Social Politics Thread

[Dypo deLina]

Gah... I can't stop reading this topic...

[Ami]

Especially in the South

I've been busy being sick, so I've stayed my hand from replying, but... do you want to run that by me again? Granted, the states in the "bible belt" may not be the most tolerant, especially in the law books, but stupid is stupid wherever you go, believe you me (as I've moved around quite a bit). It's so easy for someone to point to the south and go "that's where the bigotry is" so one doesn't have to analyze themselves. Intolerance is not only universal, but prevalent in the places we don't like to look.

Think twice before you speak, Kapps. I'm a southern woman who has many southern friends who'd take exception to what you have just said. Except for my Memaw, she's an evil that just sorta clouds over the entire area, so you're not entirely off.

[Bad Player]

The overwhelming majority of the population is heterosexual

This is precisely one thing I would like to stay as is, you see.
As it is, homosexuals are no danger to the fertility of society as a whole, because of their small numbers - all of you have been putting that argument forward on this topic.
What I'm quite sure of is that officialising a such a relationship would make their number grow. To what extent, I cannot predict, but it would, since people would be more prone to choosing a path if it's officially authorised.

Again, you will tell me "one does not choose to be gay"... Which I only partly agree with. As I said to Geno earlier, I understand that love can happen between any two persons that know each other, even if they are of the same sex, and is not a controllable emotion. In that respect, in fact, I'm rather thinking here of bisexual behaviour : falling in love independently of the gender of the other person.
However, being "strictly gay" (that is, saying "I will never love anyone in the opposite gender") - just like being "strictly straight" - is a matter of choice, since one is planning and negating future emotions. For example, hearing a girl saying she's tried both, liked being with a girl better, and deduced she was a lesbian is what I find worrying. Aside from the fact that I don't approve of the idea of using other people's body as test subjects, the core of the matter is that this point, it is a matter of choice... And the more people insist on how being gay is cool, the more young people will want to try it, and more are likely to join this trend.
What worries me, from the "pragmatic" point of view, is wondering how far it could go.

When people say they are "strictly gay/straight" and say "I'll never love someone that's a [gender]," I don't think that is actively negating future emotions, but saying "I have never been attracted to [gender] and have only been attracted to [other gender], therefore I am assuming based on past experiences that I will never be attracted to [gender]." But if they are, in fact, bisexual or whatever... Well, my hunch is that a generalization is inappropriate, and that of people who believe they are strictly gay/straight experience feelings counter to this, some will explore them and some will go "W-Wait, I'm [sexuality]!" and ignore them.

I'm... not sure how exactly this is still relevant to the issue xD

But same-sex relationships are still empowered and "authorized" by the LGBT community, and there is still homophobia/discrimination in society at large. I'm really sure not sure if same-sex marriage would increase the number of homosexual relationships; even if they do, I doubt that it would significantly decrease the fertility rate. But all we both have is speculation at this point.

Moreoever, scientists have found homosexual behavior in I think... over 50 different species. Have those species died out from lack of procreation?

More like bisexual behaviour, actually. See the explanation I gave above - bisexuality is obviously not as much a problem as far as procreation is concerned. And these animals don't have to face the "trendy" and "cool, let's try it" problem I mentioned - as it stays random, the numbers stay low for most species.

But part of the reason it's "trendy" and "cool" is b/c it's opposed by 'the man'. If it was authorized and accepted, it would no longer be "hip". (Or at least that would deal with part of it.)

Why should it? Separation of the Church and State

So taking a word and a notion from someone else, then twisting its meaning to suit yourself is okay to you ?
If from now on someone decides to use your own name to designate some kind of baboon, would that be okay ? The notions are remotely similar (after all, primates are primates, and the human being is one), but that would be a very provocative and unrespectful stance.
The way marriage is being progressively stripped of all its meaning by the states that decided to use this word is offensive and unrespectful in the same way. In that respect I salute the effort of Finland to choose at least a different name.

The government has already used and adopted the word "marriage". Because of the Separation of Church and State, marriage used by the state should not be influenced by its usage in religion. Languages evolve; words get new meanings. If your real beef is with the state using the word "marriage" at all, this isn't really about same-sex marriage.

Ending slavery was taking a risk regarding the overall future evolution of society. I suppose you think we should've just kept it, to be on the safe side?

Do you enjoy comparing homosexuals to slaves or something ? Second time you mentioned the same comparison regarding their status...
The existence of a risk does not forbid any evolution. However, it does make things more complicated than saying "It's cool, let's go", and it justifies that some people might disagree with you without necessarily being idiots or heartless people.
The same apply when you say (Causation =/= Correlation) : agreed, but correlation is enough to require more study than saying "It's cool, let's go" (bis)

You didn't respond to it the first time
If you're going to use the "This is the way it's been for thousands of years!" card, the best counter I have at the moment is "Slavery is the way it was for thousands of years, too!" so
The correlation/causation between divorce and suicide rates is certainly interesting, but my hunch is that those are probably much too complicated to prove or disprove causation, whether it's truly there or not. ...And again, I'm not sure how much this is actually relevant to same-sex marriage.

(Oh, and about the results... You're wrong. We have them. Look at any state or country that has allowed same-sex marriage.)

Sure. First country to do it was the Netherlands in 2001. Ten years of observation are very representative of the evolution of a society in the long term...
And even if they are, the visible situation is that the fertility rate is significantly lower in those countries.
Let's compare European countries, based on similar cultures. Netherlands (1.7), Belgium (1.82), Spain (1.47) have same-sex marriage, and fertility rates far too low to renew their population. France and Ireland, two countries among those most attached to the traditional notion of marriage - possibly because having a strong religious history still present in the culture - lead Europe with a rate of 2.1 children by woman in 2010 - precisely the population renewal threshold.
So the example of the other countries, while not "alarming" (as I said, I consider this a way too short term study to prove anything), is not reassuring either.

That would certainly be convincing... if not for the fact that the Netherland's fertility rate has been 1.7 for the past 35 years. I'm not going to go through all these countries, but looking at that I think it's pretty clear same-sex marriage has not influenced it, or at least does not account for the large difference between the fertility rates of the countries with same-sex marriage and France+Ireland. (There's also the fact that there are plenty of countries without same-sex marriage that have comparable or lower fertility rates to countries that do have it.)

[Hodou Okappa]

Especially in the South

I've been busy being sick, so I've stayed my hand from replying, but... do you want to run that by me again? Granted, the states in the "bible belt" may not be the most tolerant, especially in the law books, but stupid is stupid wherever you go, believe you me (as I've moved around quite a bit). It's so easy for someone to point to the south and go "that's where the bigotry is" so one doesn't have to analyze themselves. Intolerance is not only universal, but prevalent in the places we don't like to look.

Think twice before you speak, Kapps. I'm a southern woman who has many southern friends who'd take exception to what you have just said. Except for my Memaw, she's an evil that just sorta clouds over the entire area, so you're not entirely off.

Haha. When did I say there was no intolerance in the North? I mean, I pointed to the south, but I've made it very clear in the past that I feel the entire country's gone to crap. I mean if anyone else said it I'd understand feeling that way, but if you know me at all you'll know I say that in a purely factual matter. That is, at the moment, where a good deal of the super-religious voters, politicians, and laws are. I'm not trying to insinuate the entire South is crazy, nor that the North is sane.

Still, I'm sure it's a touchy subject for you down there. I'll try to be sure to elaborate on that in the future.

As you all may have noticed, I'm a horrible debater. I openly admit this. I tend to over-generalize and under-elaborate all the time, just because when I speak I always assume the people listening to me are all following the same mental process as I was. Which, of course, they aren't. Just bear with me, and I'll try to add to/correct myself where necessary.

[Phantom]

Especially in the South

I've been busy being sick, so I've stayed my hand from replying, but... do you want to run that by me again? Granted, the states in the "bible belt" may not be the most tolerant, especially in the law books, but stupid is stupid wherever you go, believe you me (as I've moved around quite a bit). It's so easy for someone to point to the south and go "that's where the bigotry is" so one doesn't have to analyze themselves. Intolerance is not only universal, but prevalent in the places we don't like to look.

Think twice before you speak, Kapps. I'm a southern woman who has many southern friends who'd take exception to what you have just said. Except for my Memaw, she's an evil that just sorta clouds over the entire area, so you're not entirely off.

Haha. When did I say there was no intolerance in the North? I mean, I pointed to the south, but I've made it very clear in the past that I feel the entire country's gone to crap. I mean if anyone else said it I'd understand feeling that way, but if you know me at all you'll know I say that in a purely factual matter. That is, at the moment, where a good deal of the super-religious voters, politicians, and laws are. I'm not trying to insinuate the entire South is crazy, nor that the North is sane.

Still, I'm sure it's a touchy subject for you down there. I'll try to be sure to elaborate on that in the future.

As you all may have noticed, I'm a horrible debater. I openly admit this. I tend to over-generalize and under-elaborate all the time, just because when I speak I always assume the people listening to me are all following the same mental process as I was. Which, of course, they aren't. Just bear with me, and I'll try to add to/correct myself where necessary.

Actually Hodou, considering that I'm from the Deep South, I can actually agree with what you pointed out about the South in general: The assertion you have made is VERY correct, although a generalization, it's pretty much true. I take no offense to what you say, and actually acknowledge that there's a distinct emphasis in "The South".

Why do I say it's true? I'm a southern MAN with DIVERSE southern friends who DEFINITELY knows for a fact that the generalization is pretty much true, no matter what it is about (think about the history of the South in the United States, and your "foundations" aren't actually too far off ;p).
While intolerance/bigotry is universal, it's much more shown in the South than anywhere else in the USA at the time being (unless you want to count that NY incident with building a mosque at Ground Zero, but those protesters were known to be people from THE SOUTH that traveled up north to prevent that building being built xP). I think that's what Hodou's getting at and he's right.

BEFORE YOU READ BELOW, understand I'm not trying to attack anyone, but I'm just stating my honest opinion here:

Geno, I know for a fact that you're overreacting to what Hodou's saying... You might not agree with it, but can you at least respect where he's trying to get at? I'm from the South too, yet I take no offense to what he's saying, there's no need to pick out and overblowa FEW words out of his long quote. It's his opinion after all after all :/ (and with a legitimate foundation too).

It's just that the intolerance is much more prominently seen in the South (hell, there was one case recently, not sure which southern state, that didn't allow the marriage of an interracial couple-Black and White, and you'd think we'd be past those colors by now haha xP, it just shows how "old" the bigotries has lasted in the South throughout the century after all).


Personally, I'm not against, nor in support gay marriage. It's not my business what people want to do in their private life, and there's really no reason for the government to intervene (unless people are saying gays are going to cause ruckus everywhere they go in public and disrupt life, LOL). Unless you're being hit on by a gay dude, or a dude that leads more to a feministic personality, there's pretty much nothing to worry about (and even then, you should be flattered you're being hit on, that means your face is really pretty haha)

Also, on a side note, I really don't like the obnoxious people that make a huge fuss about their being "gay" and acting TOTALLY womanly. Like radicals do for any religion, the "obnoxious" gays make the gay community bad and give them a bad stereotype in my eyes. I don't think THESE guys are the ones that deserve to have civil unions/"gay" marriage in general. That's my two cents though, since someone can basically argue to me "Just because they have a different polar personality, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry!".
They can have the same rights as just about anyone. I'm not saying they should be punished for having a fake personality, but simply that I don't really feel as though they deserve to have that right while tarnishing the very community they "place" themselves in.

[Ping']

First off, I wanted to say that despite being in favour of homosexual marriage and adoption, my philosophy is (probably) closer to that of Unas. That is, I believe marriage to be an essential institution. On a more general level, I think that the liberalization of certain habits is not just a matter of personal freedom, and can have profound impacts on society. Alcohol, for instance, negatively affects everyone, whether they're consumers or not. I'm not saying we have to prohibit the sale of alcohol (we all know how that turned out), only that behaving as though it were inconsequential does not do us any good. The economic conception of "externalities" applies everywhere, in fact most events in our lives have externalities. The distinction between the public and the private is mostly a fiction, especially when it can be set (and changed) by the public... Therefore, we should be able to give incentives not to adopt seemingly purely "individual" behaviours when their net social effect is predicted with sufficient confidence to be large, negative, and impossible to prevent using other means.

However, it is quite simply my opinion that those conditions aren't met in the case of homosexual marriage. Unas, one of the strongest arguments you use is of the "survival of the species" kind, because survival is the one concern that trumps all the others. If legalizing homosexual marriage were to lead to the end of the human race, I think we would all agree that it would not be worth it. But there is no compelling evidence, such as demographic statistics of countries that have done it, that this is the case. Granted, the effect is of a long term nature. You may also retort that there is no evidence that it is NOT true either, and argue for the "precautionary principle" - better safe than sorry. But the fact that the consequences only occur in the long term makes such precaution unnecessary. Why not try legalizing homosexual marriage? If, as you claim, it has a strong impact on procreation that ends up threatening our very existence, we should be able to see it coming before it's too late, and reverse the policy anyway. The same applies to abortion and other policies that might theoretically change our demographics. (Incidentally, overpopulation also causes its own issues, and after a certain point I believe that stabilizing the human population should be a goal unless there truly is a place for us in space. I'm not talking about limiting births, Chinese style, which I morally object to - some advanced countries manage a good fertility rate without any form of coercion whatsoever, so development seems to be the key.)

On top of the "utilitarian" argument against prohibiting homosexual marriage, there is an "ethical" argument for recognizing it, which has been articulated by several people in this topic already. Because at least some people aren't homosexual by choice (I think it's fairly uncontroversial that not ALL gays decide to be gay, just to impose their gay agenda on heterosexuals XD), it is not fair to deprive them of a way of realizing their goals and reaching happiness that is available to all heterosexuals based solely on nature when equality before the law alone could put that situation to an end. I'm a (somewhat dissident) Rawslian, i.e., I believe that a legal regime is fair when people under a veil of ignorance of what the lottery of nature will give them would all agree to its terms. Clearly, in the Rawlsian original position, I would not agree to the prohibition of homosexual marriage, based on the (small but real) probability I might be born homosexual. I think this remains the strongest criterion to decide on matters of justice, but naturally you're all free to disagree.

[E.D.Revolution]

I thought this was about social politics, not a pure discussion on LGBT rights :/

I have but one opinion on this matter: Ultimately, it's a choice to be hetero, homo, bi, or trans.

For those who disagree, prove to me that's ultimately not a choice to be hetero, homo, bi, or trans. Every argument I've heard against my view so far has, for the most part, ended up dodging the question.

[Singidava]

Hm~ It just seems that everyone has so much to say about it~

Well, since you are talking about opinions let me ask you a few questions. Could you fall in love with another male if you wanted to? Could you stop loving the person dearest to you if you wanted to?

If you can do those I have absolutely no problems with your opinion that sexual orientation is a choice.

[Ping']

I thought this was about social politics, not a pure discussion on LGBT rights :/

I have but one opinion on this matter: Ultimately, it's a choice to be hetero, homo, bi, or trans.

For those who disagree, prove to me that's ultimately not a choice to be hetero, homo, bi, or trans. Every argument I've heard against my view so far has, for the most part, ended up dodging the question.

> It's kind of a weird question, though. Or maybe I don't understand it properly. I can't prove that you're wrong, but to me this is irrelevant.
Even if a gay person could choose to be hetero, it would be morally wrong to force them to do so - precisely because it would not be a true choice.
As long as at least some gays are born gay, regardless of what happens afterwards there is a fairness argument that gay people should have the same rights as the others.
Fairness is about balancing the products of luck and merit. Whenever the cause of a situation is pure chance, inequality isn't morally justifiable.

[E.D.Revolution]

> It's kind of a weird question, though. Or maybe I don't understand it properly. I can't prove that you're wrong, but to me this is irrelevant.
Even if a gay person could choose to be hetero, it would be morally wrong to force them to do so - precisely because it would not be a true choice.
As long as at least some gays are born gay, regardless of what happens afterwards there is a fairness argument that gay people should have the same rights as the others.
Fairness is about balancing the products of luck and merit. Whenever the cause of a situation is pure chance, inequality isn't morally justifiable.

If you're reading it as nature VS choice, then you're reading it right.
Even if he chose to be hetero, it's still a choice, is it not?
And right now there's no good evidence supporting that people are born gay.

Still, this whole discussion, I see, is summarized into one question: Is it a choice to be gay? All other moral, legal, and ethical questions are derivatives of it. So you can't effectively apply this question to moral, legal, and ethical grounds without effectively answering that one question sufficiently.

There's a reason I deliberately avoid questions/issues such as gay rights and laws against gays. Those are very sticky issues, and it stems from that basic questions they don't seem to be able to effectively answer.

@Singi, it's not personally if I can do all that. It's rather "Can it be done?" And I wholeheartedly believe it can be done.

And I won't even touch "Is it right or wrong to be gay?" because we all know that's how sh*t starts.

[Singidava]

If you say people can decide their sexual orientation even you should ultimately be able to do those things (assuming you're a human of course~). Just asking if you think you can really do them~ Note: I'm not asking could you suppress your love in the second question but could you just make it dissappear. Aaaand btw, I agree with Ping'~

And lol, you're right about that last one.

[E.D.Revolution]

Case in point for the last point: Westboro Baptist Church

Ping is right in many of his points, but I'd rather take the question back to the VERY fundamental question. Trust me, I've seen some research on being born gay. It's not good research, and even the good research isn't conclusive. Still, I'd rather not think that it's possible to be born gay. You can grow up to be gay and choose your identity. But you can't be born gay. And until that's proven false, that's a fact.

And if you're wondering. I can stop loving a person dearest to me (soulless person, am I? ), though that's usually a matter of how long I stop loving. I can't fall in love with a guy. I might sound fake, but I'd rather take a detached POV on this type of question.

[Bad Player]

I thought this was about social politics, not a pure discussion on LGBT rights :/

If you wanna discuss another issue, bring it up yourself.

I have but one opinion on this matter: Ultimately, it's a choice to be hetero, homo, bi, or trans.

For those who disagree, prove to me that's ultimately not a choice to be hetero, homo, bi, or trans. Every argument I've heard against my view so far has, for the most part, ended up dodging the question.

From our discussions, it seems you're basing your definition of sexuality on actions. So if you do that, it's obvious that it's just a choice; no matter whom I'm attracted to, I can go have relationships with any gender I want.

And right now there's no good evidence supporting that people are born gay.

ta dah. Did a quick search. Genetics had a 40% influence in men and 20% influence in women. Also before anyone tries to misconstrue this as 60%/80% choice, it's not; that other 60%/80% is environmental factors; but if that 60%/80% is environmental factors in the first year of life, would you really be able to argue that it's a choice?

@Singi, it's not personally if I can do all that. It's rather "Can it be done?" And I wholeheartedly believe it can be done.

"I think you can do it" is a pretty weak foundation for an argument.

But you can't be born gay. And until that's proven false, that's a fact.

No. Just no. "It's a fact until it's disproven" is just... no.

I can't fall in love with a guy.

So you admit that you (personally, at least) cannot choose to be gay/bi. kk.

[E.D.Revolution]

I'm not even trying to argue for the sake of arguing. I'm trying to steer the discussion in a different direction. And I'm merely observing what what being said on the thread. Sure, we have the social and evolution implications, but many times I'm seeing this as a LGBT issue.

I can understand the LGB part of that, but the T part confuses me to hell

BP, I can't access ProQuest. You're going to have to find a way to get that information to us.

Just saying. Just want to steer away from contentious parts of the issue, if you know what I mean.

[TrialmanAKASoma Cruz]

I can understand the LGB part of that, but the T part confuses me to hell

Me too. I can understand Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual. But I don't understand Transsexual. (I just can't avoid this topic.)