Same-sex Marriage

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

So, your problem is mere semantics?
Just the use of the word "marriage" is your problem?

Words always change in meaning over time-- and even according to the society using them .
eg "Silly" originally meant "saintly".

"Marriage" is now also a legal term, not just a religious word.

If homosexuality is natural, which I believe it is—indeed it may even be beneficial—then there is no good reason to prevent homosexuals from any of society's rights and/or privileges. This I believe. But is getting “married” one of them? Surely getting civilly united into a domestic partnership must be one them. But “married”?

Yes, it’s all about the titular word.

Given the present legal disposition of supreme courts in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, etc., I have to conclude that “marriage” can be a right and/or privilege for the people, regardless of their sexuality. I can only defer to supreme-court decisions on the matter, because, privately, I seem to hold on to this notion that two men can’t be married (my Middle Age affliction).

But, hey, I’m getting better and I’ve seen the light. Two men can be married, and happily, to, according to Hasanuddin, and I believe him. This has to be a good thing. (None of my three marriages lasted 12 years!)

Now, here’s the rub in many good people’s eyes: What about the polygamists and members of other groups of preferred sexuality, or combinations there of? Yes, maybe even bestiality, necrophilia, incest, and other permutations of nature will gain a legal foothold with the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, with my philosopher’s hat on, I have to as if this is where we’re headed.

I’d be willing to bet London to a brick that more than half of the American population privately feels this way, rightly or wrongly.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by lemit

I think the idea that homosexuality is unnatural (which has been forgotten here) has merit, since sex is nature's way of preserving and promulgating the species, and all the actions once referred to variously as sodomy do not further that cause.

As someone who is pro gay marriage, I would concede the above point. Though would suggest this doesn't mean it is unnatural. Kissing and hugging would be "not furthering the cause" by the standard above. And arguably artificial insemination would be furthering the cause, though I'm guessing most consider that unnatural.

But stating all that which doesn't further the cause, would only seem to narrow the definition of what is natural. I'm one of those people who thinks if biology is the standard for what is natural, then arguably it is all natural. How could anything man made be considered unnatural? I don't get that logic. Thus homosexuality would indeed be natural, even while it may not further cause of promulgating the species. Most sexual / intimate acts do not further that cause.

Homosexuality is not conducive to pregnancy. I think some can see high benefit in that, among the natural order of things. If everyone were homosexual, then Houston, we would have a problem. But wake me up when we suddenly live in a world where 10% of the population is heterosexual and we are TRULY concerned about that problem.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Either way, god plays about as much of a role in the event as the tooth fairy or easter bunny (or Thor, or Zeus, or Apollo, or any of the other thousands of figures laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology), but it's still a marriage all the same.

Depends on how one identifies with God.
Is (Agape) Love lying dead in the graveyard of human mythology?
Is Life (as we know it) lying dead in the graveyard of human mythology?

God is said to be that which joins the marriage / relationship in (Holy) union, that no human can put asunder. In my worldview that happens (long) before the ceremonial aspect that humans construct around marriage. And it occurs (long) after the divorce / separation proceedings that humans imagine as a parting of ways.

If you believe the union is established by a Cause that goes by another name, I am likely to honor that substitute concept. I really am. If you perchance you believe no such union truly exists, then perhaps we could discuss further (in another thread?).

When considering marriages or partnerships, biology is rather irrelevant, despite your suggestion above to the contrary. As you well know, we don't require that two opposite sex partners be reproductively viable before allowing them to marry. We don't disallow infertile people from marrying, or people who simply have no plans to ever have children. Or, look at the elderly... people in their 70s or 80s... They're allowed to marry without question, despite the impossibility of offspring conception from their pairing.

I very much agree with this.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by Larv

Now, here’s the rub in many good people’s eyes: What about the polygamists and members of other groups of preferred sexuality, or combinations there of? Yes, maybe even bestiality, necrophilia, incest, and other permutations of nature will gain a legal foothold with the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, with my philosopher’s hat on, I have to as if this is where we’re headed.

I’d be willing to bet London to a brick that more than half of the American population privately feels this way, rightly or wrongly.

I agree it is the rub. I alluded to this earlier, and for all I know, it was brought up much earlier before I arrived on this thread.

Same-sex marriage as legal process is gateway for other forms of atypical unions. Things that may very much be considered taboo today, could be deemed legal unions (and marriage) in rather short order. I don't think it will be within same decade as the inevitable okay that will come with same-sex marriage, but I believe it is bound to happen.

I tend to go two ways on this. First, I believe it all ought to be allowed. For me, it has to do with the spiritual principle that we are all joined anyhow, so let's not allow our prejudices to blind us to what marriage actually is within our species (of consciousness).

But since it could be another 10,000 years before humanity sees things as if we are literally all in this together, then I say another viable solution is to cleanse the proverbial waters of all forms of human defined marriages. Meaning heterosexuals no longer are allowed to use the term "marriage" in relation to their unions, and in so doing, every other type of human relationship would be made to follow suit. Privately, people could call their unions whatever they want, but publicly, marriage would be looked at as primitive concept from our past, that only led to division as we couldn't quite work out the idea that this word could apply to anyone and everyone. And instead certain factions of society attempted to claim ownership as if their relationships reflected "true" marriage.

While the two ways I look at this seem opposed, I see both as realistic. The latter one would (perhaps) prevent us from going to a place that I see as inevitable, which is confronting even more "taboo and yucky" forms of human relationships in the vein of "true marriage" and the former idea allows us to accept marriage in a way that isn't exclusive. Cause if marriage is seen to be exclusive, uh yeah, you can (and will) count me out.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Jway

Depends on how one identifies with God.

Like I said, with me, it's in much the same way as I "identify" with santa claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, pink unicorns, and leprechauns. It's really not something I take seriously whatsoever. I don't find the imaginary sky pixie to be all too compelling, so it doesn't factor into my life.

Originally Posted by Jway

Is (Agape) Love lying dead in the graveyard of human mythology?

Nope, but we call it "love" for good reason. It's a different concept, and is hardly a "myth." It's well grounded in the science of psychology, neurobiology, sociology, and evolution. To suggest somehow that "love=god" is to equivocate the two terms, and really is nothing more than a bald assertion with no basis. You may define this god-concept using terms of love, but there is not a one-to-one correspondence. Love is a concept which does not need god for definition. In much the say way, god is a concept which does not need love for definition.

Love is perfectly explainable using reality and empirically based science. There is no need for metaphysical, unprovable, speculations... no matter how poetic or appealing someone may find them.

Originally Posted by Jway

Is Life (as we know it) lying dead in the graveyard of human mythology?

Obviously not, as we're here... ourselves alive... communicating about it. Although, considering you've chosen to capitalize the letter "L," I'm quite sure you're working from a very personal definition derived from some worldview which we do not share.

Originally Posted by Jway

God is said to be that which joins the marriage / relationship in (Holy) union, that no human can put asunder.

It is also said that little green aliens abduct people and insert probes into their anus late at night, and it is said that relativity and evolution are wrong, and that dancing and chanting in a special way makes it rain. It doesn't mean it's true. It just means "it is said."

As stated previously... religion and belief in deity is completely irrelevant to marriage, as atheists have been getting married for decades.

Originally Posted by Jway

If you believe the union is established by a Cause that goes by another name, I am likely to honor that substitute concept.

Define what you mean by "Cause," as I see you've used a capital "C," so you appear to be positing a priori some designer... some cosmic dictator... some idea which I personally dismiss as a silly remnant of our neocortical and social mechanisms.

Originally Posted by Jway

Same-sex marriage as legal process is gateway for other forms of atypical unions. Things that may very much be considered taboo today, could be deemed legal unions (and marriage) in rather short order. I don't think it will be within same decade as the inevitable okay that will come with same-sex marriage, but I believe it is bound to happen.

Just out of curiosity... In what way does polygamy have any impact on you whatsoever? Basically, why do you (and others) care whether or not it's legal? Does it really cause you some sort of harm, or impact you and your own family in any way?

[HydrogenBond]

The point I was making is, what is natural does not always mean progressive relative the unique needs of humans in civilization. The social costs, in the terms of the prothesis needed to maintain some of the natural instincts is like restoring an old house. It does have a certain subjective appeal and charm, which if one could restore it to its original splendor will have natural advantages. But if it is a money pit instinct, that is requiring a constant flow of resources to maintain, one has to know the difference.

What I was proposing is look at each of the natural animal instincts, which humans share and see which old houses can be restored and which are money pits, which would fall down if not propped up constantly.

If we told children, peeing where you stand is natural. However, this is a money pit natural instinct, because the social costs would be quite high and would never end. We would move from wild fire to wild fire. On other hand, if you look at animals they all seem so naturally fit. This is a glorious old house, which will take resources to restore, but once in place it will save money. This a good investment in instinct and is not be a money pit.

But I would not throw anything out. We might be able to restore some of the money pits, but may have to modernize them and not just use the original equipment which makes them a money pit.

[InfiniteNow]

So, HydrogenBond... You equate homosexuality with "peeing where you stand?" You're working with a real enlightened mind, aren't you?

[sman]

Marriage used to be arranged by the social group for the purpose of procreation, that is, for the purpose of bolstering the population of the social group. I'm sure this was directly adaptive. I believe something happened inside of this. That it just turned out that the monogamous partnership was very beneficial to the individuals involved. Natural selection could promote monogamy if it was adaptive (for the genes, not the individuals) by plugging it with psycological rewards. Maybe this is what we experience as "love". The fact that we think we're looking for something very special to explain love, because it's so very special to us, should make us skeptical of explanations that are more than mundane.

Anyway, marriage today seems to be about the individuals, and I like the trend. Religion doesn't have to be involved. For some reason the govornment does, which I find irritating. I don't know why it has to be treated any different than any other leagally binding contract between private parties, like a handwritten IOU. If the private parties want to make a big ritual deal of it or involve their religions...whatever. The govornment should stay out of it until the contract is taken to court. I think the way it is is a residual from the past, when marriage was not about the individuals, and should go away.

It is not unwarrented, or prejudice, to ask ourselves, as a society, whether same-sex marriage achieves the same benefits of monogamous pairing - but studies show that there is not much difference in the happiness or well-being of gay couples compared with straight ones. Also, there seems to be no statistically significant variation in the way childeren turn out. (Childeren of same-sex marriages do not, BTW, show any more likelyhood to become homosexual adults as the childeren of more traditional marriages.)

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Define what you mean by "Cause," as I see you've used a capital "C," so you appear to be positing a priori some designer... some cosmic dictator... some idea which I personally dismiss as a silly remnant of our neocortical and social mechanisms.

Silly, but universal and world-dominating. We are the exceptions, my friend. Not unlike homosexuals.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Nope, but we call it "love" for good reason. It's a different concept, and is hardly a "myth."

Agreed on the final part. For me the concepts are synonymous, especially when considering Apape Love and/or unconditional Love.

It's well grounded in the science of psychology, neurobiology, sociology, and evolution.

As it is in the traditions of spirituality and religion. If it is so well grounded in these other disciplines and this thread is (indirectly) about marriages, please share with us the marriages you are aware of where the ceremonial event utilized the "well grounded" language of these disciplines while presenting the love between the two persons marrying. You said you were married. Did your vows and/or words shared by public speaker at the event delve into the science of love? Did it delve into the neurobiological component as what is bringing the two together? How about evolution? How many references to evolutionary theory were brought up in your own ceremony? Feel free to cite whatever human marriage ceremonies you are aware of in which love as union was talked about from the basis of science. I feel very open to the idea that this could occur and that you may present such cases.

To suggest somehow that "love=god" is to equivocate the two terms,

This is correct.

and really is nothing more than a bald assertion with no basis.

There is much historical basis for why one might assert this. I base it on that partly, and I would say mostly on my philosophical / spiritual views. You can pretend I'm all alone in these views, though that would be inaccurate. I also base it on feeling and Identity. Though I don't feel dogmatic in the term that forms the Identity. If I got into habit of calling God - Flying Spaghetti Monster, I feel it would work about the same way. Love equals FSM.

You may define this god-concept using terms of love, but there is not a one-to-one correspondence.

There is for me. And I would argue for thousands, if not millions, of others.

Love is a concept which does not need god for definition. In much the say way, god is a concept which does not need love for definition.

I agree with this. And yet, we live in a world where spiritual teachers correlate (Agape) Love with God. The definition is not needed, though I observe that it is desired.

Love is perfectly explainable using reality and empirically based science.

LOL, if only that were true. Well, depends on what you mean by "reality" I guess. Does science perfectly allow for the experience of (Divine) Love?

I guess more to the point of this thread, would you care to take a gander at explaining homosexual love via empirically based science. You've made the claim, and I'm interested in said explanation. Again, I feel very open to idea that you can do this, and am just hoping you will.

There is no need for metaphysical, unprovable, speculations... no matter how poetic or appealing someone may find them.

Again, it is not a matter of need, but of desire and applicability. Are the scientific explanations applicable to marriage ceremonies? Perhaps they are. If so, is there case history that suggest such a trend? If little or no history, is it (only) because such explanations and languages would be unappealing, and/or is it (also) because it is collectively deemed not applicable?

It is also said that little green aliens abduct people and insert probes into their anus late at night, and it is said that relativity and evolution are wrong, and that dancing and chanting in a special way makes it rain. It doesn't mean it's true. It just means "it is said."

.... in vast majority of human marriage ceremonies.

In my view, atheist could take "God" out and say something along lines of, "what Life has joined together in this union we have come today to celebrate, let no human put this asunder," and it would mean essentially same thing to me, while not giving allegiance to "skyman."

As stated previously... religion and belief in deity is completely irrelevant to marriage, as atheists have been getting married for decades.

So, it would be (perhaps) completely irrelevant in those cases, while completely relevant to cases where persons were married in presence of God.

Like saying that neurbiological explanations of love would be completely irrelevant to marriage, because orthodox religious folk have been getting married for years.

Even I wouldn't care to make that logical fallacy, but it could be asserted. Maybe if you bolded "completely irrelevant" it would seem to carry more weight.

Define what you mean by "Cause," as I see you've used a capital "C," so you appear to be positing a priori some designer... some cosmic dictator... some idea which I personally dismiss as a silly remnant of our neocortical and social mechanisms.

I mean Source. But I feel Cause is more applicable. Are you living in effect of civil union? Did you have ceremony which as a result of that and legal documentation means that you are married? If yes, now think back to this union that you may either feel or believe is there between you and the other? Got that? What, if anything, do you see as cause of that union? If you are really not sure what I'm asking, feel free to ask me more questions. I think I can explain it further, as desired.

Just out of curiosity... In what way does polygamy have any impact on you whatsoever? Basically, why do you (and others) care whether or not it's legal? Does it really cause you some sort of harm, or impact you and your own family in any way?

I think from legal perspective, and sense of benefits and/or entitlements, it could have impact on me. I think it could arguably drain the system. What if there is no limit. People who are in polygamous marriage where their stated goal is to have as many spouses as human possible? Perhaps ridiculous in today's mindset, but IMO, not far fetched based on human behavior. So, this woman now has 14,000 spouses and is looking to get all the same legal benefits that come with monogamous marriages, but times 14,000 or at a proportion that is deemed sufficient.

Personally, I'd vote for allowing polygamous marriages if legal entitlements were not tied in with them. But for me, same goes with monogamous marriage.

[InfiniteNow]

I fear that you have painfully misunderstood me, and request that you give another shot at reading my posts. You've come away with a completely skewed and inaccurate view of what I've typed, as evidenced by the strange response you offered.

Originally Posted by Jway

As it is in the traditions of spirituality and religion. If it is so well grounded in these other disciplines and this thread is (indirectly) about marriages, please share with us the marriages you are aware of where the ceremonial event utilized the "well grounded" language of these disciplines while presenting the love between the two persons marrying.

Read again. My point was that the concept of love is very well explained using science. My point is that belief in god is getting more explained each day using those same sciences. My point was NOT that we spend time with professors lecturing about these explanations during marriage ceremonies.

To restate: The concept of love is well defined in the sciences of psychology, neurobiology, sociology, and evolution. Please... don't put words in my mouth. My point is clear.

Originally Posted by Jway

You said you were married.

No, actually... I did not.

Originally Posted by Jway

There is much historical basis for why one might assert this. I base it on that partly, and I would say mostly on my philosophical / spiritual views.

My point remains. Your assertion that god equals love is equivalent to saying that leprechauns equal euphoria. It doesn't matter how many people in the past (in "history") have held this view, as truth is not determined by popularity. You have not defined either god or love in a way that is accepted by all readers, so perhaps you should start there.

As it stands right now, you are making up your own meanings to words which we all use, and we don't all agree with the personal meanings you are using. For example, with me and others, love has nothing whatsoever to do with human mythology (the aforementioned god concept). It's as if you're talking about a banana, but keep saying that bananas equal unicorns. If you want to use the word unicorn to define a banana, that's fine, but you're doing so does not necessitate that the rest of us accept that a unicorn is the same as a banana.

Do you understand what I'm saying here? You even conceded that love can exist without god, so I consider my point made. To restate, though, two people can love one another, and they can be married, and they can do so all without god ever factoring into the equation, especially since proof of the existence of god is sorely lacking, despite millenia of people like you trying to find it.

Originally Posted by Jway

You can pretend I'm all alone in these views, though that would be inaccurate.

Frankly, I don't need your permission to do any damned thing, and, further, I agree that pretending you're all alone in these views would be inaccurate. I never once claimed, nor even insinuated, that you were alone in your views. So, really... please... read my post again.

Originally Posted by Jway

There is for me. And I would argue for thousands, if not millions, of others.

See point above about truth not being based, or in any way whatsoever contingent, on popularity.

Originally Posted by Jway

LOL, if only that were true. Well, depends on what you mean by "reality" I guess. Does science perfectly allow for the experience of (Divine) Love?

Yes, it's very easily explained in context of psychology, belief, and the fallacies and tendencies of the human mind. You should review my thread about how religion hijacks neocortical mechanisms, and why so many believe in a deity (although, it hasn't gained much traction here at Hypo, I've contributed somewhat extensively on the topic at another site and would be glad to elaborate).

Originally Posted by Jway

I guess more to the point of this thread, would you care to take a gander at explaining homosexual love via empirically based science. You've made the claim, and I'm interested in said explanation. Again, I feel very open to idea that you can do this, and am just hoping you will.

Sure. Simple, really. Humans are a social species. We've evolved as pack/troop animals. Love has different forms. We love family, friends, kin, and reproductive partners. That love gets reinforced with oxytocin, dopamine, and other chemicals such as vasopressin. Those who in our evolutionary past formed strong bonds with others tended to be more reproductively successful than those who did not, so the ability to love and care for non-self pack members was heavily selected for.

We love because we are social animals, but the things we love exist on a long spectrum. We love our parents. We love our children. We love our brothers and sisters. We love our friends, and we love our pets. I struggle to understand why you cannot understand why somebody would love someone of the same sex.

Put rather simply: We love the person, not the gender. Your feelings and desires for a person are not somehow dormant until you've looked down their pants (checked under the hood). They are there from the start, and you don't generally "choose" who you love. You just "find" them... that is, if you're lucky.

Originally Posted by Jway

In my view, atheist could take "God" out and say something along lines of, "what Life has joined together in this union we have come today to celebrate, let no human put this asunder," and it would mean essentially same thing to me, while not giving allegiance to "skyman."

So, it would be (perhaps) completely irrelevant in those cases, while completely relevant to cases where persons were married in presence of God.

The point being, we are discussing marriage itself, and if god is completely irrelevant in some cases, then you cannot in the next breath claim that the concept of marriage is in any way dependent upon he/she/it.

Either marriage can happen without god, or it cannot. It's an either/or state, and you've already conceded that it CAN happen without god. Ergo, my point is confirmed.

Originally Posted by Jway

I mean Source. But I feel Cause is more applicable.

What evidence can you offer... evidence which is replicable and falsifiable... of this "source?" What consistent definition of this concept can you share, and is that definition universal and accepted by everyone? If not, then you've got nothing. You may as well be saying that the walking tree creatures from Lord of the Rings are required for a marriage.


Either way, your continued request for me to give examples of weddings which discussed evolution of love or the psychology of god suggests to me that you've completely missed my point, and I ask you again to please re-read what I've previously posted.