Subscribe: Comments on Surgeonsblog: Love and Marriage
http://surgeonsblog.blogspot.com/feeds/4183947479134196388/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
california  concept  conservatives  doesn  don  gay  homosexuality  man  marriage  people  scalpel  sex marriage  sid  society  state 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on Surgeonsblog: Love and Marriage

Comments on Surgeonsblog: Love and Marriage





Updated: 2017-12-05T13:14:17.586-08:00

 



Scalpel:"Biracial 'marriage' doesn't have to be a ...

2008-07-02T23:14:00.000-07:00

Scalpel:

"Biracial 'marriage' doesn't have to be a 'danger to society' for the concept to be rejected by me or the other 70% of Americans who disagree with you. I'm actually more liberal than most, since I accept the concept of shacking up with most of the same benefits of marriage, but I wouldn't give them any tax breaks."

There, fixed that for you. Do you now get even the beginnings of an idea about why you're wrong?

And btw, I have no revulsion toward conservative people but admittedly some dislike of some of their activities.

Leigh



I have no revulsion toward gay people but admitted...

2008-06-20T11:18:00.000-07:00

I have no revulsion toward gay people but admittedly some dislike of some of their activities. That's also how I feel about liberals in general, pretty much.

Same-sex "marriage" doesn't have to be a "danger to society" for the concept to be rejected by me or the other 70% of Americans who disagree with you. I'm actually more liberal than most, since I accept the concept of civil unions with most of the same benefits of marriage, but I wouldn't give them any tax breaks. Heck, why not tax them even more for the opportunity. Liberals love taxes, right?



"there is obviously no evolutionary benefit from h...

2008-06-20T08:53:00.000-07:00

"there is obviously no evolutionary benefit from homosexuality."

Actually, that's not necessarily true. I'm quite sure you've read Dawkins' "The God Delusion," right? In it he discusses the "side-effects" (not his term) of certain mutations as being of benefit. I won't re-hash it because I'm certain you have it underlined and highlighted in your copy.

Also, as you know, biological explanations for homosexuality are not limited to "genetic."

But the bottom line is this: neither you nor anyone else has come up with something other than a declarative statement why same-sex marriage is a danger to society. You just don't like the idea, and, by clear inference, you are made quite uncomfortable by the idea of homosexuality. Fine. Entitled, are you. But if you are willing to accept even the remote possibility that most gays have no choice in their own sexual orientation (or even if you aren't), you still ought to be able to come up with something other than your own revulsion as a reason why it's harmful, even if you hate it.



All jokes have at least a kernel of truth behind t...

2008-06-20T08:35:00.000-07:00

All jokes have at least a kernel of truth behind them.

If homosexuality is exclusively genetic (which is doubtful) then it must be a dysfunctional mutation like Down's, because there is obviously no evolutionary benefit from homosexuality. If one believes in evolution, that is.

Being a sharp dresser and a fan of show tunes doesn't help one pass on one's DNA to future generations.



scalpel: I hope you were chuckling when you wrote ...

2008-06-20T08:20:00.000-07:00

scalpel: I hope you were chuckling when you wrote that. Otherwise, well,...... yikes.



Down's syndrome is nature too, but grocery stores ...

2008-06-20T07:17:00.000-07:00

Down's syndrome is nature too, but grocery stores don't have to give affected individuals the store manager job.



Oh and Scalpel's ADA argument combined with the su...

2008-06-20T02:00:00.000-07:00

Oh and Scalpel's ADA argument combined with the summation that it's not discrimination, it's nature?

Homosexuality *IS* nature. You'd think it would have been selected against to extinction serving no purpose to the gene pool, yet it remains in almost every sexually reproducing species, albeit in the minority.

So in the minority, what harm is there? Think of it as giving the retarded kid a job at Wal-Mart if you must. He's happy, feels productive, and while yes, you can argue that the skills of the Ivy League cashiers are being devalued, as a collective it's OK...the workforce will remain in equilibrium in the face of a few pro bono handouts. Just trying to speak in terms of your analogies, that's all.



Scalpel: you do recall the neoconservative demigod...

2008-06-20T01:50:00.000-07:00

Scalpel: you do recall the neoconservative demigod Dick Cheney has an abomination of a lesbian daughter, correct? If she were to wish to be married to her partner of many years, do you think the Dark Lord would disapprove?

Oh my.

Is this a heady logical argument to make? Of course not, it's silly, much like trying to remain in a "Father Knows Best" ideal fantasy world of a mom, dad, and 2.5 kid household being what's best. Procreation will occur because man as a species will do what it needs to do to survive, with or without the Family Research Council or Planned Parenthood.

Government sanctioning of homosexual marriage costs less by making all marriages equal and transparent rather than making one kind of marriage one way legally and civil unions abide by a different set of laws, etc.

Conservatives just don't want to have to deal with uncomfortable questions like, "Why does Timmy have two daddies?" or "How do two mommies make a baby?"

In almost every state, after a heterosexual couple cohabitates for a period of time (and meets certain requirements), they are considered "commonlaw married" even though they've never been officially married by clergy or justice. Yet conservatives would argue that homosexuals who are willing to appear before both to do the same are still in an inferior position legally than those who haven't even bothered. Give me a break.



Well, given that the divorce rate for "straight" p...

2008-06-19T00:32:00.000-07:00

Well, given that the divorce rate for "straight" people is at least 50%, gay marriages can hardly do worse.



Yes. And I guess I was a little sloppy in my state...

2008-06-17T11:17:00.000-07:00

Yes. And I guess I was a little sloppy in my statement that it's about genetics. So I amended it to "genetics or other biologic factors."



I remember reading about the study Camilla mention...

2008-06-17T11:08:00.000-07:00

I remember reading about the study Camilla mentions, but I didn't save the reference or the article. For the record, I'm the third of 3 sons.



Doctor Schwab,Please accept my sincere gratitude n...

2008-06-17T07:07:00.000-07:00

Doctor Schwab,

Please accept my sincere gratitude not only for your wonderful post, but also for the well wishes. I'm honored to be recognized by such a dignitary. I hope someday to visit the left coast and make your acquaintance in person. I'll buy the first round.

GDad



Wasn't there recent research hinting at a large ge...

2008-06-17T04:58:00.000-07:00

Wasn't there recent research hinting at a large gestational, rather than genetic factor in male homosexuality? Essentially, that if a women bears multiple sons, the younger are more likely to be gay, regardless of whether they are raised in the same family.

The details don't really matter as far as the politics go, of course (and thank you for such a civilized take on it), I was just surprised to see multiple people chime in with the "got to be genetic" line.



well written, sid. i share your views on brussel ...

2008-06-16T12:03:00.000-07:00

well written, sid. i share your views on brussel sprouts, by the way. don't worry, eventually the usa will come around and sanction gay marriages. i believe it is inevitable. contrary to what the conservatives always say, it won't wreck your society. we canadians have been doing just fine, thank you.



To Gay CME Guy: Sure! I only gave birth to two s...

2008-06-16T11:38:00.000-07:00

To Gay CME Guy: Sure! I only gave birth to two sons, but I have five who call me Mom (foster sons, past and present). Being a parent is more about love, constancy and acceptance, rather than just gestation and lactation. I tease my sons all the time about my disappointment in their heterosexuality (-: Seriously and sadly, though, their lives will be much easier because they are straight.



Sid:I'm no longer a 'religious' man, but I have to...

2008-06-16T10:59:00.000-07:00

Sid:

I'm no longer a 'religious' man, but I have to say, "AMEN", and thanks, from one of the 'MOs who hopes to see the laws righted in this nation in my lifetime.
I have the argument all too often that civil rights are NOT special rights. I won't drone on, as most everything I'd say had already been said, other than, Scalpel, it's people like you who scare me.
Devorrah, Would you like to 'adopt' this gay son? ;)

Thanks for the post Sid. As a friend's father (who was a minister) once said to us about gay rights and the church, "It's not going to move forward very far until the heterosexuals take up and lead the battle." While it angered and disheartened me at the time (~20 years ago) I came to see the truth in his statement. It takes a village to raise a child, and it takes a village to change homophobic laws and institutions.



scalpel: I think you're right about California. It...

2008-06-16T09:36:00.000-07:00

scalpel: I think you're right about California. It doesn't change my point, which is that the reasons are religious and personal discomfort. I think I'm right about that. I don't expect to be able to influence you, or California, and certainly not jb who prefers silly straw-man arguments. The good news is that polls indicate (yes, I think polls are bullshit quite often, especially when I disagree with them) indicate the younger generation cares much less about what gays do than the older, and gay rights will inevitably happen. So I recognize my views are not widely enough held to take hold for now; it doesn't make my argument wrong. It IS about religion and discomfort; and there is NO argument that demonstrates a "danger" to the institution of marriage if gays are allowed in.

jb: see above.

silverstar: I think your point about separation is an interesting one. Marriage, ceremonially, seems largely religious based; full legal partnership is not. Which is sort of like my saying that if a church doesn't want to marry gays, they need not and ought not. But there's no state interest in denying fully equal legal partnership that we understand as coming with marriage.



I agree with George. "Marriage, A History" by Ste...

2008-06-16T09:35:00.000-07:00

I agree with George. "Marriage, A History" by Stephanie Coontz, a notable feminist historian, documents the evolution of marriage. The "traditional marriage" touted by conservatives was a blip in history during the 1950s.

Also, Gayle Rubin's "The Traffic in Sex" does a great job in explaining the social function of marriage and kinship ties in relation to sex/gender systems.



"When I was growing up in the 50s, nothing had cha...

2008-06-16T08:58:00.000-07:00

"When I was growing up in the 50s, nothing had changed about the concept of marriage over those millenia- woman+man united until death parts them."

It is safe to say that this person does not know diddly squat about the history of marriage in western culture. It is also safe to say that he knows even less about marriage in other cultures. If he did, he would not suggest that the insitution of marriage was essentially static across cultures and across thousands of years.

Like so many, he's incompetent, and unware of it.



Bravo, Sid!!!(And every day I think about how prou...

2008-06-16T08:57:00.000-07:00

Bravo, Sid!!!
(And every day I think about how proud I am to live in Massachusetts!)



I am so confused."Marriage evolved" . . . ?Huh?If ...

2008-06-16T08:10:00.000-07:00

I am so confused.

"Marriage evolved" . . . ?

Huh?

If marriage "evolved," then how on earth could a judicial opinion affect its existence or the nature of what it is? That is like saying that a judicial opinion, by itself, could threaten the integrity of our pancreases.

Marriage didn't evolve. It isn't a feature of our bodies and behavior that improves fitness. We have evolved many such features -- e.g, one of them is called called vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman. But that's not marriage.

"Marriage" in a strict sense is a formal union. "Formal" means recognized by the by the State. Who the state recognizes in their union is a separate question from evolution, God's will, procreation, etc.

You bring up California. The California Supreme Court was asked whether the words of the California State Constitution precluded same sex marriage, as had been assumed all along. After careful scrutiny, that Court concluded that currently, as drafted, the language of that constitution is not sufficiently specific to limit the formal, state sanctioned, legal category of "marriage" to between only men and women.

That has nothing to do with evolution or procreation or what God intended, and as proof I point out that the opinion (the majority opinion) was written by one of the most conservative justices on the Court. It is merely a matter of analysis and interpretation. Posters above do point out correctly that the issue will be on the ballot in California. But the ballot question will not be "Californians, were the justices wrong?" The ballot question will ask to revise the language of the state constitution such that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. And whether Californians decide to rewrite that part of the constitution (which is actually not a forgone conclusion -- as issues become more heated, voter turnout makes the state vote farther and farther to the left) will come down, ultimately, to the question "are gays mostly like the rest of us, or mostly different?"

The answer to that question seems pretty simple to me. There are differences between us. But they are not the kinds of differences the government should be busying itself over.



Marriage tied to procreation is a creation of the ...

2008-06-16T06:10:00.000-07:00

Marriage tied to procreation is a creation of the patriarchy. Until men figured out that they had something to do with the production of a child, and wanted to make sure it was theirs, I doubt marriage existed. I doubt it would exist as the conservatives dream of it if women could support children on their own, and I believe that is one reason that society continues to underpay women.
Having said that, I think marriage should be separated from partnership. If the state wants to grant all the rights of marriage to domestic partners of whatever shape or form, it should do so. If the churches don't want to marry any couple except a man and a woman, that is their perogative. Many people, especially the elderly in this state and others, opt for domestic partnerships because marriage would screw up their finances. I just think the gubmint should get out of the marriage business, and just grant domestic partnerships.
My brother has been with his partner for 32 years now. The state he lives in has a constitutional amendment that states marriage is between a man and a woman. My marriage, the longest in my family, lasted 21 years. And I never did "procreate" in that time. Maybe they should just quit giving married people special privileges, like filing joint returns.



A group of nuns could get together and decide that...

2008-06-16T03:48:00.000-07:00

A group of nuns could get together and decide that I am their Mother Superior. They could really believe that and fervently support me in that position, but outside that small group, few would view me, a Jewish man, as a Mother Superior.
Words matter. That's why I made the point above about "gay rights," vs. "same sex marriage."
I don't know exactly when marriage evolved, but it dates back several thousand years, at least to biblical times. When I was growing up in the 50s, nothing had changed about the concept of marriage over those millenia- woman+man united until death parts them. Divorce was rare in most strata of society, same sex marriage laughable. Fast forward to today, a mere half century later. Divorce is the rule, not the exception. A noisy minority insists that the gender of the participants is irrelevant. As Scalpel points out, even in "progressive" California, it doesn't sit well with the majority. No matter. The judges will redefine what society thinks it needs to survive.
Where do I apply for that Mother Superior position? There must be a court somewhere that will decree that the Catholic church is a place of public accommodation, and that discriminating on the basis of religion is unlawful, as is discriminating on the basis of gender. I'm a two-fer.
Now you're being ridiculous, you will say.
Pot, meet kettle. Slope, meet slippery.
Standing athwart history...



I don't care what they do in their own homes. They...

2008-06-15T22:25:00.000-07:00

I don't care what they do in their own homes. They can be best buddies, they can cohabitate, they can share financial arrangements, they can even approximate intercourse in various fashions (or not).

But it's still not marriage. People who want it to be so are in the distinct minority. Heck, even California will probably vote it down (again). The concept of gay marriage has been soundly defeated in every state that put it on the ballot. It's not discrimination, it's nature.



And, of course, there are LOTS of things going on ...

2008-06-15T22:18:00.000-07:00

And, of course, there are LOTS of things going on now about which conservatives, of all people, ought to be enraged. Presidents claiming the ability to imprison anyone by declaring them an enemy, with no need to make the case. Deficits. Were these things being seen under the aegis of a Democrat, conservatives would, as night follows day, be up in arms, impeachment papers a-wavin.' Which is why "change" is needed in our body politic. But I digress.