From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Aug 27 2005 - 14:44:59 BST
More separation of topic strands... I'm doing my interpretation of MSH this
morning ;-).
Platt had argued that same-sex marriages are immoral because they can't beget
children. Here's the thread...
[Platt previously]
I favor states voting on the issue of same-sex marriage. Why do you oppose
that? And If you can't tell the difference between redheads and
heterosexual men and women, I can't help you.
[Arlo previously]
Since you've proposed "having kids" as a moral reason, should we allow
infertile heterosexuals to marry? Why not, if they are unable to have
children?
[Platt replied]
Because there's always the chance that they can. With a pair of homos, no
chance.
[Arlo countered]
A woman who has had a full hysterectomy has no chance of ever conceiving.
Let's say her heterosexual lover has had testicular cancer and has been
castrated. There is no chance whatsoever they will ever conceive children.
Should we no let them marry?
[Platt]
They can adopt and have the child grow up in a normal family.
[Arlo]
Same-sex couples can adopt too. And what is your definition of "normal"? Is it
simply heterosexuality? That's a circular argument then: Same-sex partners
should not marry because they can't have kids, and they shouldn't be able to
adopt kids because they aren't opposite sex, which they need to be because they
need to be able to have kids.
This is actually funny because it makes it sound like heterosexual couples
always make good families. Do you oppose divorce, Platt? After all, a child who
grows up in a divorced environment does not have a "normal family" by your
reasoning, does s/he?
As for you argument that allowing same-sex partners the same civil rights as
heterosexual partners would undermine human evolution, you seem to suggest that
(1) disallowing same-sex marriages will put thos gay people back into the
procreation pool, and (2) allowing same-sex marriages will make more people
gay.
Would "you" become gay if same-sex marriages were allowed? Homosexuals are not
going to become "straight" by preventing them from marrying, and heterosexuals
are not going to become "gay" if we allow same-sex marriages to occur. Given
this, how could you say same-sex marriages threaten human evolution?
[Arlo previously]
As far as I know, spousal inheritance is taxed differently than distant
inheritance. But its not, of course, just this. What about end of life
decisions? Why should a same-sex partner be denied, morally, a right to
make care-decisions that a heterosexual partner is able to make?
[Platt replied]
I don't know that they can't. It may depend on state law. In any event, it
is in the interest of the state to acknowledge and promote marriage between a
man and a woman for the moral reason of social stability and evolution.
[Arlo then said]
One doesn't need to be "married" to have kids, so I fail to see how
"marriage" fosters evolution. Humans succeeded for thousands of years to
procreate without the need for "marriages". "Social stability" is not
merely "having kids". It is a function of loving people in stable
relationships.
[Platt]
Do you know of any society now or in the past, civilized or not, that you
would want to live in that exists without marriage? Anyway, if you love
marriage so much, would you object to a law that allowed me to marry as
many wives as I could? If not, why not?
[Arlo]
As consenting adults, I don't see what business it is of mine what marriage you
decide to enter into. So long as none of your wives were threatened, coerced or
intimidated, your living arrangements are your own. Why should I punish that?
Having said this, I want to make clear that historically polygamist marriages
were most often ones in which the "wives" were subserviant. This I am opposed
to, as it restricts the freedom of those involved (or rather, trades the
freedom of the female to enhance the freedom of the male). But, if you could
show me your marriages were preserved equality and freedom for all involved,
then, as Peter McWilliams says, it "ain't nobody's business if you do".
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 27 2005 - 15:13:33 BST