I will hurry through one last response here and then I really am off...
"Marriage is not a right, and the state clearly has the ability to regulate it"
I have not suggested they do not have the ability to regulate it. The question was one of fairness and equality.
"You assume that homosexuals have the right to marry, and then say that means------ they have the right to marry! Miraculous, but fallacious."
Let me correct you, please. What I asume is that homosexuals have the right to be treated by the State to the same rights (and privilges, if you will) as straight people. I told you why I believed that.
Message 19188145
"Furthermore, you seem to forget that claims of rights and freedoms are moral issues"
I don't know why you think that, but you are incorrect.
"If society cannot speak to moral issues, it cannot recognize rights and freedoms and uphold them."
I agree with that as well and have said so. You may recall (or you can re-read my last post to you if you wish to avoid misrepresenting my views) that I found nothing in your argument to cause me a concern that societies ability to speak on moral issues would in any way be compromised by acknowledging the personhood of gays in as full a manner as they do the personhood of straights.
"I have demonstrated not merely that heterosexuality is the statistical norm, but that it must be the rule, while homosexuality must be the exception"
You have not shown any connection between the statistical population base difference and the propriety of discriminating against them. People with 5 toes are the statistical norm, too, but those exceptions with 6 toes may still shop at safeway, and are allowed to marry the person they love.
If you have a connection to make that exceptions or statistically smaller population groups may be fairly discriminated against as people as compared to larger population groups of people then please make it. Some population groups have died out, as you know, and some are almost extinct. They are certainly not the statistical norm but what does that have to do with a rationale for treating them differently?
"That does not necessarily mean that homosexuality is bad, but it does mean that heterosexuality is preferable, supposing we had to make a choice about which should be prevalent. That means that it is better."
We don't have to make a choice about which should be prevalent. How would you do that? Infanticide? The population base of homosexuals will be whatever Mother Nature determines it to be. We do not make choices about which will be more prevalent. So calling heterosexuality "better" is sheer sophistry. Homosexuality is "better" for homosexuals Heterosexuality is "better" for heterosexuals' And for Mother Nature they are both "better". As for society which represents all people regardless of their population base--people are value neutral as regards statistical size. A Choctaw is just as valuable and is no "worse" than an Englishman merely because he has a smaller population base.
If a sinking ship was carrying 20 homosexuals and 40 heterosexuals and there were lifeboats for only 40 people, do you suggest that anybody on that boat would claim that some of those people were "better" than the others on the basis of having a "better" sexual orientation? I hardly think so. Sexual orientation is not a moral issue nor is it an issue of superior or inferior breeders. Homosexuals can breed just as well as the next guy and have been breeding since the human race had long tails.
"we have to consider the alternatives to know which, if we had power over it, should be the rule rather than the exception."
You seem stuck in this specious line of thought. The "rule" does not equate to "better" and the "exception" does not equate to "worse". Wayne Gretsky is NOT the rule, nor is he a statistical norm.
"It is that it makes the two things appear to be equal, or makes orientation seem a matter of indifference."
And how is orientation being a matter of indifference an argument for discrimination against gays. Orientation IS a matter of indifference, at least insofar as civilized humans do not make negative moral judgments about a human being due to the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, or any other genetic traits.
"to clarify, the issue is treating a rational bias in favor of heterosexuality as an unreasoning prejudice"
Let me correct you: A rational bias in favour of heterosexuality is not an unreasoning prejudice. The unreasoning prejudice is having an IRRATIONAL bias AGAINST homosexuality. You can love your son; but don't hate and discriminate against my daughter.
"If we treat this as an unreasoning prejudice, it erodes respect for social teaching with respect of undesirable forms of sexual expression, for example, promiscuity or coition among pubescents
You have not demonstrated this. When we treated racial contempt and racial inequality as unreasoning prejudice it did not erode respect for social teaching. Acknowledging that homosexuality (and by extension, homosexuals) are not "bad" by virtue of their genetic attraction to same sex love would not interfere with our ability to moralize. There is no reason at all why it should.
"I do not, in any case, believe in the essential equality of people. I am not even sure it is a meaningful phrase."
But surely you believe in equal treatment under the law? For instance, the judge does not tack additional time onto the sentence of a homosexual on the basis that he considers him to be inferior to a heterosexual in his sexuality. Firstly, inferior or superior sexuality is nonsensical, as is "better" or "worse" sexuality. It is just about as nonsensical as one can get. Secondly, even were the homosexual "worse" sexually it does not change his legal status as a person nor his entitlement to equal and undiscriminatory treatment.
"If the symbolic aspect were not important, why not stop at civil union? It is much more than half a loaf"
Nobody said it was not important. It is. But not because anyone is attempting to erode the value of heterosexual love for heterosexuals...but because civilized people are attempting to affirm the value of homosexual love for homosexuals. Frankly, I do not see how any decent human being could object to this.
"There is no Constitutional right to marry that I have seen."
That is irrelevant as to whether or not the Constitutional rights apply equally to all people. The issue here is not whether or not marriage CAN be regulated, but as to whether or not gays should be discriminated against in marriage laws.
"I only see something wrong with denying any reason to make a value distinction about the orientation"
Nobody is being prevented from making a value distinction. People will maintain their personal prejudices and their "value distinctions". But gays would like to make THEIR value distinctions just as you get to make YOURS. They would like to have some social sense of belonging and the freedom to proclaim their love before God and man and to covenant to their God in Holy Matrimony.
"Then I became a father, and realized that I did care if my son grew up to be gay or straight, and that I hoped he would be straight"
Well, that is natural. Do you think by allowing gays to marry instead of living in sin (as some of them may believe) that children will suddenly change their genes and develop a sexual attraction for their own gender? Because if I believed that being fair and decent to other human beings would modify the genetic structure of children then I would be experiencing some cognitive dissonance over the issue, for certain.
"The preference for straightness is a value judgment which is rational, even if controversial"
So is the preference for gayness. It is rational to love and accept yourself for who you are, and it is very rational to prefer same-sex love if that is what you prefer.
"If we cannot even make the marriage distinction, if we are treated like bigots for harboring this reservation, it further erodes the ability to inculcate values, by putting those who want to make distinctions on the defensive even more than they are."
Allowing same sex marriage does not interfere with your ability to make a value judgment that you personally prefer straightness; so that is a dead issue. All it does is prevent you from unfair discrimination against a sexual orientation which is no different than a racial distinction. It is in the genes.
Treating people with decency does not prevent you from making value judgments regarding sexual mores where moral choices need to be made. Sexual orientation is not a moral choice. And acknowledging the humanity of homosexuals does not contaminate your "preference" for heterosexuality. Unless you are a homosexual this will be your preference.
"After all, there is no compelling reason to disallow bigamy, but it appears to be a reasonable policy, and that suffices. Similarly, it is reasonable to reserve marriage to heterosexuals."
Whether or not it is reasonable to disallow bigamy has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is reasonable to discriminate against homosexuals stating their covenants before man and God. In fact, it is unreasonable, and in 20 years the adults will look back and wonder that their parents couild have been so ruthlessly bigoted against a genetic disposition toward same-sex love; and how we could have destroyed the happiness in so many lives by our ignorance, and our endless talk of moral superiority and inferiority. Hopefully, they will forgive us and see that we were just trying to do God's work... |
