From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Aug 28 2005 - 16:24:33 BST
[Arlo previously]
Same-sex couples can adopt too. And what is your definition of "normal"? Is it
simply heterosexuality?
[Platt]
A normal family since time immemorial has been a father, mother and
children.
[Arlo]
From Wikipedia:
"Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but
marriage has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a
sexual relationship. Marriage is usually conceived as a male-female
relationship designed to produce children and successfully socialize them.
Historically, most societies have sanctioned polygamy. The West is a major
exception. Europe and the United States were monogamous cultures. This was in
part a Germanic cultural tradition, a requirement of Christianity, and a
mandate of Roman Law. However, Roman Law supported prostitution, concubinage,
sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, and sexual access to slaves. The
Christian West formally banned these practices. Globally, most existing
societies do not sanction polygamy as a form of marriage. For example, China
shifted from allowing polygamy to supporting only monogamy in the 1953 Marriage
act after the Communist revolution. Most African and Islamic societies continue
to allow polygamy (around 2.0 billion people)."
Wikipedia continues in "Polygyny":
"The majority of human societies have probably permitted polygyny. It was
accepted in ancient Hebrew society, in classical China, and in Islam. It was
accepted in many traditional African and Polynesian cultures. In India,
polygyny was practiced from ancient times onward, though historically only
kings were polygynous in practise. For example, the Vijanagar emperor
Krishnadevaraya had multiple wives. However, it was not accepted in ancient
Greece or Rome, and has never been accepted in mainstream Christianity
(although it was practiced in the early Mormon (LDS) church and survives in
certain Mormon sects). The political and economic dominance of (at least
nominally) Christian nations from the sixteenth to the twentieth century has
meant that on the world scale polygyny is legally recognised in very few
nations."
So, your "time immemorial" is more than a little skewed. At any rate, its
obvious from perusing historical changes to "marriage", from an arranged,
property-driven, business transaction in which the female is often bartered as
said property to forge an inter-familial relationship, from days when American
slaves were "forbidden" from marrying, or when they were so allowed were often
dissolved as they were sold apart to other owners, from men being allowed to
keep consorts and mistresses, to coverture, to the relative recent "ideal" that
marriage should be a voluntary union, decided upon equally by consenting
adults, with no veto-power given to the patriarch, decided upon mutual love and
sexual attraction.
As for the "children" angle. From the Encyclopedia of North American Indians:
"In native societies, the adults primarily responsible for child care were
often not the parents. In hunting and gathering societies, it was more
practical for grandparents to rear children too young to participate in
economic activities."
In Victorian England, child-rearing was, whenever economically possible, left to
nannies. In Ancient Egypt, women were the sole child-rearers, the men were
rarely involved in the life of their children until they reached maturity.
These tend to represent more of a historical "norm" than the modern ideal of
mutual collaboration and attentiveness in child rearing.
[Arlo]
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?
[Platt]
Yes, I oppose divorce for the reason you mention. Don't you think it's
better for children to grow up with a father and a mother? Or, perhaps
you'd like to turn them all over to the state to bring them up as proper
little Marxists. :-)
[Arlo]
Of course, I'd expect these to be your two options. "No divorce" or "Marxism".
Let me ask, to clarify, should married couples without children be permitteed
to divorce?
[Arlo]
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.
[Platt]
How did you ever conclude that? A weird bit of reasoning as to what I
suggest.
[Arlo]
It's very straightforward from your logic. Why would you attempt to skirt it?
(1) You claimed that marriages preserve evolution, by being between a
heterosexual couple capable of bearing children.
(2) This implies that same-sex marriage must somehow threaten this evolution
process.
(3) The only two possible ways this could threaten the evolution process are (a)
by removing potential sources of evolution from the procreational pool, or (b)
by converting procreational sources to non-procreational status.
(4) Restated (a) gays, when barred from same-sex marriage, will re-enter the
procreational pool, and (b) were same-sex marriages legal, heterosexuals will
"turn gay".
(5) Which of these two is it? A belief that gays, seeing your legal ban on
marriage, will enter into heterosexual marriages and beget children? Or, people
like yourself, heterosexuals, will be tempted to change sides and enter into
same-sex marriages?
[Arlo]
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?
[Platt]
Society ought to encourage arrangements such as heterosexual marriage
which enable it to survive and evolve. What's your big hang up on
promoting gay marriage anyway? I thought we agreed that democracy was the
way to settle such policy issues?
[Arlo]
Again, how would allowing homosexual marriages threaten the survival and
evolution on society? By turning heterosexuals into homosexuals? Is that
something you fear from personal acknowledgement? I'm completely confident that
in a society that allowed same-sex marriages I'd stay straight, and beget
children. As would most heterosexuals I know. Not you?
[Arlo then said]
One doesn't need to be "married" to have kids, so I fail to see how
"marriage" fosters evolution.
[Platt]
You think having kids out of wedlock is good for society?
[Arlo]
I've known many people raised in abusive "wedlock" situations. And many kids
raised by loving single, or step, families. "Wedlock" ensures nothing. Loving,
devoted, caregivers is what's important.
[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".
[Platt]
So, if gays marry and one is subservient, you would object? How would you
define subservient? Can you show me any marriage of any kind that
"preserves equality and freedom of all involved?"
Does anyone agree with Arlo that polygamy is OK so long as no one's
freedom is restricted?
[Arlo]
I find any arrangement where one partner is subserviant to the other immoral.
Don't you? Do you feel it is moral, within marriage arrangements, for one
partners ability to engage in Flow/DQ to be restricted by the other? I'm
frankly shocked at this.
But, you know, I guess I shouldn't be....
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 : Mon Aug 29 2005 - 01:24:38 BST