09-21-2017, 12:45 AM
I lean towards the "yes" side of things, but some things about this debate really bother me.
[1] The "No" campaign hasn't argued particularly well as yet. Basically I assume it is because most of their arguments are religious in nature and not something that can be debated. Religion depends on belief and faith, neither of which come across to other parties well in debates.
[2] The "Yes" campaign has really put me off side with their arrogance and attitude that if you are not on their side then you are a Nazi or worse. One of the reasons why I wanted to have a plebiscite is that I want MY say. I do not want to be represented my some idiot politician who shares few if any of my values. I strongly believe that everyone has a right to have their own opinions, not those simply one put on us from outside. (I don't believe that just because a person has an opinion, that everyone on Earth has to know about it. I wouldn't be giving ANY air time on radio or TV for extremists on any side.)
[3] I don't have a problem with gay people being married, nor on their getting the lefal rights and obligations that go with it. However, once you start changing something as basic as marriage has been for us, where do you stop?
At the moment gays and lesbians want to be treated equally. Fair enough. What about the next group who feel their potential life styles are being descriminated against? What if 3 people want to get married? After all, they may love each other deeply and want to be together. What about a polygamous Muslim or Mormon? After all, polygamy is actually fairly common in the bible. What about goup marriages? Line Marriages?
All of these are ways of being human and are not evil in themselves.
What about marriages with time limits? After all, at the moment the only type of marriage is "until death do us part". Does it have to be, especially as humans begin to live longer. Can a traditional marriage survive for a century or more? That sort of thing is on the horizon. Biotechnology will start increasing human life spans very soon. Perhaps even for some people alive now.
It is not likely tht any of these groups are going to agitate any time soon for 'marriage equality': not enough of people follow these life styles at this time as they are still legally problematical and culturally offensive to many. However, this may not be the case forever. Technology is changing the human species and may change things like marriage in the future. However, will they acheive legal equality? Should they? Once the 'standard' form of marriage is not the only allowable one, can we argue against other options reasonably? I don't think so. You cannot be a little bit pregnant.
At its most basic level marriage was invented to produce and bring up children - one of the most important biological directives that most humans feel. Monogamy appears to be the most natural form of marriage in human history: it fits the fact that there is not a huge physical difference between males and females compared to our closest relatives and the difference instrength is becoming less important due to our mastery of technology. It also fits that there are approximately equal numbers of males and females, even barring the infanticde and gender selection that takes place in some countries. It even fits that human sperm produces gametes about 50:50.
Humans have trialled other forms of marriage over the centuries. Some human societies, generally matriarchies in the far past, did not have marriage, but brought up children communally among the females. Guys had little influence outside times of hunting or war. But most societies have trended towards monogamy, as it does not leave people without potential partners.
Where does this leave gay people? Good question. Gay couple do not tend to produce children of their own, although technology may change that in the next couple of centuries, especialy if cloning becomes legal.
However, over human history, between 3 and 5 % of humans have been gay. There must be something that allows this trait to continue. In the past many gay people still had hetero relationships, even if they were not their primary choice. These relationships produced offspring, particularly in the higher classes. However, certainly not at the rate of homosexuality in te community. Gay people did not necessarily have gay offspring. In fact, their children appear to be gay at about the same rate as the general population.
Some societies have had considerable gay content: Think of the Sacred Bands or the Spartans and their sex for pleasure is mostly homosexual. A man could not marry until he had fought in battle. Then he had sex with his wife only to produce children.
Thankfully we don't have societies like the Spartans today. But that is another matter. The Spartans were not inherantly evil just because they promoted being gay (they had other issues, but that is another tale).
[1] The "No" campaign hasn't argued particularly well as yet. Basically I assume it is because most of their arguments are religious in nature and not something that can be debated. Religion depends on belief and faith, neither of which come across to other parties well in debates.
[2] The "Yes" campaign has really put me off side with their arrogance and attitude that if you are not on their side then you are a Nazi or worse. One of the reasons why I wanted to have a plebiscite is that I want MY say. I do not want to be represented my some idiot politician who shares few if any of my values. I strongly believe that everyone has a right to have their own opinions, not those simply one put on us from outside. (I don't believe that just because a person has an opinion, that everyone on Earth has to know about it. I wouldn't be giving ANY air time on radio or TV for extremists on any side.)
[3] I don't have a problem with gay people being married, nor on their getting the lefal rights and obligations that go with it. However, once you start changing something as basic as marriage has been for us, where do you stop?
At the moment gays and lesbians want to be treated equally. Fair enough. What about the next group who feel their potential life styles are being descriminated against? What if 3 people want to get married? After all, they may love each other deeply and want to be together. What about a polygamous Muslim or Mormon? After all, polygamy is actually fairly common in the bible. What about goup marriages? Line Marriages?
All of these are ways of being human and are not evil in themselves.
What about marriages with time limits? After all, at the moment the only type of marriage is "until death do us part". Does it have to be, especially as humans begin to live longer. Can a traditional marriage survive for a century or more? That sort of thing is on the horizon. Biotechnology will start increasing human life spans very soon. Perhaps even for some people alive now.
It is not likely tht any of these groups are going to agitate any time soon for 'marriage equality': not enough of people follow these life styles at this time as they are still legally problematical and culturally offensive to many. However, this may not be the case forever. Technology is changing the human species and may change things like marriage in the future. However, will they acheive legal equality? Should they? Once the 'standard' form of marriage is not the only allowable one, can we argue against other options reasonably? I don't think so. You cannot be a little bit pregnant.
At its most basic level marriage was invented to produce and bring up children - one of the most important biological directives that most humans feel. Monogamy appears to be the most natural form of marriage in human history: it fits the fact that there is not a huge physical difference between males and females compared to our closest relatives and the difference instrength is becoming less important due to our mastery of technology. It also fits that there are approximately equal numbers of males and females, even barring the infanticde and gender selection that takes place in some countries. It even fits that human sperm produces gametes about 50:50.
Humans have trialled other forms of marriage over the centuries. Some human societies, generally matriarchies in the far past, did not have marriage, but brought up children communally among the females. Guys had little influence outside times of hunting or war. But most societies have trended towards monogamy, as it does not leave people without potential partners.
Where does this leave gay people? Good question. Gay couple do not tend to produce children of their own, although technology may change that in the next couple of centuries, especialy if cloning becomes legal.
However, over human history, between 3 and 5 % of humans have been gay. There must be something that allows this trait to continue. In the past many gay people still had hetero relationships, even if they were not their primary choice. These relationships produced offspring, particularly in the higher classes. However, certainly not at the rate of homosexuality in te community. Gay people did not necessarily have gay offspring. In fact, their children appear to be gay at about the same rate as the general population.
Some societies have had considerable gay content: Think of the Sacred Bands or the Spartans and their sex for pleasure is mostly homosexual. A man could not marry until he had fought in battle. Then he had sex with his wife only to produce children.
Thankfully we don't have societies like the Spartans today. But that is another matter. The Spartans were not inherantly evil just because they promoted being gay (they had other issues, but that is another tale).
Live Long and Prosper!