Oregon's Supreme Courts Rules Gay Marriages Null and Void

Ok - I agree - a debate is not a debate unless someone takes the other side.

So although I'm not fully committed to it, I'll attempt to make the case against gay marriage as best I can.

First of all, I have no interest in religious arguments like "the bible says homosexuality is wrong". I think we are concerned here with a rational discussion on the issues. I'll have a try.

Point 1:
A considerable section of the population feel a distaste and repulsion when they observe or think about homosexual intimacies or sexual acts, particularly male-male.

Evidence:
Go and talk to ordinary working men on the shop-floor of any factory and hear the jokes and derision and expressions of disgust which permeate this subject.

Question - Why?
Is this due simply to cultural indoctrination ? Do they "choose" to feel like this, maybe because they want to bully and feel superior ? Or is this behaviour instinctively based, unchosen, designed in by evolution ?

My Answer:
I think a good case can be made that this is instinctive, a result of the natural selection which occurs as the result of the factors which increase/decrease the likelihood of reproduction, and therefore survival. A human group which, over millenia, had embraced homosexual acts as normal and in every way equal and desirable would have decreased its reproductive success. Even if only slightly, over time this would have effect. Groups which regarded it as repulsive would have succeeded slightly better, and so these feelings would grow more widespread in their descendants.

If this is the case, do we need to be sensitive to such feelings ?
We all agree that the homosexual is not "choosing to be perverted" but is expressing the natural feelings he finds unbidden inside himself. Therefore these feelings deserve respect, equal treatment, and sensitivity. What reason is there to accord any less respect and sensitivity to those who, equally unchoosing, feel repelled by even thinking of such practice?

I conclude that both groups need equal respect, and neither group should be allowed to deride or censor the other, if their views are expressed with moderation and justice.

If I am correct, then there is good and fair reason to ask that, for instance, open and public displays of physical intimacy between homosexuals should be more restricted than for heterosexual ones. Simply because more people, not choosing to do so, but instinctively, feel disgust and repulsion at such sights.

Now - Marriage:
Certainly most reasonable people would agree that a same-sex couple in a long-term, legally acknowledged union, should enjoy exactly the same tax and legal-rights benefits as a married couple.

This need for justice can be fully be met by a justly-designed civil union called something other than "marriage".

So, the final question:
Is it fair and respectful to others for homosexuals to demand that their unions be called "marriage" ?

I would put forward the argument that it is not.

This is because the word has a long and rich history associating it with heterosexual love and procreation. It has a very special and precious place in the heterosexual imagination. Many of them (remember the instinctive feelings I have postulated above) feel repelled and offended by it being applied to this new relationship, as though it is the same. They feel it is being belittled or befouled. They may not want to feel it, but they find they do.

Well, you may argue, it's only a word. If the legal implications are the same, why does it matter?

But if that's the case, why does it matter to the homosexuals? We are just arguing over the possession of a word - an idea, on the basis of competing sensitivities.

It can be argued that this word, this idea, with all its resonance and mythology, was built within a majority heterosexual framework. That it is the sensitivity of the majority heterosexuals which should swing the balance.

There seems absolutely no reason , in justice and sensitivity to the feelings of others, that the homosexual community should not embrace and rejoice in their new equal status unions, under some new name of their own choosing (as "gay" was gladly chosen).

To refuse even that minimal respect for the sensitivities of other. To refuse to even leave them their word. That could be seen as no better than the intolerance and insensitivity under which they themselves have suffered so long.

There - that's my best shot.

You were lamenting the absence of a dissenting voice. What you think ?

Ellie - Thanks for the dissenting opinion! Rather than quote your entire post, I'm going to respond to just a few key statements. BTW, thank you for taking a reasonend/rational approach to this debate.



I'm not so sure about this particular conclusion. From an evolutionary perspective, I can certainly grant some validity to the concept that a common aversion to homosexuality is somewhat innate. However, as has been oft discussed in these forums in the past, all human behavior is essentially learned behavior. Gay rights advocates hate hearing that as much as their opponents, because it implies that each human is a blank slate at birth (e.g., is homosexuality a genetic trait?). From a socio-phsychological viewpoint, the Lockeian concept of "tabula rasa" (i.e., “blank slate”) probably underestimates the true effects of biologically inherited, instinctual behavior. That said, I don’t find this argument compelling enough to deny a class of people equal rights to a lawful union. Even if your point could be firmly established with scientific fact, what are the merits from a judicial, societal or even just an egalitarian perspective? Would it be any more appropriate to sanction racist behavior just because my race has evolved separately from another?

Unless we were to legally backtread and re-codify homosexual behavior as criminal behavior, I would find this argument to be without merit or justification. It's actually quite exemplary of what a separate but equal societal treatment of gays might look like. Again, if the majority were offended by the physical appearance of those of differing/minority races, would that justify lesser treatment of those minorities? If society, as a whole, deems a certain set of public displays of affection (PDAs) as inappropriate, that sanction should apply to everyone, not just to members of a sexually oriented minority group.

Although I have mixed feelings about applying the term "marriage" to gay unions, I still believe that it implies a separate but equal classification of a sexually oriented minority group. Personally, I don't consider the choice of terms for gay unions to be a "hill to die on," but it is important, I believe, to consider the broader -- and perhaps more subtle or unintended -- ramifications of taking this position.

PS: Terms like "gay" and "queer" were formerly used in the pejorative sense to malign gays. Over time, the gay community has co-opted those terms, much in the same way that the formerly insulting term "Yankee" has become a matter of pride for New Yorkers.

Hi PP.
One of your significant sentences I simply cannot decode so that the second half means anything to me:
"Although I have mixed feelings about applying the term "marriage" to gay unions, I still believe that it implies a separate but equal classification of a sexually oriented minority group".

But the first half seems to agree with my main conclusion. So long as homosexual unions get equal treatment under the law (which I agree they should) why is it necessary to call them "marriage" ?

With regard to lustful PDA',s it would be perfectly fair for the law to restrict both equally a little more than now. Who knows, do homosexuals find hetero PDA's repulsive?

Your point about the "blank slate" cutting both ways is well made, and precisely what I am trying to get at.

If homosexuality is "born in" and not chosen, then no-one reasonable can deny it respect and sensitivity so long as it does not harm or interfere with others. Basic morality.

But if this is argued, you cannot then deny the same respect and sensitivity to the other camp. If their feelings of repugnance are also" born in" and not chosen.

You can't pick and choose. Respect one, respect the other.

Demanding the word "marriage" denies precisely this respect, is insensitive, unnecessary, and will only increase hostility and polarise opinion. Maybe the determination to demand this is tied to religion? In which case it is beyond the reach of rational discussion.

Hmm a couple of things

Its been outlined already but one important reason to use the word Marraige is to remove discrimation based on sexual orientation. By allowing straight people to be "married" and homsexuals to be "legally joined" , its implying straight people have more rights. Specifically if marraige and legalized civl unions are not the same legally.

I think though legal civil unions are superior to the current situation in the US. But also i think fundamentally denying same sex marriages is basically as wrong as denying inter-racial ones. No one would today accept if a white man and a black woman married today calling it anything other then marriage.


As for the biology. I had a friend who one time tried sex with another woman. She felt no (her words) "hormonal drive" during the encounter. She implied thats becuase its biology that a man and a woman have a hormonal drive to each other. Since she felt this way she assumed everyone must. And thus she didnt understand how i was attracted to women. It of course is silly to asume that - since i do feel quite driven at times ..

... Another thing .. Human males are biologically "programed" for agression, a killer instinct to protect the species.
-- Should we somehow excuse this behavior when it leads to crimes such as assault and murder, just becuase its in their genes?

i dont think so , any more then i would argue homosexuality is somehow inferior to heterosexaulity based on the fact that it will not result in a biological progeny.


The nature versus nuture debate has gone on for some time.

And i dont feel it should ever guide us in trying to gain a society where people are equal reguardless of what the look like, or who they wish to share their lives with.

Everyone loves penguins! And they love each other...

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp


I think the Daily Show said it best when covering this story... "Just because it happens in nature doesn't mean it's natural."

Ellie - Colette pretty accurately re-states my concerns. To paraphrase my original statement, I am not all that concerned about the semantics of what we actually call a "gay union." That said, even though I don't personally care if we refer to a gay union as a "marriage," I do acknowledge that there may be some significant consequences to calling a gay union something other than "marriage." That's what I meant about "separate but equal." The separate but equal doctrine didn't work with regard to segregated education; my gut says that it won't work with regard to gay unions.

I work in a state that imposed a same sex marriage ban .. and specifically excludes any similair union.

I do remember discussing prior to the election this issue, most of my coworkers saw same sex marriage as wrong. Some were all right with similair unions , but they were going to vote for the ammendment anyway becuase they didnt believe gay people should be married.

One strongly religeous man that works here got notably angry when i said that the ammendment should not be allowed. So much so his face was red and his hands shook. Further in the discussion it became obvious he had come to the conclusion that all homosexual activity was wrong and an affront to God.

My opinion that it wasnt the States' business who people choose for partners fell on deaf ears. This man would have voted to ban Homesexuals also.

Although many try not to bring religeon into the reasons they oppose same sex marriage, many in America are ignorant enough of our government to not see that the State should not be a tool to enforce a specific morality.

The same sex ammendment passed by an overwhelmiong majority ..

Now according to the wording its in the state's consititution, a same sex couple can not only never be married, but cant have anything similair either. In fact many companies that offered healthcare and other benifits to life partners of homosexual employees are now removing these benifits.

So in reality .. The state .. by majority rule .. is renforcing .. A) that it can tell its citizens who they "should" spend their lives with and B) it is acceptable to take away privledges away from people just becuase they are homosexual.

Well said, Colette. As you may know, I'm deep in the heart of Texas, and expect much the same when we finally get around to addressing this issue at a state constitutional level.

As a side note, below is a list of states that have recently passed constitutional amendments in opposition to gay marriage, as well as the margins by which they were approved:

Arkansas 75%
Georgia 77%
Kentucky 75%
Louisiana 78%
Michigan 59%
Mississippi 86%
Missouri 71%
Montana 66%
North Dakota 73%
Ohio 62%
Oklahoma 76%
Oregon 58%
Utah 66%

I found it interesting that the margin in Utah was lower than that for many other states. Clearly, the south leads the way in terms of opposing gay marriage.

Also, here is a link to a database maintained by the Heritage Foundation (conservative group advocating the defense of marriage act). This link shows Texas' current legal status as it relates to gay marriage. Frankly, not a great place to be if you hope to web your same-sex partner:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/texas.cfm?StateID=43