From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 21:56:37 GMT
Hi 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?).
As previously explained, it's in society's interest to sanction marriage
between a man and a woman. To use an imperfect analogy, it is in
society's interest to reward intellectual achievement. If in the name of
equality you gave everyone an A regardless of achievement, you would
not serve that interest.
> Moreover, sterile heterosexuals also can't make babies. Would you deny
> marriage to sterile heterosexuals? Or couples including a sterile
> heterosexual?
No. Are you suggesting sterility tests in addition to blood tests as a
prerequisite for attaining a marriage license?
> What about overpopulated societies? Should they reverse the law so as
> to discourage procreation?
No. Populations wax and wane naturally for many reasons other than
marriage laws.
> > 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?
Maybe you're right. But how many married homosexuals will adopt
children? I don't know the statistics.
> 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?
As argued before, the harm comes in weakening the social pattern necessary
for a society's survival.
> > > 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?
I don't think a society "needs" gay couples to adopt and raise babies.
> 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?
The interests of society are served by sanctioning heterosexual marriages for
reasons previously explained. I presume there is some effect on family
stability since marriage between a man and woman has been a integral
part of the social structure for as long as anyone has kept records.
> > > 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?
Babies are created by the biological pattern of male and female
intercourse. For creating and protecting babies, society initiates
marriage laws. You don't need an incentive to copulate. You do need
the incentive of marriage for couples to stay together and be responsible
for raising their children.
> 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.
Pirsig has made it clear (in Lila's Child) that he did not intend the MOQ to
provide definitive answers to all moral issues but rather provide a new,
framework for considering them based on reason rather than social
convention. Within this framework, I take the position of preserving what
I see as a necessary social pattern. You take the position of individual
freedom and equality. Both positions are supported by the MOQ with
yours probably having the moral edge because in the MOQ moral
hierarchy it's an intellectual pattern. One must be careful, however, not
to let an intellectual pattern undermine a necessary social pattern.
> > > 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.
Would you also agree that our discussion has provided an example of
how to use the MOQ to intelligently grapple with moral issues? I think
we have. At the very least, I respect your position and see how, within
the MOQ framework, you could be right.
Thanks.
Platt
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 - 21:57:39 GMT