Should same-sex marriages by legally recognized?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 7:55 am

Guys, the smoke level is getting pretty high in this thread right now. Please focus more on the question and your own opinions, and less on how the person whose views you don't like. Thanks.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 8:07 am

@ Littiz - there's no need to get emotional about this. If you wish to do so, please take it to PMs. Aside from that, this is becoming increasingly off-topic. If you still wish to discuss this, I think we should start a new thread.

I don't claim that it's been proven absolutely and in every possible circumstance that environmental factors do not cause homosexuality. That would be impossible.
But it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and I've posted the reasons why twice.
If you wish to contest this, please provide rational and specific reasons that would suggest to an unbiased observer that environmental factors must be taken into account.

As it is, you are using increasingly ill-defined terms like 'human finiteness' to support your position, which it seems to me is not scientifically tenable. I've already said I respect that your opinions on this issue are personal, but please stop attacking mine, unless you wish to do so on scientific and logical grounds.

As it is, refusing homosexuals the right to adopt on the grounds that evidence might emerge that homosexual parents would have an impact on the child's sexual orientation, even if the chances are infinitesimally small seems to me to be a totally illogical position. It would be like accusing a man of murder, even without evidence to support the case, and a large body of circumstantial evidence against.

I emphasise one more time that the studies cited are the work of scientists globally over half a century, using thousands of volunteers. You said that twenty studies pale into insignifigance against the number of possible permutations, but I did say that was in one paragraph of a several page long summary of a very large body of work.

Whilst you may have the best interests of adoptive children at heart, it really seems to me that your position does not do justice to either the children or to homosexuals wishing to adopt.

P.S. The derivation of ethics from science is a fascinating topic, but very out of place on this thread. Care to start a new one?

EDIT - I see we now have another vote for 'no'. Since the 'yes' and 'comlicated' sides have been pretty well explained, would those who voted against (apart from Fas) like to join the debate?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 8:48 am

Originally posted by Audace
Why does it matter in this context? What conclusions will you draw from this? What does this mean for same-sex marriage and same-sex couples adopting?

If you merily wish to dispute the finer nuances of science then why not open a new thread? Because the abstract that you are discussing here gives me very paranoid notions about the motives the people have for discussing it in this thread. And I know that that's not justified. I'm just not always a rational person.

I have been wondering about how relevant some of this conversation is myself. Also, like Audace, I find the discussion of "cause" deeply disturbing. Some here have even suggested homosexuality is an anomaly, somehow apart from what is "natural." It is this attitude that gives rise to homophobia and discrimination. Just because something differs from the dominant power structure of the "mainstream" does not mean it is an aberration.

While it is true that a child adopted by a same-sex couple may encounter social difficulties I do not believe this qualifies as a reason to bar gay couples from doing so. To disallow gay couples from adopting, even if it stems from well-intended reasons, only reinforces homophobic attitudes.

Moreover, there is something else to consider in all of this. Lesbians can quite easily have a child; all it takes is a sperm donation from a willing male friend. Gay men do not really have this option.... this also needs to be addressed.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 9:49 am

@ DW - I agree, calling it an 'aberration' or other things of that nature, can be very damaging.

However, I think there is some scope here for discussion of 'cause'. Firstly, it's a fascinating topic in its own right, although I think it's a mistake to decouple the causes of homosexuality from the causes of sexuality in general.
Secondly, no one except Fas has said why they voted 'no', and we can't really argue with religion. Thus, we argue the adoption issue, and the 'cause' argument has some relevance there - it must be admitted that if homosexual parenting caused increased incidinces of homosexuality in their children this would have quite an impact on any decision to allow homo-adoption.

Finally, it's my personal belief that it is science that offers the best chance of removing prejudice and ignorance against homosexuals, so when someone challenges the validity of science in these matters, it should be taken seriuosly.

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 9:53 am

Originally posted by Beowulf
Thus, we argue the adoption issue, and the 'cause' argument has some relevance there - it must be admitted that if homosexual parenting caused increased incidinces of homosexuality in their children this would have quite an impact on any decision to allow homo-adoption.

Why?

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:03 am

Originally posted by Beowulf

As it is, refusing homosexuals the right to adopt on the grounds that evidence might emerge that homosexual parents would have an impact on the child's sexual orientation, even if the chances are infinitesimally small seems to me to be a totally illogical position. It would be like accusing a man of murder, even without evidence to support the case, and a large body of circumstantial evidence against.

Again why? Though I slightly resent the murder parralel.

Either gays have equal rights, or they don't. You can't say, well gays have equal rights, but we don't want any of our kids "turning" gay. Not that that's possible, but it just shows the ambiguety of people towards gays. Hence the link I posted. And the quotes. Anyways, back to the excruciatingly dull intricacies of art. 6 ECHR and all that it conveys for national institutions.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:15 am

Originally posted by Audace
Again why? Though I slightly resent the murder parralel.

Either gays have equal rights, or they don't. You can't say, well gays have equal rights, but we don't want any of our kids "turning" gay. Not that that's possible, but it just shows the ambiguety of people towards gays. Hence the link I posted. And the quotes. Anyways, back to the excruciatingly dull intricacies of art. 6 ECHR and all that it conveys for national institutions.

Sorry if you didn't like the murder parallel, I was going off the top of my head. But you'll notice the man has done no wrong, just like the potential homosexual parents.

I fully support gay rights, including the right to adoption, but what has been said is that for gay adoption there is a conflict of rights between the adoptive parents and the children, in which case the children's rights must come first.
What I've been truing to say is that there is no evidence of such a conflict, scientifically speaking, even if you take the exceptionally dubious (and IMO completely unfounded) view that increasing the child's odds of being gay constitutes 'damage'.

Sorry for any misuderstanding

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:28 am

@Beowulf, no problem, tnx for clearing it up.

I'm a bit over-sensitive about the issue so if I sound a bit harsh at times I apologize...

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:33 am

Originally posted by Beowulf
it must be admitted that if homosexual parenting caused increased incidinces of homosexuality in their children this would have quite an impact on any decision to allow homo-adoption.

Finally, it's my personal belief that it is science that offers the best chance of removing prejudice and ignorance against homosexuals, so when someone challenges the validity of science in these matters, it should be taken seriuosly.

Call me idealistic if you like, but I really do not see why this should have an impact on gay couples adopting, even if there is a correlation. If somebody prefers to sleep with people of their own gender it is nobody's business except their own and that of their partner(s). IMO, society has a misplaced sense of priority. Has anybody ever looked at the stats for abuse that occurs in fostering and adoption situations? Aren't things like this more important than the sexual orientation of the parents!

With due respect to the scientific point of view, I would like to point out that "scientific principles" have been employed to justify the most heinous of views. During the same time that the debates over slavery were raging scientists measured the size of black peoples' skulls and conveniently concluded their brains were smaller than those of caucasions....

I am not by any means saying science is invalid; clearly it is not. I am, however, stating that science has often reflected the views of the society that engenders it.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:46 am

Originally posted by dragon wench
Call me idealistic if you like, but I really do not see why this should have an impact on gay couples adopting, even if there is a correlation. If somebody prefers to sleep with people of their own gender it is nobody's business except their own and that of their partner(s). IMO, society has a misplaced sense of priority. Has anybody ever looked at the stats for abuse that occurs in fostering and adoption situations? Aren't things like this more important than the sexual orietation of the parents!

With due respect to the scientific point of view, I would like to point out that "scientific principles" have been employed to justify the most heinous of views. During the same time that the debates over slavery were raging scientists measured the size of black peoples' skulls and conveniently concluded their brains were smaller than those of caucasions....

I am not by any means saying science is invalid; clearly it is not. I am, however, stating that science has often reflected the views of the society that engenders it.

Very well: you are idealistic

(and so am I)
I agree with you, it shouldn't, but I'd be willing to bet that it would. A lot of people would be willing to use just about any excuse to deny rights to certain groups, and homosexuals are one of those groups.

I also agree that science has had a dodgy history, but (call me idealistic if you like) I truly feel that the scientific method as it stands is unbiased, and that it is the best vindication of the gay rights movement.

@ fable - very interesting points about forcing social change. I voted 'yes', but under the assumption that certain conditions would already be in place - things like freedom of conscience and speech, universal suffrage, women's rights, and universal education, which should be used to promote objectivity and tolerance. In these conditions, I think most of the problems you raised would be negated, and if they're not, the country has much worse problems than gay rights.

@Audace - no problem, I know how you feel

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:58 am

@Beowulf, I would like to continue the conversation, but I am off to spend some time with my family, so maybe later

btw, since you quoted me, could you please check my edits?

I wrote that post without an adequate amount of caffeine in my system

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:59 am

Originally posted by dragon wench
I have been wondering about how relevant some of this conversation is myself. Also, like Audace, I find the discussion of "cause" deeply disturbing. Some here have even suggested homosexuality is an anomaly, somehow apart from what is "natural." It is this attitude that gives rise to homophobia and discrimination.

To me, the issue about cause is a different issue that rights, however, it is of importance because much prejudice can be derived from having an erranous conception of what causes a phenomen. For instance, I know many religions groups in the US (it is not common here) view homosexual orientation as a choice, and by viewing it as a willful choice they also view as a choice to "sin" - the individual chooses to go against religion and thus, some people use this as an argument for allowing discrimination since it's "the individuals free choice".

Science cannot give relevant answers for everything, but like Beowulf I think science is the best foundation to decrease prejudice - any prejudice. "Common sense", personal experinces, subjective feelings and opinions are all limited to the individual, and as individuals we are very limited and highly biased. Removing prejudice can only be done by replacing what people belive to be "true" and "right" with what objectively occurs in a reality we all share.

When the Swedish parlament voted yes to adoption for homosexual couples, scientific data was used as a stong argument. This I think was correct, since without evidence that there is no significant difference in how the children fare with hetero- or homosexual parents, the "equal human rights"-arguments becomes useless. Nobody would think it was morally defensible to let the adults rights to have children go before children's rights to have a good upbringing. Because of this, it is of importance to demostrate objectivly that the children do not fare better or worse. Same things goes for single parent adopting.

Will post more, and more to the point, later...

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 4:35 pm

Since Fable has asked us not to focus so much on views conflicting with our own, I will refrain from replying specificially to some posts that are directed to me and that I would like to reply to, but just to tie up some loose ends:

@Chanak and Scayde: I see what you mean regarding the concept of "truth" and how science is taught, and I understand your point. I also know many scientists are very much against how science is taught (ie the Big bang is taught as an unchangable truth when it is a constantly changing theory - as is the process of gaining knowledge in all areas). There is often semantic confusions regarding terms such as "truth", "facts" and "theories"...in science, we never use the word "truth", and the word "fact" denotes something that is beyond all reasonable doubt with current knowledge. That means for instance that is is a fact that sociocultural factors have no effect on determination of sexual orientation. Then only biological and/or genetic factors remain, so you don't need to identify the specific haplotypes (genetic networks) or transcription factors or in utero hormones that determine sexual orientation so conclude that it must be either genetically determined, biologically determined, or a genetic/biological interaction (such as having a certain set of genes and also getting exposed to a certain hormones - such two-hits theories, as such interactions are called, are as far as we know currently, quite common in determining human behaviour).
This however means sexual orientation cannot be choosen. (Unless we believe in mystical factors, like I described previously, but such factors cannot be investigated with scientific methods.) So in short, Beowulf has interpreted all my posts totally correctly.

@Audace: Whereas I of course always love to discuss science, I also hope you understand why I think that cause-discussions is of importance at all, as I explained in my post above.

@Audace & Sleep: Regarding same-sex couples marriages in church, I can see several reasons why somebody (gay, straight or bi) would like to marry in church:

1. Religions aside, many people want to marry in church because of the cermony. In Sweden, most people who marry in church are not christian and many exclude the religious parts of the cermony (such as the priest making references to god, etc - you can ask for this in Sweden). So if opposite-sex couples can marry in church just because they like the cermony, same-sex couples should too.

2. As Audance said, they might be christian and thus wanting a christian church cermony with the spriritual meaning. Many christians, also priests, view the bible as outdated on this point (ie the marriage rules were apt for the society when the bible was written but must be reinterpreted in order to fir modern society), or still as a sin but reasons that "everybody sin and god is forgiving for he knows humans are imperfect".

3. @Sleep regaring also civil marriages: there are still legal differences between the currently three possible forms of co-habition. As I discussed with Nippy previously in this thread, cohabition is legally different from being married, and registered partnership that is supposed to be the same-sex equivalent to marriage, is still not although the goverment is currently in the process of revising this and making it fully equivalent. It will take some time though (as usual when the Swedish goverment are doing something)

@Littiz: I'd love to continue the science discussion with you, but Fable rules, so another time, another thread...just this short notion about assumption:
The studies I posted have assumptions: it's built into the design. When you compare two or more groups, as all the studies that compare parents of different sexual orientation, and/or single v two parents, you always assume:
H0 = no difference
H1 = difference between the groups
where H stands for hypothesis. From this basic assumption, you must then derive from your data analysis whether the difference (if any) between the two (or more) groups is a real difference or is depending on other things (such a method errors). Likewise, you must test whether the lack of difference (if there is no difference) reflects a "real" lack of difference or is caused by error sources. When you compare two groups, you should not assume beforehand whether you will get H0 or H1. You may speculate or have an hypothesis, but yu may not build in assumptions about differences or lack of differences in the design of the study.

EDIT: PS - Thanks Beowulf for you great effort in acting as interpreter of some of my previous posts - you said it better that I would have done myself.

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:35 pm

Well since I've got the feeling this thread is going to be dead soon, I know I have said about all that I have to say about the subject...tnx all for participating. Though I'd like to have heard a few more dissenting views.

Which is made rather appearant by my (in retro-spect) over-reacting to a few posts by Chanak and Littiz. After re-reading the thread I think I might've read too much into their posts. Dunno if I made that really appearent, anyways, another educational experience...

P.S. CE, I agree with you that it would be proper (in the spirit of most religions) if marriage for same-sex couples in church would be possible. However I would never "demand" or "claim" such a right. I would be putting my wishes above somebody else's civil-rights...aka freedom of religion. There is always a thin line between where an individuals rights end and another individuals rights begin. It is of course to the discretion of a minister or a pastor to perform the ceremony(or holy sacrement) for same-sex couples. But it should never be made law.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 am

I'm one of them...

Originally posted by CM
One was me. That should have been an obvious one. Religion dictates my moral compass so to speak, and what i define as morally right or wrong. Same sex anything is prohibited in Islam. So marriage or no marriage, i am against the very concept.

Though i am wondering who the other 3 are...

...same reason as yours, though I'm Catholic.

Personally in principle, a civil marriage between individuals regardless of sex is something that is everybody's right...

...but...

...a Catholic wedding between same-sex is a no-no.

edit- people must understand that in our culture which is predominantly Christian---majority of which are Catholics, same sex marriage is something not acceptable.

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 5:09 am

It may seem absurd, but I sustained the "science debate" indeed to exclude it from this topic.
For me it is not relevant -or just marginally relevant- to form moral opinions like the one requested in this topic.
@Beowulf:

But it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and I've posted the reasons why twice.

So did I, for the opposite. I can't accept your definition of "reasonable doubt". But my replies to this part of the debate are in hold for a new thread. Just a quick annoyance

: using volunteers for tests, that is, only a kind of the theorical knds of subjects, ASSUMES this doesn't influence results...

As it is, refusing homosexuals the right to adopt on the grounds that evidence might emerge that homosexual parents would have an impact on the child's sexual orientation, even if the chances are infinitesimally small seems to me to be a totally illogical position.

Once again, you're not correct towards me and my posts.
I never used this argument against adoption. Feel free to re-read my posts, you're just assuming that I do think like that.
And once again, ASSUMPTION is a source of errors.
My only argument was that the child, in my "feeling" of the matter, would suffer from the lack of a parental figure.
The "environmental issue" was part of the science debate. I did want to point out that for me the possibility of an environmental influence is open.
But as Scayde states, it really doesn't matter, 'cause even if homosexuality were a choice, still people have the right to choose what they want to do with their lives.

@CE:
I'd love to, I'd even love to explain what kind of an extreme mechanicalist I was in my teens.
Maybe the most radical kind of mechanicalism ever kept in history

! But believe me, it made me suffer.
And still does, 'cause I still *am* a mechanicalist.
Freedom does not exist, not even in the smallest matters, distinctions like "environmental or genetic causes" have no meaning, as nobody chooses anything either case. But, with time I could at least expand my views on life and science.

There is always a thin line between where an individuals rights end and another individuals rights begin.

Well said @Audace, that's my problem in defining morals.
(ASSUMING

that granting rights to human beings is a necessity. What does state it, after all?
What about the "rights" of things to remain untouched, for example?)

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:40 am

Originally posted by Littiz

@Beowulf:

Once again, you're not correct towards me and my posts.
I never used this argument against adoption. Feel free to re-read my posts, you're just assuming that I do think like that.
And once again, ASSUMPTION is a source of errors.
My only argument was that the child, in my "feeling" of the matter, would suffer from the lack of a parental figure.
The "environmental issue" was part of the science debate. I did want to point out that for me the possibility of an environmental influence is open.
But as Scayde states, it really doesn't matter, 'cause even if homosexuality were a choice, still people have the right to choose what they want to do with their lives.

Fair enough, the 'cause' debate is over, but the issue of suffering due to lack of a parental figure is also covered by those studies - and they indicate (pretty conclusively) that your fear is unfounded. Since your opinion on the issue is not based on science, that probablty won't make much difference to you. But just out of curiosity - what are your feelings in this regard based on? Religious belief? Common sense? Personal experience?

For the paragraph you quoted me, you can just replace 'sexual orientation' with 'healthy upbringing', and the point remains.

In relation to using 'volunteers' in tests - it's not a case of asking people to put themselves forward, it's a case of taking a random sample and then excluding those who ask not to take part. Unless they all have the same reason for excluding themselves, then the impact that this has on the study is negated.

And finally, since you don't accept my definition of reasonable doubt, could you please post your own (with the emphasis on reasonable

)

@CE - *blush*

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:22 am

Ooh, what highly topical new item brought out this dusty old discussion?

Same sex marriages have been on the books since, um, books began. They were recorded in the Christian church during the 14th C. And what about the Spartans? And the Theban Band?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 10:18 am

@Littiz: We must have such a discussion some day! From what you write it sounds like you are a Hard Determinist.

However, if I understand your position in the adoption issue is based on your personal moral, which I suppose puts it in the same position as Fas and Mahar, who derives their positions from their respective religions. Science cannot tell us what is right and wrong from a moral perspective, it can only provide facts describing our reality that to may or may not play a role in an individual's formation of moral values. However, I do think many people base some of their moral values on scientific data: would people view parents smoking at home with their children present at wrong if they didn't know it was a health risk for the children?

@Beowulf: You obviously has a full understanding of the scientific method and how studies are conducted and data are interpreted - do you have scientific training, or are just an extraordinarily knowledgeble layman?

@Audace: Whereas I disagree with the religious objections to same-sex marriages, I do think freedom of religions is something that should be respected as long as said religions do not harm other individuals. In another thread I posted that the Swedish integration minister recently made a statement that she would look into the possibilities of withdrawing rights to perform marriage from churches who would refuse to perform such marriages on the basis that discrimination would override the freedom of religion-notion (just as spreading racist messages overrides freedom of speach in Sweden). In theory, this is no simple question IMO...discrimination is bad regardless of the reasons (in this case religious dogma) but forcing people to act against their personal beliefs is not good either. The best would be if the Church of Sweden as a whole accepted same-sex marriages, and that those 50% priests who would refuse to perform the act are allowed to do so, and those 25% who wish to perform same-sex marriages, can do so. However, for all practial practical purposes it will hardly become a problem since a couple probably don't wish to marry in a church that denouce their love, anyway. The current problem in Sweden regarding church marriages is that the Church of Sweden has no unified stance, but opinions differ.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:21 pm

Re: I'm one of them...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...same reason as yours, though I'm Catholic.

Personally in principle, a civil marriage between individuals regardless of sex is something that is everybody's right...

...but...

...a Catholic wedding between same-sex is a no-no.

edit- people must understand that in our culture which is predominantly Christian---majority of which are Catholics, same sex marriage is something not acceptable.

If a religion does not wish to recognize same-sex marriage, then this is their right, IMO. I, for one, feel the State needs to stay as far away from religion as they do the personal freedoms of the individual. I respect the rights of a religious organization as much as I do my own rights, which is something most of us have (and often take for granted) in democratic-style governments.

I've seen the lawsuits in the past concerning this issue...and quite frankly, I feel that unless an issue of abuse or criminal activity is involved, matters concerning religious organizations should stay out of the courts. If the Catholic church does not wish to recognize nor support same-sex marriages, that is their right, for they are *not* a public institution (the pope, after all, lost his political teeth centuries ago). The same goes for any sort of *private* organization...they are not public domain, and as such, I feel there are lines the State should not be able to cross. Perhaps this is at the core of my own libertarianism...but the less restrictions a powerful entity such as a government has, the more room it has to violate you. History bears witness to this time and time again.

GameBanshee Forums

Should same-sex marriages by legally recognized?

Should same-sex marriages be legally recognized?