Thanks for waiting through Thanksgiving holiday for a response, GT. Don't ever agree to go shopping on the day after Thanksgiving. Pretend like you have important chores to do or something like that. If you do get forced to go, then hang out at American Eagle as long as you can (they have couches
)
ha, ill keep that in mind. The joys of marital bliss right? Thanksgiving good all in all though?
Freedom is important to our society, but a freedom based on justifying all kinds of behaviors and impulses is not true freedom. If everyone just went around doing whatever they wanted to and said, "hey, it's my constitutional right", then that wouldn't be true freedom as chaos would ensue. If the jury is going to "remain out" then why do people jump on the 'they were born that way' bandwagon? Why aren't you disconcerted over people using that phrase and proclaiming it as truth when it, in fact, is not the case?
I will agree to your point, that a freedom that justifies all behaviors may not be free at all. However, i think we are talking about some very different things when we get to the nuts and bolts of what cant be free. I think we both know theres a difference between a changing family dynamic (which is occuring irrespectivly of just homosexuality) and some behaviors which cause great social distress.
I think a lot of the reason people jump on both sides of the bandwagon, is because neither side makes their arguments in the vaccum. For instance, when i type this, i know that you will (eventually jk) respond. Therefore, i tailor my response to a point, to anticipate some of your answers, and to clairfy possibly errors. However, we are both rather civil so this is not hard to do. imagine how much more is done by both sides, when you know you are going to face hostile opposition, that may or may not care much for your opinion. I think for a lot of reasons, this leads people to take unnecessarily set in stone positions, because they know their position will be challenged strongly. To be jokingly darwinistic...only the strongest opinions survive. In a perfect world we wouldnt have to desperatly cling on to opinions we cant verify and expect them to have truth value....but we dont live in that world.
Yet atheists here demand proof all the time in order to believe in God. Why does their standard change when it comes to proving that homosexuals are born that way? It seems that they can pick and choose which things to "have faith in" when they feel like it. As far as my stance changing, it probably wouldn't because I've been alive long enough to see how the game is played.
ill admit there is a bit of a contradiction here. But i think we will both agree than anyone on either side who demands proof and claims superiority when either side cannot supply it, loses a bit of credibility. However, i think you can lump the people in question in this discussion with those in religious debates. It is perhaps unnecessary poor form...but it will happen either way.
First it was "God made me this way". Next is became "science proves there's a gay gene which made me this way" (which has now been refuted). After that came the "twins" theory which has also been debunked. Now we have the new "animals do it so it's ok" line.
I think in a lot of ways these things are very closely related to the times. Before people considered the idea (and a few studies posed interesting if not conclusive results) people held onto the one argument which may have made sense to religious people...that God may have made them that way. Once a possibly "better" argument arrived....they took it. I wouldnt expect this to stop, nor do i think its necessarily wrong. We still know very little about the workings of the human psyche or expeirence, their may be things we learn in the next few decades that change both of our minds about the issue.
It seems that there is an effort to find a justification in order to reinterpret the constitution to make it legal. It doesn't matter if there's no evidence or not, they're bound and determined to change the law to suit themselves...sort of like what happened back in the 70's.
Ive been thinking about this, because to my cynical mind...this really seems like where the battle could be won, one way or the other. I cant necessarily think of a way to use it either way. If you wanted to remove some of the religious objections you could under the establishment clause, but thats very shaky ground at best. At the same time, i cant find or think of (cause im a bit of a constitutional novice admittedly) a provision that deals with homosexuality.
However, we do have a bit of a dark history in the past with issues of morality being served under the constitution. The Carrie Buck vs Bell case is a pretty classic example. The supreme court ruled 8-1 essentially in favor of involuntary sterlization. Now...why could they do this? Because really when you get down to it, theres nothing specific that guarantees life or liberty...those are declaration values. So really if Eugenics couldnt find an actual defense against in the constitution, its hard to imagine either side of the debate couldnt tailor something to win a case....so perhaps its best to avoid constitutionality all together.
Another thing which seems worthy of bringing up here. You mention the acts which occured in order to make some of the changes in the DSM in the 70s. I dont doubt their truth, and they are certainly questionable behaviors. however, when i watched a documentary on Ingrid Newkirk (the peta activist of infamy) it got me to thinking. You may perhaps be skating on thin lines when you use this as a tactic to dismiss the turning over of the homosexuality as a mental illness issue. Certainly a lot of people probably felt like those people did in the 70s, much like im sure many animal rights activists think like Ingrid Newkirk does. However, there are far more who think her methods dont justify the ends, and seek other ways to promote change. Call me an idealist....but i think this is probably very similar to the efforts of those advocating on the behalf of the gay rights movement. For all of the notiority that those who acted disobdiently did, im sure as much leg work if not much more was done by those using much more civil avenues.
I would contend it's because you don't want to be labeled as "intolerant, puritanical, dogmatic" as people such as myself are when we dare to speak out on the issue. I would also think that the media has had some effect on your thinking on this issue. If not that, then probably your courses at university (which are taught from a secular humanist bent).
This all may be true, and i dont feel any need to contend against it, ill admit i certainly cant be sure of how such biases may affect my thinking.
Nobody likes being called a bigot. I think that's one of the reasons that people are afraid to speak up on this one. However, DOMA laws repeatedly pass by wide margins. I guarantee you all those people voting to protect marriage as between a man & woman are not Bible-believing church goers.
However this i do feel can be contended against. I think when you are dealing with a social construct, such as marriage (im sure we disagree on this to a degree alreadly) you are going to get a lot of social residue in the face of change. As far as i can tell, the majority of middle class America (which is going to make up a lot of these voters) has that ideal of a perfect marriage. Even if that notion isnt all a reality for the majority of us, and even if these things consistently show up as not reality, we will consistently believe they are the things that are normal, or how people do things. Divorce is still an ugly word for a lot of people, even though almost half of marriages end this way. Why is that? Because the idea of marriage changes slower than society does.
I personally think alot of these voters are reflecting that notion of how we do family in America, and i think the fact that this is slow to change doesnt necessarily reflect solely that man and a woman marriage is the only way to do things, but rather is a product of a long social process that hasnt quite changed yet.
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
