From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 16 2003 - 01:23:24 GMT
Hi Davor,
Thanks for your contribution to this thread. I agree with you in believing
that society is strengthened by letting homosexuals marry and adopt. Kudos
to the Dutch on setting a good example.
takecare,
rick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Destination Quality" <planetquality@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: MD Changes
> 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
>
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 : Sun Mar 16 2003 - 01:21:14 GMT