From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Aug 29 2005 - 13:16:05 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.
Thanks for the background from Wikipedia on marriage, families and
polygamy. In saying "normal," I was reflecting the first two sentences
above. I would have been clearer by saying "usual" instead of "normal" and
omitted "since time immemorial." Thanks for pointing that out.
> [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?
Sure, within the rules of the state established by democratic means.
> [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.
Wow. You of all people setting up an either/or dichotomy? I'm shocked. The
way gay marriage threatens evolutionary progress is by opening the gates
to marriages of all sorts that have heretofore been outlawed in the West
such as marriage between close relatives (incest) and, you guessed it,
polygamy. In both cases, the welfare of children is the primary factor. A
society that weakens the bond between mother, father and child is at risk
of dissolution -- as the Wikipedia article suggests.
> [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?
I think you avoided my questions.
> [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.
Again, I think you avoided my question.
[Platt]
> 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.
Now I know you avoided my question. Incidentally, I have no objection to
civil unions between gays. Do you disapprove of such arrangements?
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 : Mon Aug 29 2005 - 18:57:28 BST