Here I am at last. Sorry for not answering earlier, I've been busy at school - and I'll probably be this weekend too, since I have exams next week.
Anyway, let me just say I'm quite glad of how this discussion is actually staying an intelligent debate rather than the flame war that can happen when dealing with this kind of topics on the Internet.
Bad Player wrote:
Bad Player wrote:Moreoever, scientists have found homosexual behavior in I think... over 50 different species. Have those species died out from lack of procreation?
More like bisexual behaviour, actually. See the explanation I gave above - bisexuality is obviously not as much a problem as far as procreation is concerned. And these animals don't have to face the "trendy" and "cool, let's try it" problem I mentioned - as it stays random, the numbers stay low for most species.
But part of the reason it's "trendy" and "cool" is b/c it's opposed by 'the man'. If it was authorized and accepted, it would no longer be "hip". (Or at least that would deal with part of it.)
Actually that's the same argument some people use when talking about the legalisation of drugs. "Young people drug themselves because of the thrill of doing something forbidden, or because they want to feel like rebels". Still, I don't think it legalising free access to it would solve the problem, and it's too dangerous material to just try that randomly.
And, just like in the case of gay marriage, there have been people complaining that preventing access to drugs was depriving a category of people of what they needed to be happy, etc. Yet, most people still agree that it shouldn't be freely distributed.
Likewise, I believe the legalisation of gay marriage to present a danger. Granted, a much more indirect and long-term one and, as Ping' said, one that we would probably have time to see coming if we were to give it a try. Still, a risk nonetheless.
Also, Ping' :
Ping' wrote:But the fact that the consequences only occur in the long term makes such precaution unnecessary. Why not try legalizing homosexual marriage? If, as you claim, it has a strong impact on procreation that ends up threatening our very existence, we should be able to see it coming before it's too late, and reverse the policy anyway.
I'm not so sure about that : policies are a hard thing to change when voted. Take the 35-hours working week in France, for example. It has proved to be disastrous economically, and most people recognise it was a mistake. Yet, even Sarkozy, who is far from supporting it, only added some ways around it, but didn't cancel the law...
Bad Player wrote:If your real beef is with the state using the word "marriage" at all, this isn't really about same-sex marriage.
This point is indeed not really about same-sex marriage, but the whole evolution of "marriage" since the word has been taken on by states. Think of it as "bonus", aside from my other arguments, though - it's far from being my "real beef".
Bad Player wrote:That would certainly be convincing... if not for the fact that
the Netherland's fertility rate has been 1.7 for the past 35 years. I'm not going to go through all these countries, but looking at that I think it's pretty clear same-sex marriage has not influenced it, or at least does not account for the large difference between the fertility rates of the countries with same-sex marriage and France+Ireland. (There's also the fact that there are plenty of countries without same-sex marriage that have comparable or lower fertility rates to countries that do have it.)
Bad, thank you
Actually, I knew these numbers when I wrote this passage - I had a WHO report under my eyes
. I quoted "selected" numbers anyway
because they fit well in my argument wondering if anyone would go so far as check them. Thanks for proving to me that one can't assert inexact things everywhere !
And thanks for making me discover Google Public Data, too, I didn't know about it ^^
Anyway, I have nothing more to answer on this point : of course, you're right, these numbers don't support my argument. I did mention, however, that I didn't place much trust in how these numbers would represent a real long term evolution
Ping' wrote:The same applies to abortion and other policies that might theoretically change our demographics.
Except that abortion is ethically a very different thing.
In the case of gay marriage, though I am against it for several reasons, most of those are a matter of personal belief about love and such. I think it's bad, but I can't blame people that say it's good. The only "universal" argument (that is, one that anyone can understand, independently of their faith and beliefs) I can present is the one about the survival of the species, and as you say it's a very long term one, that could be tested.
As far as abortion is concerned, however, it's a different thing. I do think it's "objectively" bad. As I said earlier, it consists of destroying a living being which genetic material matches that of the human species. And unless you can provide me with a flawless definition of a human being other than "living being which genetic material matches that of the human species", I'll shorten this as destroying a human being. In real short, murder. And murder is quite universally recognised as being bad.
So, legalising gay marriage temporarily to observe the evolution : bad in my opinion, but tolerable. Legalising murder in any form, for whichever reason : intolerable.
Ping' wrote:it is not fair to deprive them of a way of realizing their goals and reaching happiness that is available to all heterosexuals
What keeps amazing me as I read this discussion is that people in support of gay marriage keep alternating between two positions :
- Marriage is just a piece of paper : how does it matter anyway ?
- Marriage is essential for happiness
Though you, Ping', seem to have a point of view closer to mine; that is, saying that marriage is more than just a piece of paper, and yet only one of several ways of reaching happiness.
Where we differ, though, is that depriving someone of one way to happiness among many others is not that much of a big deal considering the number of possibilities. Life deprives us of many of those ways naturally, yet not everyone is depressed in this world.
E.D.Revolution wrote:I thought this was about social politics, not a pure discussion on LGBT rights :/
It is - Truf's post about gay marriage just happened to be the first that made me react.
Any other subject is welcome, though.
Ping' wrote:Whenever the cause of a situation is pure chance, inequality isn't morally justifiable.
According to your morals
I'm digressing again from the topic of gay marriage, but I remember mentioning in another politics thread (I don't remember if it was the one here or the one in the French section, but you were there, Ping') that I have several ideals that top equality.
At the top of my values is the happiness of each. Note the difference between "each" and "everyone as a whole". In my opinion, people are different, and do not require the same things to be happy - therefore, I only see equality as a "failsafe" : if all else fails, equality isn't bad, but to me there are reasons that may justify breaking it.
Singidava wrote:Could you stop loving the person dearest to you if you wanted to?
Actually, yes, to some extent and under some conditions. It did happen to me.
Sorry for the soap romance here - I don't go telling my life everywhere usually - but since you want an example... Long story short, I fell in love with a girl, that got another boyfriend before I actually confessed to her. I still loved her - she hadn't even done anything mean to me, since she didn't know about my real feelings - but that love was hurting me. It took me a while, but I eventually consciously decided to extract that love from my mind and heart and - ta da - here I am. I remember those feelings, but they no longer direct my thoughts, and I can talk with this girl normally, without my heart beating faster as it used to do then...
So yes, if you really want it, and have a good reason to do so, love can be "canceled".
The question is whether you have a good reason or not... And only yourself can judge of that at this point. But I agree that social conventions are not good reasons to me; good reasons are the ones that involve avoiding to hurt people's - mine and/or someone else's - feelings.