isn't a good enough reason. We're not in a place anymore where marriages are all arranged when the couples are children. You don't get married with the first thought being, "What great children we'll create together." You get married because this is the one person you think you want to spend your life with, sharing everything that comes with that life. If you want to make it about children, good for you. But there is no requirement for children in order to get married, and there is no requirement for marriage in order to have children. The bottom line is, marriage has changed over time and it continues to change. Those changes aren't always accepted but they still happen. Deal with it.
Slam dunk Teri. Interesting debate. I call This one resolved.
@Teri,
"...It's not and never has been"
"Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings"
The Supreme Court of the United States
In response to the infertile couple meme marriage corruption supporters like to lean on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals opined it to be "nothing more than a theoretical abnormality that has no affect on the traditional intent for marriage; procreation."
To state that "It's not and never has been" only shows you to be either in denial, ignorant, or a unapologetic bold-faced-liar.
Then we have peter chiming in to swear to your lie. That tactic does not work on your controled sites either.
" Interesting debate. I call This one resolved.."
You do, Peter?
Why?
Because it helps you rationalize your sexual fantasies, just as Teri's bloviations do, that's why. The Culture War has only just begun, son, and your side will lose. That's the one to call resolved!
Teri said: Do I feel sex with another human being is perverted? No, I do not.
This is completely wrong because it doesn't take into account the type of feelings, the interpersonal dynamics, and the sex in question. Any person who has a perverse thought or feeling regarding sexuality is sexually perverted. Any type of sex that demeans, that is disoriented, that degrades, that negates the personhood of target is perverted. Any type of sexual act that is a result of psychological trauma, deforming experiences regarding body functions, ideologies that demean others and create notions of domination is perverted.
People can have all kinds of perverted and perverse satisfaction regarding sexual acts.
And society is rampant with people doing aggressive, disrespectful, and violent sexual acts. Not only are these acts, but the feelings and the ideology supporting the acts are also all perverted.
The falacy that gay behavior does not effect others is proven untrue by historical evidences time after time. that nations are distroyed as a result.
“Gay” is NOT gay, it is homosexual and it will take at least 20 years off your life span.
“Gay” is something kids learn from the Lame Stream Media and constant propaganda programming.
“Born this way” is bull droppings, horse hockey, rabbit pellets, etc.
“Gay” is a CHOICE and ALL choices have consequences.
“God designed us and God doesn't make mistakes.”
God did give us free will and so WE are SOLELY responsible for the choices we make. He also gave us a conscience, that little voice that tells you when you are committing a sin. That is the reason so many sinners are so angry, they CANNOT STAND that little voice.
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Alessandra, this is where you and I should agree to disagree. You see the sax act in those situations as perverted. I see the intention behind those sex acts as pervverted, not the act itself.
Do I see the type of sex that Chairm and I were discussing as perverted? No, I don't. Unlike so many of you, I grew up in an extremely dysfunctional family and I survived more than most of you can imagine. For me, love and commitment mean more than the gender of a partner. If same-sex marriage is the worst thing you can complain about, consider yourselves blessed.
Teri Simpkins wrote:
Alessandra, this is where you and I should agree to disagree. You see the sax act in those situations as perverted. I see the intention behind those sex acts as pervverted, not the act itself.
=======================
You've just contradicted yourself.
By your own definition: "Perverted by definition is an objective concept. It is a deviation from what is considered right or wrong."
We all consider certain behaviors right and certain behaviors wrong. I'm sure you do too.
But there is more to the concept of perversion than that. I think one central aspect is that perversion is twisted and harmful, independently if someone considers it right or wrong. These are two different analyses.
Your statement that acts cannot be perverted is therefore patently incorrect. Both behaviors and intentions can be perverted, perverse, and harmful.
You asked: "Do I see the type of sex that Chairm and I were discussing as perverted? No,"
But this is what Chairm had asked you:
Chairm asked: "Can sexual behavior be perverted ?"
Chairm is clearly asking about all types of sexual behavior, not just one specific type. So, it seems you failed to notice that. You talk about you two discussing a specific case of sexual behavior, but that's not what he was asking you.
Teri wrote: If same-sex marriage is the worst thing you can complain about, consider yourselves blessed.
It's not certainly not the worst thing I can complain about. For example, I think we need to complain about how much harm and violence LGBT people do in society. I think we need to complain more about how much harm and violence liberals do in society related to sexuality and relationships. I can certainly complain about how biased and unethical people who normalize homosexuality are, and how much they persecute anyone who disagrees. I can complain about how hypocritical people who normalize homosexuality are too. I could go on.
I certainly object to living in a society that is largely dominated by liberal attitudes and behaviors and it's full of harm and violence in the sphere of sexuality and personal relationships because of it.
Teri,
You said that perverted is an objective term. Howso? Well, you said, perverted denotes deviation. From what? Well, not from right but from what is considered right. That is, you meant that perverted denotes a subjective moral assessment of right and wrong. So it is not objective, in your thinking.
But in all that you confirmed that, yes, for you, perverted is just a label that you do not think applies to sex between human beings. I have not twisted your words.
On the other hand:
You misunderstand the procreation argument. What you wrote is a misrepresentation, probably as a result of that misunderstanding which, in effect, has twisted the words of others.
I would explain further if you'd agree, now, to read carefully and to restate, briefly in your own words, the key concept. That is, please accurately represent what is actually said. I will gladly confirm, correct, or clarify, next. Agreed?
Teri,
Your ahistorical account of marriage is irrelevant. I have not said that tradition, alone, justifies the bride+groom requirement. Please acknowledge that much.
The core of marriage is not merely a tradition, like, say, a white wedding dress or, say, an exchange of rings.
But you clearly object to tradition as the basis for lawmaking on marriage. You would object, surely, to using the tradition of romantic love as the basis for lawmaking on marriage -- or as the basis for the imposition of SSM in our laws.
Of course there is no legal requirement for romantic love and romantic love can and does exist outside of SSM. Never has been such a requirement in history, right? So by your thinking we can rule out this as the basis for SSM. It can be no more than a mere convention and not an essential, by your own thinking.
Whether or not you personally think romance is important, well, that is irrelevant, you'd agree, because it is not a legal requirement you would entrench in the law for SSM. I doubt you would make it a legal requirement even if you could imagine a scheme for Government to enforce it.
Yes?
Teri,
You said that sexuality is based on sexual attraction. Do you agree that sexual attraction can be perverted? Please explain.
Do you think that sexual behavior ought to correspond with sexual attraction? Perhaps even behavior that corresponds with attraction can be perverted. Please clarify.
You said that perverted is just a term denoting deviation from what is right. Or, rather, deviation from what is considered right. That is, perverted is just a label and you would not use it to describe sex between human beings. Right?
--- --- ---
Vows of celibacy require efforts to sublimate sexual feelings. That is not denial nor is it repression of sexual feelings.
Chasity is more relevant to this discussion.The marriage idea is predicated on chasity and other norms that you have arbitrarily assigned to the type of same-sex sexual relationship that you have in mind. Those norms are not yet justified -- at least you have not bothered to justify what you have asserted here. Perhaps you think these norms are just traditions and not essentials of the type of relationship that is SSM. Please conform, correct, or clarify.
Before you ask me to deal with the revision you demand, perhaps you can deal with your demand by justifying it in the first place.
Today I submitted three comments of which one has appeared so far. I hope the other two will be released from the que soon.
Can sexual attraction be perverted, Teri? Your use of the term, predicated, means that you believe that the gay identity is based on same-sex sexual attraction. But there is no legal requirement for that, either, wherever SSM law has been imposed or enacted.
No requirement, no basis.
So what is the actual basis for imposing SSM in law?
I'll wait for my previous comments to appear but in the meantime I will move the discussion forward as follows:
----
Teri, you said that perverted is just a label that you do not use for human sexual behavior.
You said that 'perverted' denotes deviation from right behavior. Or, rather, you think it means deviation from what others (not yourself) consider to be deviation from right behavior/attraction.
You think the word, 'perverted', is for an objective concept but you base it on a subjective moral assessment to which you chose not to conform in your thinking about human sexual behavior.
It seems that I have not twisted your words. You mean what you said, right? It is this line of thinking that you base your opinion about same-sex sexual attraction and same-sex sexual behavior. Yes?
Please correct, confirm, or clarify. I am trying to understand your meaning.
Teri said: " if a group of people consider sex to only be right if it is procreative, then anything outside of that is perverted. By that alone, almost every person has, at one time or another, had perverted sex."
Whether or not you speculation about "almost every person" is accurate, it is irrelevant.
You also misunderstand the procreative argument. You do realize that procreative does not mean "has procreated", right? You are confusing procreative in kind with procreative in outcome.
Please, if you really wish to disagree with an argument, try to first get that argument correct before taking issue with it. Thanks.
I had asked:
"2. Is the gay identity constructed from a sexual aspect of some people's lives? If it is not, then, what is the meaning of gay identity as a distinguisher from other social-political identities?"
Teri replied:
"The gay identity isn't predicated on a sexual act. It is predicated on attraction. You can be celibate all your life and still be a homosexual."
Readers will note that Teri's reply is in the affirmative, yes, gay identity is constructed from a sexual aspect of some people's lives.
Teri would quibble between the sexual aspect that is sexual attraction and the sexual aspect that is sexual behavior. I doubt very much that Teri would agree that the behavior aspect is disconnected from the feeling aspect. Gay identity is constructed from same-sex sexual attraction/behavior.
If it is only about attraction, then, celibacy would be considered a viable option by Teri who now eschews the distinction between attraction and behavior.
Readers can also note that sublimation of sexual attraction is not denial nor repression of sexual feelings. Also, celibacy and chastity are not one and the same. Married people are called to chastity, also, as a key feature of the type of relationship that is orientated to sexual behavior that is procreative in kind. Outside of such a relationship, acting on sexual attraction is non-marital or, as perhaps Teri might say, extra-marital.
Actually that is a question for Teri: is the SSM idea that acting on same-sex sexual attraction ought to be limited -- morally as in what Teri considers right and wrong -- within the type of relationship that Teri has in mind when speaking of SSM?
Obviously, as Teri has argued, if it can occur outside of SSM then it is not a legitimate basis for enacting SSM law nor for limiting eligibility for SSM. The sexual aspect does occur outside of SSM even where it is entrenched in the law of this or that jurisdiction. How would Teri square that circle?
Teri claimed that "All of you keep trying to make marriage about having children. It's not and never has been."
The core meaning of marriage is 1) integration of the sexes and 2) provision for responsible procreation and 3) these combined as a coherent whole. The third point is not merely a reiteration of the first two points. The whole is greater than the sum; its coherency is key to what makes marriage a social institution and what makes marriage a distinctive type of relationship among all the types of relationships that human beings can form -- some tolerated, some outlawed, some protected, some preferred -- in our culture and in our laws.
Teri cannot deny the existence of the presumption that the husband will father the children born to his wife during their marriage. That has pre-existed statutory law, common-law, and canon law. It is a persistent feature in the anthropological and historical records. So Teri is blatantly mistaken to assert that marriage is not and has never been about having children.
But Teri attacks only the provision for responsible procreation. Teri has yet to address the unitive aspect; nor has Teri addressed the coherent whole. Like most SSMers, Teri is stuck on a misrepresentation of the argument against which Teri complains. That misrepresentation may be born of a profound misunderstanding. If so, clearing up that misunderstanding might be welcomed by Teri, here and now.
Teri, are you prepared to learn the procreative argument so that you can decide whether or not you have reason to agree or disagree? I would hope you'd say, yes, but I would not assume your answer.
Paul @ comment #19 offered to help me out with my query.
He said:
"1.) Everyone can judge someone else's sexual behavior as perverted, but do they have a right to? If it's between two consenting adults, why does this third person have any reason to judge them? Sounds very prying of that person to judge someones sexual behaviors that has nothing to do with them."
Consent is not a trump card for those two-sexed scenarios that are ineligible to marry. That to which consent is given -- by the participants but also by society which sustains marital status -- is the key.
I need not pry into the sibling relationship, for example, to acknowledge that the prototypical friendship of brother and sister is nonsexual. I need not pry into this or that sibling duo's private lives to assess whether or not it would be pro-marriage to abolish the line drawn against closely-related duos. Marriage is a type of sexual relationship. It is one which merits special status in our laws and in our culture. There is no need to pry on a case-by-case basis to assess the lines of eligibility around the core meaning of marriage.
The sexual basis for marriage is two-sexed and the consent of siblings would not trump their ineligibility to marry. This is so even if they also dedicated themselves publicly to never touching each other sexually. Even if they declared that they do not find each other sexually attractive. If both of them insisted that they were homosexual, that would not change their ineligibility to marry.
So why would you think the contrary for some people but not siblings?
This is a basic question that you cannot defer with a wave of your hand, saying, well, we will arbitrarily keep the sibling line but make consent the trump card for another group of people. To do so would be to directly contradict the SSM campaign's argumentation and rhetoric.
More in a bit ...
Paul went on with his offer to help:
"2.) The gay identity has nothing to do with sexual activities. I define someone as gay as someone who loves, wants to start a life with, and raise kids with someone of their same sex. No where is sex involved in that. I think this is a commonly misunderstood concept."
Nothing to do with sexual activities? Okay, if you insist. Then see the query about siblings.
Surely you would not deny that siblings can love each other? Love can be a powerful motivator for those in the parent-child relationship, also. It can motivate polygamists and polyamorists, also. Perhaps you imagine that all this love is inferior to "gay love"?
Raising kids is now definitive of the gay identity? I do not know what society you live in but wherever it has been measured by census takers, raising children in same-sex households is very, very, very rare -- in the USA about 97% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in such households with children. It is a marginal practice.
But I will grant the obvious: there is no sexual basis for applying the legal marital presumption of paternity to an all-male or an all-female scenario.
But that would also apply to the prototypical sibling relationship which is nonsexual by definition. Siblings can raise children together. That does not define the sibling relationship, of course, but nor does it define the gay identity.
You clearly are confused on this matter.
Paul continued:
"3.) This is easy to answer. Would you want to be forced to marry someone who you weren't in love with? Gay people are not attracted to their opposite sex, so why would they want to marry someone of the opposite sex? Gay marriage is the popular opinion in America right now because of this."
Forced? There is no forced. You need to recheck the legal reality in this country.
Also, there is no love requirement in the marriage law. Surely you cannot think your answer is correct even if you think your answer came easily to your fingertips at the keyboard.
If someone does not want to marry, that is their choice. SSM is not a type of marriage because it lacks the essential features of the marital type of relationship.
Popular opinion can be misled. SSMers claim that all the time. So you cannot cite popular opinion -- however mistaken you are about the measure of that opinion today -- in aid of your argument.
I bet if you did an opinion survey you would negative answers to the following: Should we make love a legal requirement to marry? Should we make sexual attraction a legal requirement to marry? Should we make marriage a nonsexual type of relationship in our marriage law?
Popular opinion might be superficially measured by pro-SSM surveyors, sure, but I doubt that you yourself would answer yes to such questions about what the law ought to make compulsory for those who'd show up to SSM. So why do you say such nonsense about the marriage law?
Paul @ comment #19 offered to help me out with my query.
He said:
"1.) Everyone can judge someone else's sexual behavior as perverted, but do they have a right to? If it's between two consenting adults, why does this third person have any reason to judge them? Sounds very prying of that person to judge someones sexual behaviors that has nothing to do with them."
A right to moral assessment of sexual behavior? Well, I think you might agree that there is such liberty in this society; but I think you imagine that negative assessment is the problem not your positive assessment. Please clarify.
Anyway, one need not pry to assess the line drawn against siblings. Their consent does not trump the law. Of course, the prototypical sibling relationship is a nonsexual friendship. I need not pry on a case-by-case basis into such relationships so as to decide if the marital type of relationship -- a sexual type of relationship in our laws -- is appropriate for closely-related persons. Their consent is not the key. That to which consent is given is the key.
SSM is not a sexual type of relationship, at law, given your own argumentation. So why would you object, if you would object, to including closely-related people as eligible to SSM?
What if they declared themselves homosexual? Would that beef-up their consent to the level of a trump card? How about if they dedicate themselves to a nonsexual arrangement? Maybe they would count their love so great that they would complain that the law is unfair. Does that change your view?
There is no love requirement, as you know, but love is a great motivator for polygamists and for polyamorists. Their consent does not trump their ineligibility. Perhaps you think it ought to? You might not wish to exercise moral judgement.
But, tell me, do you pry into the sexual life of the polygamist or the polyamorist? Do you pry into the sexual life of people who are closely related? If not, would you abolish the lines drawn against their eligiblity to SSM? If not, why not?
Talk about circular reasoning!
The only requirements to get married in most states right now is to be of legal age, not already married, and not related to the other person in a first degree relationship, ie: parent, grandparent, or sibling. In a handful of states, you can be the same sex; in most, you can't. That's it folks. Nothing about love, nothing about children. Your reasons for gettting married are your own. That's how it should be.
And yes, there IS a disconnect between feeling and behavior. Sex in prison isn't based on feelings. It's behavior, plain and simple.
Chairnohn, you tell me to get my argument straight before I argue it. I'd tell you to stop taking clear words and trying to make them say more than they do. My words said exactly what I meant them to say. If a group of. People think that the only "correct" sex is procreative, (sex that can lead to the creation of a child, whether or not a child is actually created) then any other type of sex is perverted.
And finally, the definition of perverted wasn't mine but the Oxford dictionary definition.
Chairm wrote: Raising kids is now definitive of the gay identity? I do not know what society you live in but wherever it has been measured by census takers, raising children in same-sex households is very, very, very rare -- in the USA about 97% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in such households with children. It is a marginal practice.
==============
And that in addition to the fact that in any country where homosexual marriage was legalized, it was shunned by 98% of the LGBT population as well.
And society refuses to ask why. Why is the almost entirety of the LGBT population incapable and unwilling to get married, once it is legal? If they were capable of a committed, loving relationships, that's the first thing that at least a huge number of them would do once it was legal.
But the truth is that LGBT people have millions of profound psychological and attitudinal problems concerning sex and relationships. And they prefer to engage in behaviors that violate these very concepts of traditional marriage, without even including the fact that they are dysfunctional towards the opposite sex.
Not only that, many LGBT people who claim they should be able to get married want unfaithful marriage as marriage. It is a violation of marriage in just about every way possible.
We live in a society where no one wants to deal with how dysfunctional people are regarding sex and relationships. So the trend is for all these people to claim they should behave any way they want, and that they are never accountable for facing or resolving their profound psychological and relational problems.
Yet, their denial does not change the reality that they are a failure exactly at that. Normalizing homosexuality, adultery, promiscuity, and porn, for example, are examples of society running away from facing and dealing with the massive problems it displays in the areas of sex and relationships.
Chairm wrote: Raising kids is now definitive of the gay identity? I do not know what society you live in but wherever it has been measured by census takers, raising children in same-sex households is very, very, very rare -- in the USA about 97% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in such households with children. It is a marginal practice.
==============
And that in addition to the fact that in any country where homosexual marriage was legalized, it was shunned by 98% of the LGBT population as well.
And society refuses to ask why. Why is the almost entirety of the LGBT population incapable and unwilling to get married, once it is legal? If they were capable of a committed, loving relationships, that's the first thing that at least a huge number of them would do once it was legal.
But the truth is that LGBT people have millions of profound psychological and attitudinal problems concerning sex and relationships. And they prefer to engage in behaviors that violate these very concepts of traditional marriage, without even including the fact that they are dysfunctional towards the opposite sex.
Not only that, many LGBT people who claim they should be able to get married want unfaithful marriage as marriage. It is a violation of marriage in just about every way possible.
We live in a society where no one wants to deal with how dysfunctional people are regarding sex and relationships. So the trend is for all these people to claim they should behave any way they want, and that they are never accountable for facing or resolving their profound psychological and relational problems.
Yet, their denial does not change the reality that they are a failure exactly at that. Normalizing homosexuality, adultery, promiscuity, and porn, for example, are examples of society running away from facing and dealing with the massive problems it displays in the areas of sex and relationships.
Chairm wrote: Raising kids is now definitive of the gay identity? I do not know what society you live in but wherever it has been measured by census takers, raising children in same-sex households is very, very, very rare -- in the USA about 97% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in such households with children. It is a marginal practice.
==============
And that in addition to the fact that in any country where homosexual marriage was legalized, it was shunned by 98% of the LGBT population as well.
And society refuses to ask why. Why is the almost entirety of the LGBT population incapable and unwilling to get married, once it is legal? If they were capable of a committed, loving relationships, that's the first thing that at least a huge number of them would do once it was legal.
But the truth is that LGBT people have millions of profound psychological and attitudinal problems concerning sex and relationships. And they prefer to engage in behaviors that violate these very concepts of traditional marriage, without even including the fact that they are dysfunctional towards the opposite sex.
many LGBT people who claim they should be able to get married want unfaithful marriage as "marriage." It is a violation of marriage in just about every way possible.
We live in a society where no one wants to deal with how dysfunctional people are regarding sex and relationships. So the trend is for all these people to claim they should behave any way they want, and that they are never accountable for facing or resolving their profound psychological and relational problems.
Yet, their denial does not change the reality that they are a failure exactly at that. Normalizing homosexuality, adultery, promiscuity, and p0rnography, for example, are examples of society running away from facing and dealing with the massive problems it displays in the areas of sex and relationships.
many LGBT people who claim they should be able to get married want unfaithful marriage as "marriage." It is a violation of marriage in just about every way possible.
We live in a society where no one wants to deal with how dysfunctional people are regarding sex and relationships. So the trend is for all these people to claim they should behave any way they want, and that they are never accountable for facing or resolving their profound psychological and relational problems.
Yet, their denial does not change the reality that they are a failure exactly at that. Normalizing homosexuality, adultery, promiscuity, and por nogra phy, for example, are examples of society running away from facing and dealing with the massive problems it displays in the areas of sex and relationships.
many LGBT people who claim they should be able to get married want unfaithful marriage as "marriage." It is a violation of marriage in just about every way possible.
We live in a society where no one wants to deal with how dysfunctional people are regarding sex and relationships. So the trend is for all these people to claim they should behave any way they want, and that they are never accountable for facing or resolving their profound psychological and relational problems.
Yet, their denial does not change the reality that they are a failure exactly at that. Normalizing homosexuality, adultery, promiscuity, for example, are examples of society running away from facing and dealing with the massive problems it displays in the areas of sex and relationships.
many LGBT people who claim they should be able to get married want unfaithful marriage as marriage. It is a violation of marriage in just about every way possible.
We live in a society where no one wants to deal with how dysfunctional people are regarding sex and relationships. So the trend is for all these people to claim they should behave any way they want, and that they are never accountable for facing or resolving their profound psychological and relational problems.
Teri,
You do understand that the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity is about, well, the two-sexed nature of humankind; it is about sex and also about children.
Start with the two-sexed nature of human procreation. What follows? Children. See, this is not circular thinking.
When the husband and wife said, I do, they consent to this legal default. They consent to all that marital status entails, including its two-sexed sexual basis. But that is foreign to the one-sexed scenario -- sexualized or not. What follows? No one-sexed scenario can entail consent to the sexual basis of marriage.
Consent is a requirement, as you must know. The bride-plus-groom requirement you wish to abolish but it is a legal requirement. There are legal requirements you might wish to deeply discount or to abolish: the sexual basis for consummation, for annulment, for adultery, injury, divorce and so forth. When the husband and wife said, I do, they consent to this sexual basis entailed in marital status.
A brideless or a groomless scenario -- gay or otherwise -- cannot provide consent to this sexual basis of marriage. Such consent is a requirement that is extrinsic to the type of relationship you have in mind when you talk of SSM.
Teri said:
"The only requirements to get married in most states right now is to be of legal age, not already married, and not related to the other person in a first degree relationship, ie: parent, grandparent, or sibling."
Okay, so you agree that opposite-sex sexual attraction is not a legal requirement. But what is your complaint against the bride-plus-groom requirement? Pause before embarking on circular thinking.
Look, each requirement is about drawing the line around the core meaning of marriage. You object to the bride-plus-groom requirement and so you throw all requirements up in the air. You demand that requirements be justified or abolished. You can't be selective: your arguments are about eligibility.
Age is directly related to consent. Consent itself is not the key to this age requirement; that to which consent is given is the key. Justify the requirement based on the one-sexed scenario alone.
Why just one relationship at-a-time? Justify the limitation based on the one-sexed scenario alone.
Why bar closely-related people? Justify the limitation based on the one-sexed scenario alone.
Remember, no circular thinking.
Teri,
Chairm Ohn, you tell me to get my argument straight before I argue it."
Not quite right.
I asked you to understand the procreation argument. Get this straight before trying to attack it.
Otherwise, you end-up taking swipes at a strawman erected from your own mistakes.
_______
Teri said:
"If a group of people think that the only 'correct' sex is procreative, (sex that can lead to the creation of a child, whether or not a child is actually created) then any other type of sex is perverted."
This is your example of your use of the objective concept, perverted.
Your example uses perverted as a subjective concept. It uses perverted in terms of behavior. Your previous remarks are thus not in alignment with your example.
Here is the Oxford American Dictionary definition for perverted:
adj. (of a person or their actions) characterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies. See note at Depraved.
Here is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of pervert:
v. 1. distort or corrupt the original course, meaning, or state of (something). 2. lead (someone) away from what is considered natural or acceptable.
adj. (perverted). sexually abnormal and unacceptable.
Now, please go upthread and re-read the query in my comment #18 (followed with mycomment #25) where I was trying to get at the pith of your comment regarding your reference to 'perverted' and to 'legal rights' in your comment #14 (and followed with your comments #22 and #28).
Do you agree that sexual behavior and/or sexual attraction can be perverted? It seems you consider perverted to be merely a label that you do not think applies to sex between human beings. Please confirm, correct, or clarify.
And, to put it simply, what relevance does the sexual aspect of attraction have on the legal requirements for those who'd SSM? It seems to have no relevance.
You said that gay identity is based on the sexual aspect of sexual attraction. Is it disconnected from the sexual aspect of sexual behavior? It seems to be disconnected one hand but directly connected on the other hand, depending on what you chose to emphasize at any given moment. Please clarify.
Do you agree that human beings can consent to perverted sexual behavior that is predicated on sexual attraction? For instance, would you consider Genetical Sexual Attraction (GSA) between relatives to be not-perverted but acting on the GSA to be perverted? Or would not acting on GSA be a denial of the definitive sexual aspect of one's identity?
See, I think that in your various quips you have trucked in a heap load of sloppy thinking and outright misunderstandings about the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea. And I do not think that you can be faulted completely -- the SSM campaign has taught a lot of that stuff you trucked in here.
I came to this comment string to read how Teri is going to defend her rhetoric based solely on loose use of words and semantics
Like i wrote her under another post. She can use language in whatever way she chooses (assuming it is a choice), but that doesn't mean communication happens
I wouldn't want to be defending my loose semantics vs. Chairm ! But like in all entertainment - it doesn't have to be reality to be entertaining
Spooky too, maybe. Should be interesting reading. . .
In conclusion, seems like Teri's only valid argument is: "Because i want it so". That reminds me: we each have one vote.