"We are not legislating, honorable members, for people far away and not known by us. We are enlarging the opportunity for happiness to our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends and, our families: at the same time we are making a more decent society, because a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members.If you really still feel nothing but animosity for loving gay couples who wish to be married, then I despair of you.
"In the poem 'The Family,' our [gay] poet Luis Cernuda was sorry because, 'How does man live in denial in vain/by giving rules that prohibit and condemn?' Today, the Spanish society answers to a group of people who, during many years have, been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose dignity has been offended, their identity denied, and their liberty oppressed. Today the Spanish society grants them the respect they deserve, recognizes their rights, restores their dignity, affirms their identity, and restores their liberty.
"It is true that they are only a minority, but their triumph is everyone's triumph. It is also the triumph of those who oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet: because it is the triumph of Liberty. Their victory makes all of us (even those who oppose the law) better people, it makes our society better. Honorable members, There is no damage to marriage or to the concept of family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. To the contrary, what happens is this class of Spanish citizens get the potential to organize their lives with the rights and privileges of marriage and family. There is no danger to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law enhances and respects marriage.
"Today, conscious that some people and institutions are in a profound disagreement with this change in our civil law, I wish to express that, like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will generate no evil, that its only consequence will be the avoiding of senseless suffering of decent human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of decent human beings is a better society.
"With the approval of this Bill, our country takes another step in the path of liberty and tolerance that was begun by the democratic change of government. Our children will look at us incredulously if we tell them that many years ago, our mothers had less rights than our fathers, or if we tell them that people had to stay married against their will even though they were unable to share their lives. Today we can offer them a beautiful lesson: every right gained, each access to liberty has been the result of the struggle and sacrifice of many people that deserve our recognition and praise.
"Today we demonstrate with this Bill that societies can better themselves and can cross barriers and create tolerance by putting a stop to the unhappiness and humiliation of some of our citizens. Today, for many of our countrymen, comes the day predicted by Kavafis [the great Greek gay poet] one century ago: 'Later 'twas said of the most perfect society/someone else, made like me/certainly will come out and act freely.'"
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
The Rain in Spain
Speech delivered by Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero on his country legalizing gay marriage and adoption:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
that is the most beautiful speech I have ever heard/read by a politician!!
Regardless of my feelings on Zapatero's *other* policies, I like this line the best:
There is no danger to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law enhances and respects marriage.
I guess I come in once again to be the token gay-marriage basher. Oh well.
First off, "If you really still feel nothing but animosity for loving gay couples who wish to be married, then I despair of you." I feel no animosity towards the gay couples. I am angered by a supposedly Catholic country giving the stamp of approval to something I find to be morally reprehensible.
The speech was well-written, but I don't agree with much of it. I know I'm not going to change minds here, but I do have a question to ask if I may.
Ignoring the moral aspects--and they are large--is it good policy for a country with birth rates well below replacment levels to promore gay marriages that will, by definition, infertile?
Accepting gay marriage will only accelerate the complete collapse of society in Europe. This is not what a dying population needs.
Also, parts of his speech were quite questionable. "It is also the triumph of those who oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet: because it is the triumph of Liberty."
Oh, I see. Liberty is the ability to do whatever one wants. Well then, let us legalize crack in the name of liberty. The parallel is valid. There are certain behaviors that the public must regulate in the name of prudence and restraint.
I guess I'm just having trouble understanding how doing whatever one wants is liberating?
Slavery to one's passions is still slavery.
"There is no danger to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law enhances and respects marriage."
I get it, by extending the defintion to include intrinsically infertile persons this will lead traditional couples to respect the institution more. Wait, no, I don't get it. If you wish to promote something, you keep it sacred. Basic economics, no? If marriage is extended to gays, it becomes less sacred for heterosexuals. Am I missing something. I think I went and got blinded by clever rhetoric again. I hate it when that happens.
"A society that avoids senseless suffering of decent human beings is a better society."
What about the mental anguish for the child growing up in a home with gay parents. I can hear the groans. But I challenge any one of you to tell me you would rather grow up with two daddies or two mommies than with a heterosexual couple.
The fact is, women and men ARE different, and all the spin cannot change that. Ergo, it is best for children to experience both men and women in their lives. The divinely instituted sacrament of heterosexual marriage takes care of this nicely. Fancy that.
It is irresponsible to put gays on equal footing with heterosexuals for this reason only. It is simply not fair to the child.
Thank you for your time. I eagerly await your comments.
So, I guess I get to play the liberal for the first time in a while...
I am angered by a supposedly Catholic country giving the stamp of approval to something I find to be morally reprehensible.
Well, the Catholic Church is not required to perform a single gay marriage. This ruling only affects gay civil marriages, and, as the Spainish are largely secular, there is no reason why the government of Spain should not permit them. And furthermore, there should be no reason why someone's faith, Catholic or otherwise, should be affected by the personal lifestyle decisions made by other people.
Ignoring the moral aspects--and they are large--is it good policy for a country with birth rates well below replacment levels to promore gay marriages that will, by definition, infertile?
I don't think permitting = promoting. Gay relationships will continue to occur, legal or not, thus not affecting those declining birthrates (which I agree are a threat to Western life as we know it). The choice isn't between legalizing gay marriage and preventing homosexuality. It is between granting equality to all law-abiding citizens and forcing them to live within society's fringes. The 'moral aspect[s]' there seem rather clear-cut.
There are certain behaviors that the public must regulate in the name of prudence and restraint.
I guess I'm just having trouble understanding how doing whatever one wants is liberating?
Well, liberty should be applied in a way that benefits the most while harming the least. I don't see the negative liberty in allowing gay marriage, since it is not affecting anyone but the couples in question. Why should anyone's personal faith or the stability of their heterosexual relationships be impeded by what others are doing? Our society is better off, morally speaking, by being inclusive of all law-abiding people.
If you wish to promote something, you keep it sacred. Basic economics, no? If marriage is extended to gays, it becomes less sacred for heterosexuals.
This mentality is something I will never understand, and is something that draws me away from the Republican Party in spite of its foreign policy stances. How can the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage be threatened by the idea of two loving people entering into a legal partnership? I think many gay rights advocates (myself included) see marriage as a positive thing that every citizen should be able to take advantage of. By extending these rights to gays, we are solidifying the notion that marriage is a cherished institution in our society.
What about the mental anguish for the child growing up in a home with gay parents.
What about the mental anguish of the many children growing up in single-parent homes, the results of heterosexual marriages gone awry? What of America's 50% divorce rate - is that protecting the sanctity of marriage? It is infinitely better for a child to grow up in a home with two loving parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, than to suffer through the dysfunction and pain of divorce, spousal abuse, or just plain incompatibility.
I guess I get to play conservative, again...
"Well, the Catholic Church is not required to perform a single gay marriage. This ruling only affects gay civil marriages, and, as the Spainish are largely secular, there is no reason why the government of Spain should not permit them. And furthermore, there should be no reason why someone's faith, Catholic or otherwise, should be affected by the personal lifestyle decisions made by other people."
My faith does not prohibit two men or two women from doing what they will in their own home. However, when the government that represents me dignifies something I villify, I have a right to be mad. That's why so many Americans are ticked off about abortion. Our theology determines our morality, which determines how we think we should be governed. I was merely expressing my regret that Catholic Spain is not so Catholic after all, which does not actually surprise me at all.
"I don't think permitting = promoting. Gay relationships will continue to occur, legal or not, thus not affecting those declining birthrates (which I agree are a threat to Western life as we know it). The choice isn't between legalizing gay marriage and preventing homosexuality. It is between granting equality to all law-abiding citizens and forcing them to live within society's fringes. The 'moral aspect[s]' there seem rather clear-cut."
Permitting and promoting are not synonomous, however, when the government gives tax incentives for marriage, they are promoting. Now, unless Spain wants to commit cultural suicide, they should start promoting those marriages which can give the state what it needs: children.
Which leads me of course, to the natural defense of marriage. Heterosexual marriage is good for the community at large because it provides more people. It's all well and good to pretend that over-population is going to kill us all, but the monetary benefits of our political system depend on capital. Without new people, the populace gets old and dies. Furthermore, they cannot even provide for their citizens in the least because there is no longer anyone to tax.
You understand this, and even admit it to be so. Yet you do not see a problem with governmental "promotion" of gay marriage? Put petty emotions aside. Even if it is not morally abhorent to welcome gays to the marriage table it is still good and sensible policy not to do so. Unless you have another idea for saving Europe from doom, in which case, I am all ears.
"Well, liberty should be applied in a way that benefits the most while harming the least. I don't see the negative liberty in allowing gay marriage, since it is not affecting anyone but the couples in question. Why should anyone's personal faith or the stability of their heterosexual relationships be impeded by what others are doing? Our society is better off, morally speaking, by being inclusive of all law-abiding people."
Fine, let them do what they will in their private affairs. Even pass a law saying the governent does not shun gays or their behavior. While I am not affected per se, by a gay couple, society is. I have already made that point.
"This mentality is something I will never understand, and is something that draws me away from the Republican Party in spite of its foreign policy stances. How can the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage be threatened by the idea of two loving people entering into a legal partnership? I think many gay rights advocates (myself included) see marriage as a positive thing that every citizen should be able to take advantage of. By extending these rights to gays, we are solidifying the notion that marriage is a cherished institution in our society."
The reason heterosexual marriage is threatened by homosexual marriage is quite simple. Heterosexual marriage is, for now, regarded as sancrosanct in at least parts of the western world. As soon as gay marriage is added to the mix, the sacredness of heterosexual marriage is thrown out the window.
To use an example. White male property owners were originally the only ones allowed to vote. Gradually, other groups: blacks, women, Native Americans, gained the right to vote as well. You can argue that this was moral and you would be right. But you cannot possibly look me in the eye and tell me that there was still an intrinsic sacredness about being a white male property owner.
As soon as homosexuality becomes a part of marriage law, heterosexuality will have been done a fierce blow. There will be nothing sacred about it anymore. If you really believe that healthy heterosexual marriages provide no benefit to society, and hence, should be promoted with all severity, then your stance is fine. But it is also absurd.
Children are so important to a society. They are its very life blood. Make civilization into a corpse if you will, but not on my watch. It is irresponsible to let facades of liberty allow to the destruction upon the only thing that guarantees that very liberty.
"What about the mental anguish of the many children growing up in single-parent homes, the results of heterosexual marriages gone awry? What of America's 50% divorce rate - is that protecting the sanctity of marriage? It is infinitely better for a child to grow up in a home with two loving parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, than to suffer through the dysfunction and pain of divorce, spousal abuse, or just plain incompatibility."
So I take it you are against welfare since it promotes single parent families? Isn't it grand to agree? We should by all means promote healthy marriage by all means we can, and minimizing divorce does help, but you make a cardinal error here I am afraid.
Divorce does not undermine marriage anymore than bad parents undermine parenting. Fine, heterosexual marriages aren't working the way they used to be, so why not let gays have a shot, right? If you are looking for marriage reformers you may sign me up. It just so happens that this is a little more difficult. Shall we get rid of welfare and no-fault divorce? Until then, let's not allow gays to try something just because straights aren't doing the best job at it.
We don't get rid of parenting because some parents are bad. Or maybe we should all let the government give it a shot, since we're doing do bad, or, God forbid, those evil corporations. Yes, I am sure they would like a stab. We should let gays marry and corporations raise our kids.
Oh, and "incombatibility" is a great reason for... well, what I am not sure. Surely gays are just like you and I--yes I actually believe that because it is true--so they must be... better than us? The same ills that confront heterosexual partners will do the same to homosexuals, be they abuse, neglect, divorce, or just "incombatibility".
Among gays, it will probably even be worse actually, since what often helps parents stick it out is the fact that they are parents. In a marriage without children, it is much easier to be in it all for oneself. Thus, no children, no love... no marriage. It's quite simple.
In conclusion then, ignoring the issue of morality--where we presumably just plain don't agree--it is still bad practice for a government to condone homosexual unions. If you can show me otherwise I will be much obliged.
Bigotry finds its own reasons, I see.
My faith does not prohibit two men or two women from doing what they will in their own home. However, when the government that represents me dignifies something I villify, I have a right to be mad. That's why so many Americans are ticked off about abortion. Our theology determines our morality, which determines how we think we should be governed. I was merely expressing my regret that Catholic Spain is not so Catholic after all, which does not actually surprise me at all.
So you're mad. Spain is not a dictatorial theocracy like it was under Franco, and you will just have to live with that.
Which leads me of course, to the natural defense of marriage. Heterosexual marriage is good for the community at large because it provides more people. It's all well and good to pretend that over-population is going to kill us all, but the monetary benefits of our political system depend on capital. Without new people, the populace gets old and dies. Furthermore, they cannot even provide for their citizens in the least because there is no longer anyone to tax.
Have you been listening? These are gay couples. GAY. HO-MO-SEXUAL. Unless the Spanish government has preivously been rounding up gay mean and forcing them to impregnante lesbians, I don't see how this will affect the birthrate.
You understand this, and even admit it to be so. Yet you do not see a problem with governmental "promotion" of gay marriage? Put petty emotions aside. Even if it is not morally abhorent to welcome gays to the marriage table it is still good and sensible policy not to do so. Unless you have another idea for saving Europe from doom, in which case, I am all ears.
Actually, there are ways to promote birth rates without smashing civil rights. They discovered this in Scandanavia: if you give women maternity leave, subsidized childcare etc. and generally make it possible to have children without sealing yourself off from the world for three or four years, then birth rates will go up. That sounds better than cutting back on personal liberty.
The reason heterosexual marriage is threatened by homosexual marriage is quite simple. Heterosexual marriage is, for now, regarded as sancrosanct in at least parts of the western world. As soon as gay marriage is added to the mix, the sacredness of heterosexual marriage is thrown out the window.
'Sacredness' has nothing to do with it. I cannot think of a single human being so stupid as to think that they should get married because it's a chance denied to other people.
To use an example. White male property owners were originally the only ones allowed to vote. Gradually, other groups: blacks, women, Native Americans, gained the right to vote as well. You can argue that this was moral and you would be right. But you cannot possibly look me in the eye and tell me that there was still an intrinsic sacredness about being a white male property owner.
Maybe it was less 'sacred' but it would be lunacy to say that any white male would say "Now that just anybody can have property, I don't want it anymore" because property is still a good thing to have, and anyone who suggested that having property wasn't worth doing because other people had it would've been laughed at. Anyway, it's a false anology because, unlike property, there are an unlimited number of marriages floating around, and so no supply-demand curve to worry about.
As soon as homosexuality becomes a part of marriage law, heterosexuality will have been done a fierce blow. There will be nothing sacred about it anymore. If you really believe that healthy heterosexual marriages provide no benefit to society, and hence, should be promoted with all severity, then your stance is fine. But it is also absurd.
I am continually baffled by this. Where are all the straight couples so desperately insecure that the thought of gays getting married actually hurts them? This is complete mystery to me. I'd like to see just one straight couple who didn't marry or have children as a result of gay marriage. Just one.
Among gays, it will probably even be worse actually, since what often helps parents stick it out is the fact that they are parents. In a marriage without children, it is much easier to be in it all for oneself. Thus, no children, no love... no marriage. It's quite simple.
You know perfectly well that isn't true, but you say it anyway. There are many gay couples who wish to adopt children, and we should give them medals instead of condemning them. Besides, if children are allmarriage is about, why do we let infertile couples, or couples who don't want children, to marry? Does that undermine marriage? The divorce rate for gay couples is lower than that for straight ones, in case you didn't know.
As for children being 'warped' by growing up in a household with two men or two women, again, there is absolutely no evidence that this causes any harm whatever (National Review once had a grumpy editorial complaining that all their efforts to show gay couples were bad parents had failed). A gay couple raising a child would be perfectly understanding whether their child was gay or straight; the same cannot be said of many straight couples, alas. Two parents of any gender are much better than one parent, and infinitely better than no parents.
In the end, your view of humanity is essentially an unrealistic one. You seem to think that left to its own devices, nations would simply stop having babies and die off. This runs counter to the entire history of recorded time, and so, I won't be inviting you to Bruce and Frank's wedding.
"So you're mad. Spain is not a dictatorial theocracy like it was under Franco, and you will just have to live with that."
Apparently my point has been completely misunderstood. No, I do not expect the government to be completely Catholic because the majority of its citizens are Catholic. I was hopeful, though not expectant, that Catholics might vote for candidates with similar standards of morality.
And I very well may be quite mad. It's entirely possible.
"Have you been listening? These are gay couples. GAY. HO-MO-SEXUAL. Unless the Spanish government has preivously been rounding up gay mean and forcing them to impregnante lesbians, I don't see how this will affect the birthrate."
Dear me, I haven't made myself clear at all it would seem. Let me try again. There are a finite number of people and they may engage in relationships. Under the current standard, there are advantages to marrying someone of the opposite sex. When the incentive is extended to HO-MO-SEXUALS there will be, in all likely hood a shift from straight to gay marriage. But silly me, I think homosexuality is a choice, and not some innate force that makes us be who we will. My call to sexual restraint falls on deaf ears to those for whom liberty is more important that morality.
"Actually, there are ways to promote birth rates without smashing civil rights. They discovered this in Scandanavia: if you give women maternity leave, subsidized childcare etc. and generally make it possible to have children without sealing yourself off from the world for three or four years, then birth rates will go up. That sounds better than cutting back on personal liberty."
Did I say that these things were bad? I only stated that extending "liberty" here was bad policy. For the record, what Scandinavian is doing may be a good idea, but only time will tell how effective it will be. As I understand it, most European countries do a better job of financially taking care of mothers and promoting motherhood. Since we in America have a higher birthrate, there is obviously more to this than simply creating an economic stimulis. It must be socially acceptable to have large families as well in order to truly turn the tide against population stagnation.
"'Sacredness' has nothing to do with it. I cannot think of a single human being so stupid as to think that they should get married because it's a chance denied to other people."
Nor do I. Which is why I never said it. If we teach our children that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, they will grow up thinking it is quite normal, and may be so inclined to take up that lifestyle. Once again we come down to whether or not homosexuality is a personal choice. Certainly acting upon it is, but again, only in a culture that values restraint at least to some extent.
"I am continually baffled by this. Where are all the straight couples so desperately insecure that the thought of gays getting married actually hurts them? This is complete mystery to me. I'd like to see just one straight couple who didn't marry or have children as a result of gay marriage. Just one."
As I have explained earlier, it's a societal effect. Only if a person is having doubts in regards to his or her sexuality will this become an issue. Surely you would agree there are such people and equally assuredly you will have to admit that it is more attractive to pursue a heterosexual lifestyle in America today.
Whether or not we want those on the fence to decide to marry based on financial incentives is a separate matter entirely.
"You know perfectly well that isn't true, but you say it anyway. There are many gay couples who wish to adopt children, and we should give them medals instead of condemning them. Besides, if children are allmarriage is about, why do we let infertile couples, or couples who don't want children, to marry? Does that undermine marriage? The divorce rate for gay couples is lower than that for straight ones, in case you didn't know."
You simply here, and later state that a homosexual couple will do much better than a single parent. This may very well be true, but that is not the issue here. Would you rather be raised by a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple?
The reason that divorce rates are lower for gay couples is simple. First, I assume the statistics have a relatively short time period. In time, I see gays cacthing right up with heterosexuals in our amiability for divorce.
The gays that are getting married now are both courageous and committed. It should be no surprise that they remain married for a significant amount of time. In twenty or thirty years, we will no more of the picture.
"As for children being 'warped' by growing up in a household with two men or two women, again, there is absolutely no evidence that this causes any harm whatever (National Review once had a grumpy editorial complaining that all their efforts to show gay couples were bad parents had failed). A gay couple raising a child would be perfectly understanding whether their child was gay or straight; the same cannot be said of many straight couples, alas. Two parents of any gender are much better than one parent, and infinitely better than no parents."
Let's apply the test of time here. I don't know what the studies say, because even scientific studies have become needlessly political and subjective. That being said, please refer to the above question.
Also, ignoring the morality of homosexuality, in today's cultural clime, is it still good for children to have gay parents? Unfortunately, many who claim to be on God's side don't just bash homosexuality, but homosexuals themselves. Until my ignorant compatriots learn to "love thy neighbor" or someone convinces us all that homosexuality is a-okay, it is bad news for a child of homosexual parents, at least in certain environments.
It may be fine at home--which I adamantly disagree with--but things may not be okay at school or at sporting events. This is one aspect of the culture I will stand behind you in changing. If my animosity towards homosexuality ever extends to homosexuals themselves, I deserve to be harshly reprimanded. Homosexuals should not have to fear going into public. They should not be able to get married though.
"In the end, your view of humanity is essentially an unrealistic one. You seem to think that left to its own devices, nations would simply stop having babies and die off. This runs counter to the entire history of recorded time, and so, I won't be inviting you to Bruce and Frank's wedding."
How wrong you can be Loyal. You expect the worst of people--free reign to do whatever they will--and that is what you will get. Nero was married three times to other men. Rome's acceptance of homosexuality is a much neglected factor in their demise.
I wish I was wrong about people, I really do. I don't see it though, and Europe is going to prove you despically wrong unfortunately. As the great countries in Europe begin to fade by the turn of this century, we will see how wise it was to think well of people. God may be dead, but in our haste to declare ourselves new gods, we are signing our own death warrants. Goodbye Spain, may America learn a lesson from you, poor misguided fools.
Have a good time at Bruce and Franks's wedding; I am sure it will be a gay old time. I'm sorry, that was dreadful, but it was so obvious I just couldn't pass it up.
Great defense, "A Wiser Man Than I." I'm impressed, and I agree with you completely. Now to a couple of my thoughts:
I reject the insinuation that if one disagrees with the legalization of gay marriage then he feels "nothing but animosity" towards homosexuals.
"its only consequence will be the avoiding of senseless suffering of decent human beings." [from the posted speech]
Taking into account that homosexuals have almost half the life-span of heterosexuals, carry and transmit far more diseases, and damage their bodies through improper anatomical use, how does legalizing this behavior avoid senseless suffering?
Keep trying, Wiser Man. I'm sure you'll get it eventually.
'Dear me, I haven't made myself clear at all it would seem. Let me try again. There are a finite number of people and they may engage in relationships. Under the current standard, there are advantages to marrying someone of the opposite sex. When the incentive is extended to HO-MO-SEXUALS there will be, in all likely hood a shift from straight to gay marriage. But silly me, I think homosexuality is a choice, and not some innate force that makes us be who we will. My call to sexual restraint falls on deaf ears to those for whom liberty is more important that morality.'
While regarding homosexuality as a 'choice' does admit the essential bisexuality of human nature, it ignores the fact that the vast majority of people are overwhelmingly attracted to one sex or another (true bisexuals being comparatively rare). Have you ever met any gay person who 'decided' to be gay? Have you ever met a straight person who decided to be straight? I certainly haven't; is that what you did? If so, please tell us about the time when you were aroused by men but decided not to do anything about it.
'Did I say that these things were bad? I only stated that extending "liberty" here was bad policy. For the record, what Scandinavian is doing may be a good idea, but only time will tell how effective it will be. As I understand it, most European countries do a better job of financially taking care of mothers and promoting motherhood. Since we in America have a higher birthrate, there is obviously more to this than simply creating an economic stimulis. It must be socially acceptable to have large families as well in order to truly turn the tide against population stagnation.'
Actually, the birthrate in America is not nearly enough to keep our population up; we owe our expanding population to immigrants, just like Europe! How about that.
'You simply here, and later state that a homosexual couple will do much better than a single parent. This may very well be true, but that is not the issue here. Would you rather be raised by a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple?'
I don't know; it would depend upon the individuals. Either way, I'm sure I'd get used to it; bless the little children, because they abide.
'The reason that divorce rates are lower for gay couples is simple. First, I assume the statistics have a relatively short time period. In time, I see gays cacthing right up with heterosexuals in our amiability for divorce.'
The divorce rates of gays vs. straights are for marriages over the same period of time.
'How wrong you can be Loyal. You expect the worst of people--free reign to do whatever they will--and that is what you will get. Nero was married three times to other men. Rome's acceptance of homosexuality is a much neglected factor in their demise.'
Quite the contrary; I believe that, given free reign and lives without coercion, it will work out for the better. As for the fall of Rome, it's irrelevant because the Romans had no concept of 'gay' or 'straight' as we do today. But I can tell you (having studied Roman history for six years) that the collapse had very little to do with the sexual mores of inferior leaders like Nero (or greater ones like Caesar) and everything to do with the the brutality of their foreign conquests and the overwhelming injection of money into the political system.
Seth, I think you're one of the best people the Christian Right has, and that's why our country is doomed by their takeover.
'Taking into account that homosexuals have almost half the life-span of heterosexuals, carry and transmit far more diseases, and damage their bodies through improper anatomical use, how does legalizing this behavior avoid senseless suffering?'
I don't recall when life-span was declared a measure of morality, but by that standard, since firefighters and residents of Mississippi have shorter life-spans than average, we should forcibly remove them from such a dangerous lifestyle choice.
Besides, if homosexuals engage in sexual practices which are more dangerous because of factors (most prominently, have many partners without protection) which would be equally dangerous to straight people doing the same thing, we must remmeber that gays have been cut off from the possibility of acceptance by the larger society. Their unions are not recognized, they cannot have children even if they want them, and they are in general viewed with suspicion and fear, while their issues are not taken seriously. Given all that, is it surprising they might engage in reckless behavior, as happens with any group that is forced into exile from the rest of society?
I do intend to keep trying. Here goes.
"While regarding homosexuality as a 'choice' does admit the essential bisexuality of human nature, it ignores the fact that the vast majority of people are overwhelmingly attracted to one sex or another (true bisexuals being comparatively rare). Have you ever met any gay person who 'decided' to be gay? Have you ever met a straight person who decided to be straight? I certainly haven't; is that what you did? If so, please tell us about the time when you were aroused by men but decided not to do anything about it."
Once again I have been less than clear. Our sexual preference is not a choice in the sense that it is completely up to one's discretion. One's environment plays a large role in this. The "choice" is in acting on these sexual impulses. I know sexual restraint is deemed too Puritan and antiquated for inclusion in modern debates, but it is essential if we are to get anywhere in dealing with this.
I do not believe abstinence is either impossible or unhealthy. Therefore, it is not unconscionable at all. If your view on abstinence differs, we have stumbled upon yet another seemingly impassable chasm in moral viewpoints.
"Actually, the birthrate in America is not nearly enough to keep our population up; we owe our expanding population to immigrants, just like Europe! How about that."
I realize that, which is why I will oppose any attempt on behalf of our government to legitamize homosexual unions. America's abysmal birth rate does not mean that all of this does not apply, it means it is all the more prescient. If we too do not begin to promote heterosexual marriages for the propagation of the species, we too will share the fate of our European kinfolk.
"I don't know; it would depend upon the individuals. Either way, I'm sure I'd get used to it; bless the little children, because they abide."
Thank you for being honest in answering my question. You cannot claim that homosexuals are preferable to heterosexuals in regards to the raising of children because you know it to be false. Yes, let them abide and not thrive to a selfish political end. Humans are resilient creatures, playing the hands they are dealt. That doesn't mean we should give them a poor hand. A person could very well get used to eating gruel, but that does not mean we shouldn't strive to give them a feast if we can.
And of course it depends on the individuals. It's detrimental to the child's growth if daddy is an alcoholic or mommy is a whore. We are dealing here with ideals. When it comes down to it, a man and woman who are married and love each other provide the best environment for children. Assuming of course that they are responsible adults, but that goes without saying and applies equally to homosexuals as well.
"The divorce rates of gays vs. straights are for marriages over the same period of time."
Once again, I have made my point less than clear. Heterosexual marriage as an institution has been around for a very long time. With the passage of time, things like no-fault divorce have impacted marriage immensely. Divorce used to be quite rare, and only applicable in extreme circumstances. However, "'til death do us part" is no longer taken literally. "'Til one of us finds someone else or feels like leaving" seems to be a better slogan for marriage in today's society.
As I mentioned, marriage is still held sacrosanct by homosexuals. With the passage of time, this sanctity will too fail. I hold by my original prediction: homosexual divorce rates will first catch, and then surpass that of heterosexuals.
"Quite the contrary; I believe that, given free reign and lives without coercion, it will work out for the better. As for the fall of Rome, it's irrelevant because the Romans had no concept of 'gay' or 'straight' as we do today. But I can tell you (having studied Roman history for six years) that the collapse had very little to do with the sexual mores of inferior leaders like Nero (or greater ones like Caesar) and everything to do with the the brutality of their foreign conquests and the overwhelming injection of money into the political system."
It appears that I've got it all wrong entirely. Live and let live, and all will be well--or at least better than now? Is that it?
As for Rome's history, I do not--unfortunately--know as much as you do on this subject. Could you recommend a little reading on the subject? Much obliged.
Now to defend Seth:
"Taking into account that homosexuals have almost half the life-span of heterosexuals, carry and transmit far more diseases, and damage their bodies through improper anatomical use, how does legalizing this behavior avoid senseless suffering?"
His point was, I believe, that homosexuality causes suffering because it is a degenerate lifestyle. Certainly it is fair to disagree with Seth and me on the morality of homosexuality, but the statistics involving transmission of STDs speak for themselves.
And yes Loyal, we should do away with firefighters because they cause suffering. Pick an analogy that works next time, please.
"Besides, if homosexuals engage in sexual practices which are more dangerous because of factors (most prominently, have many partners without protection) which would be equally dangerous to straight people doing the same thing, we must remmeber that gays have been cut off from the possibility of acceptance by the larger society. Their unions are not recognized, they cannot have children even if they want them, and they are in general viewed with suspicion and fear, while their issues are not taken seriously. Given all that, is it surprising they might engage in reckless behavior, as happens with any group that is forced into exile from the rest of society?"
Homosexual males do not have the same transmission rates as heterosexuals do. That was a myth perpetuated so that AIDS was not branded a "gay" disease. Certainly it is possible for heterosexuals to contract AIDS and other STDs, but the nature of anal sex is such that it increases the chance of contraction. The reason? To put it nicely, the parts don't quite fit. Enough on that subject.
As to the reckless behavior of homosexuals: you raise a good point. I have a counter point to offer. If homosexuals are engaging in unsafe sexual practices because of societal rejection, they are, to put it bluntly, fools. It is high time the homosexual leaders--whoever they be--speak out against this nonsense.
Just as AIDS was breaking out, the Mayor of San Francisco was pressured to close the bath houses where gay men were known to have unsafe sex. Her name? Diane Feinstein. That's right, the Democratic senator from California would rather be seen as tolerant than actually practice compassion.
You have fallen into this one too Loyal. Dumb behavior is dumb behaviour. Practice homosexuality if one wishes but do so responsibly. We don't make excuses for heterosexuals who have unprotected sex, why should we condescend to homosexuals?
Keep trying Loyal.
I think Loyal Achates is queer.
As for the fall of Rome, do you consider the the loss of income which resulted from Hadrian (one of the better emperors, incidently he porked Antinious) pulling back borders as a factor? Their conquests kept them alive. A decline in societal mores always precedes a decline in societal existance. Rome's greatest periods were the beginning of the Monarchy, when there was great zeal for the creation of the city. The overthrow of the Monarchy and beginning of the Republic, when the was great rejoices over long lost freedoms. And the Julio-Claudian emperors, the best hereditary rule, and the adopted emperors, merit based rule. Flourishing results from public attitude, very seldom from quality of rule. It is impossible to say one thing brought down the Roman Empire. I'd think 6 years would teach you that.
i say let the porkers weed themselves out. top 10 on fiction books include origin of the species. NATURAL SELECTION. most pedifiles are man on boy. is it good to have gay men with little boys. how long before they have they children "try it out". well have more hiv kids and more gays in prison, fine for them i bet. the whole things got red flags all over it.
If you're going to be an uninformed jackass, you would at least bother to come up with a name.
Post a Comment