From: Destination Quality (planetquality@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 09:53:22 GMT
Hi Rick,
Nice and original post Rick, I appreciate it very much. Where I am frome gay
marriages are in fact legal and I do not consider that to be a weakening of
social patterns, au contraire, the intellectual patterns of freedom and
equality made this possible and the Dutch society not suffering from a
puritian moral(though other religious moral standards still live and kickin)
has accepted and learned to appreciate to respect everyone's individual
choices. I think this is strengthening to the social level. Adopting a child
is also legal for gay and lesbian couples, this imo is not a bad thing
because it is just another representation of the individual freedom. One
might say is it okay than for a pedofile to adopt a child in the name of
personal freedom? Of course not, as long as the rights to freedom of the
child are not endangered there is no problem. I know two girls who were both
raised by lesbian mothers and I have to admit, they are the most loving and
caring persons I know. They are open minded, more intellectual I would say,
not blindly following social codes but always respectful of them. I do not
want to give all the credit to the four moms but also to the society that
made this possible. I rest my case,
Thanks, Davor
>From: "Valence" <valence10@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Changes
>Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 01:24:42 -0500
>
>Hi Platt,
>
> > > What I don't understand is why you believe that allowing gay marriages
> > > would weaken this pattern.
> >
> > Because gay couples can't make babies.
>
>RICK
> I'm still not sure why your point of view leads to being 'opposed' to
>homosexual marriage rather than merely being indifferent' to it. The fact
>that homosexuals do not make babies only explains why you believe letting
>homosexual couples marry wouldn't strengthen the pattern. It doesn't
>explain why you think it would weaken the pattern (do you see the
>difference?).
> Moreover, sterile heterosexuals also can't make babies. Would you
>deny
>marriage to sterile heterosexuals? Or couples including a sterile
>heterosexual?
> What about overpopulated societies? Should they reverse the law so as
>to discourage procreation?
>
> > > Especially given that you don't see anything
> > > intrinsically immoral about homosexuality and you agree that when the
> > > natural parents aren't available to raise the baby, an adoptive
>homosexual
> > > couple is a viable option.
> >
> > Why is marriage necessary for adoption?
>
>RICK
>Marriage is a socially enforceable static-latch on the relationship between
>two individuals. It makes the members of the couple less dynamic as
>individuals and more stable as a couple and family. I'm guessing that any
>given couple (heterosexual or homosexual) is more likely to create a stable
>home environment in which to rear children (natural or adopted) if the
>couple is socially latched in the institution of marriage than if they
>aren't. What do you think?
>
> > > Do you believe that less heterosexuals would choose to get married
>and
> > > raise children if homosexuals were also allowed to marry?
> >
> > No
>
>RICK
>If letting homosexuals marry won't change the behavior of heterosexual
>couples, than what harm to the pattern you seek to preserve could come from
>letting homosexual couples marry if they so choose? Even if you really
>believe that marriage has absolutely no other value other than to encourage
>procreation, would anyone be hurt by letting homosexuals marry?
>
> > > It seems to me that the only way your thoughts about encouraging the
> > > patterns of heterosexual coupling are related to the topic of gay
>marriage
> > > is if you think that reserving the legal status of marriage to
> > > heterosexuals is some kind of "incentive" to making them marry and
>raise
> > > children.
> >
> > Yes. The benefits of marriage are conferred by society on heterosexuals
> > because society needs them to make and raise babies.
>
>RICK
>But society also needs couples to adopt and raise babies. Why shouldn't
>marriage be an incentive to them as well?
>
> > >That is, you think that if gay marriage were not illegal, some
> > > people who otherwise would have been heterosexual would instead choose
>to
> > > marry members of the same sex.
> >
> > No. I don't think that.
>
>RICK
>So again, if you don't think that gay marriages would have an effect on the
>patterns of heterosexual mating, why do you think they pose a danger to
>those same patterns?
>
> > > This leads me to inquire whether you believe that homosexuality is the
> > > product of nature or nurture. Or in MoQ terms, do you believe
> > > homosexuality a biological pattern or a social pattern?
> >
> > I think it's a biological pattern.
>
>RICK
>I'm not sure how this is logically consistent with the rest of your
>view. If you believe that sexuality is a biological pattern, then why
>would
>you believe that a social incentive program (like marriage) would have any
>effect on it at all? If sexuality is biological, then saying that society
>needs to encourage heterosexuals to mate together is like saying society
>needs to encourage caucasians to be born with white skin. Of course, a
>caucasian can't help but to be born with white skin, because his skin color
>is a biological pattern and he couldn't change it if he wanted to.
>Similarly, if sexuality is a biological pattern, then the heterosexual
>can't
>resist mating with a member of the opposite sex anymore than the caucasian
>can resist being born white. In other words: Biological patterns are
>immutable. They can't be changed by choice and it doesn't make any sense
>for society to either encourage or discourage biological patterns that
>aren't optional anyway. Does it?
>
>Now let me ask you: Why are you so hip
> > on legalizing gay marriages?
>
>RICK
> As a lawyer, it has often seemed to me that the only kind of bigotry
>that our laws, our courts, and our legislators still openly tolerate is
>discrimination against homosexuals. Most states prevent homosexuals from
>marrying, many have laws banning sodomy. Homosexuality is conspicuously
>absent from most federal civil rights statutes (and the civil rights laws
>of
>many states) and the U.S. Supreme Court has said in the past the
>homosexuality is not a characteristic protected by the 14th amendment Equal
>Protection clause (although it has recently decided to reconsider that
>decision).
> Now, in the last post you (quite rightly) pointed out that equal
>protection must have it's logical limits. How should we decide if that
>should include homosexuals, senior citizens, aliens, intellectuals,
>red-headed-lefties, albinos with green-eyes, etc...? I have no perfect
>answer for this question. But if you doubt that homosexuals are more in
>need of this sort of equal protection than any other currently unprotected
>segment of the population, I suggest you do a Google-search on the name
>"Matthew Sheppard" and see if you can stomach the fate of this particular
>individual. Then remind yourself that his story is only unusual in its
>extremity, not its theme.
> I believe that laws banning homosexual marriage and elements of the
>homosexual lifestyle (like sodomy laws) are the legal manifestations of an
>antiquated, puritanical religious morality that has outlived any usefulness
>it may have once had and lives on only as state-enforced discrimination. I
>think these sort of laws are used to keep homosexuals 'in the closet'. A
>legal way of saying "you're not welcome here". In short: I am not hip on
>legalizing gay marriages so much as I am hip on living under laws of the
>highest Quality.
> As a philosopher who has spent nearly 10 years studying the works of
>Robert Pirsig, I have often wondered why Pirsig didn't address the issue of
>homosexuality in LILA (I mean, he did take the time to address such
>'controversial' moral issues as vegetarianism and curing patients of
>germs).
>Homosexuality is an issue that seems to have Pirsig's name all over it.
>It's
>a controversial subject often mixed-up with things like morality, religion,
>biology, psychology, insanity, sociology, anthropology, human rights and
>social equality. Debates over whether homosexuality is 'biological' or
>'social' (or both, or neither, or either) have raged on for years amongst
>scientists, psychologists and inside the homosexual community itself. If
>any
>modern social issue cries out for the moral clarity the MoQ is alleged to
>provide, surely this one does.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------
>
> > > Personally, I think Pirsig's 'principle of human equality', like
> > > Justice or Quality itself, is difficult to precisely define. However,
>if I
> > > had to take my best shot at it, I think it's something like: The
>rights
>of
> > > all law abiding people should be as similar as the notion of ordered
> > > liberty allows.
> >
> > That's a good shot. But legitimate differences can occur over the
> > meanings of human equality, rights, law abiding people and ordered
> > liberty. Wouldn't you agree?
>
>RICK
>Yes. I would.
>
>
>thanks,
>rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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
_________________________________________________________________
Chatten met je online vrienden via MSN Messenger. http://messenger.msn.nl/
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 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 09:54:02 GMT