Thread: Uganda to apply death penalty towards homosexuality

JAD_333:

Sorry. Here comes some disagreement.

In a way, the reasons why homosexuality has been resisted through the ages is more important than newly-minted, modern attitudes. Afterall modern attitudes are just a reaction to old proscriptions.

Sounds OK to me. There's a bundle of old proscriptions that are 'way overdue for some serious re-evaluation. Hell, some of them aren't all that old. They just pretend that they are. Since Old = "natural" (or, if I get your point, possessed of enhanced social Darwinist legitimacy) then that elderliness in itself gives us the right to poke our noses into their business if enough of us have thought their behavior naughty for long enough. Puritanism seems to be a powerful & near universal motivation. Sort of a carrot in & of itself. It's a large part of what we're attempting to deal with in, oh, say, Afganistan. It's also why the bad guys there, & similar bad guys elsewhere, are a threat to our existence.

It's fair to ask why so many ancient civilizations had it in for poor buggers who were dealt a few genes from the opposite sex or for otherwise normal people who just like coming at things from the wrong end?

I suppose practical logic had something to do with a bit of it. For example, man plus man or woman plus woman does not equal babies.--Halt-stop-do not pass Go---Then perhaps the latter submerged into religious logic, for example, what appears unnatural must be anathema to the gods and therefore must be forbidden by them.

Personally, I believe there's room in the world for homosexuals and that they deserve neither ostracism nor punishment, and they can fight in wars or run banks, etc. I can speak with and socialize with them without the slightest qualm. I also accept them as serious people.

But it rings hollow when they try to rearrange my thinking and get me to accept their politically correct agenda, especially the idea that homosexuals and heterosexuals are co-equals in the fabric of society...Of course, that's utter nonsense. Hetero unions contribute to society what homosexuals unions cannot.

That explains the widespread movement among social conservatives to dissolve the marriages of childless heterosexual couples.

I haven't been able to dig up much on what ancient wisdom saw either good or bad in homosexuality. For now I am relying on social theory. For example, the flaw in this idea of co-equality is that it is rooted in the principle of legal equality, not in the social compact which gave rise to it and on which it depends for its viability. Under the social compact system, people agree to found a limited government for their defense and welfare, not to empower it to alter their social norms.

Social norms have always been, are constantly & will always be in flux. Also, unfortunately, the governments people agree to found aren't often all that limited. Chunks of the people keep agreeing to poke their noses where they don't belong.

Instituting gay marriage would alter a heretofore powerful social norm, not in any way discriminatory, that marriage is between a man and a woman. What is the social value of accommodating same-sex couples within this norm? Does it make our society stronger? Or would it make it weaker?

I'm not exactly tight with political correctness. The breeze that wafts me from the hand-wringing that occurs when I say something like "NPR's Ira Glass is as queer as a football bat." is cool & soothing. On the other hand, the current restrictions on marriage are most certainly discriminatory. If marriage were merely a religious sacrament, it would't matter much. There are plenty of religious nuts floating around with a huge assortment of enthusiasms & prejudices, so if you want to marry an HIV+ chimp you could probably find some sort of medicine man somewhere to perform the ceremony no matter what societal norms might have to say about it. Whatever floats your boat.

But marriage, no matter what its pretense, isn't primarily a religious act. A religious ceremony isn't in any sense necessary here in the US, although the civil requirements most certainly are. Even common law marriage is at some point a legal arrangement. A heterosexual relationship is generally mandatory. The status of being "legally" married has a tremendous effect on rights involving inheritance, property ownership, adoption, tax status, insurance, etc., etc.

Well, this much is certain: If we count ourselves as a strong society, it cannot be despite this norm; it must be due in part to it. So, I think homosexuals and heterosexuals who support gay marriage should keep that in mind until we can figure out what's best for society.

I doubt if our society would be anything near as strong as it is if our "norms" were as inflexible as that, but that's just me. Society will figure out what it wants to do in the long run without any great influence directly from me apart from my normal participation in the processes that define it. However, in my opinion all of us would do well to keep our noses where they belong.

Prof

Well, this much is certain: If we count ourselves as a strong society, it cannot be despite this norm; it must be due in part to it. So, I think homosexuals and heterosexuals who support gay marriage should keep that in mind until we can figure out what's best for society.

Sorry but this is a horrible line of thought. People are not given rights because it strengthed a society, they are given rights because people deserve them no matter what. Society won't get anyting if I go down the street and buy a pizza (it might even hurt it due it being unhealthy) but it is still my damn right to do so.

oih and btw..I am not fertile due side effects of my medicine. To your logic I have no right to marry anyone since I can get no children which you seem to believe is the only contribution my potentional marriage would have to offer society.

Tarek,first of all I'm sorry to hear about your medical condition.I hope the modern science will find a cure,or at the very least offer you and the woman you'll love the joy of having kids by artificial means.

Regarding the homo's,people here often say that they must be given marriage rights for insurances,inheritances etc... If the sacred institution of marriage,that existed for the entire recorded history of mankind(and probably long before that) with the sole purpose of having kids and raising them in a proper way has fallen so much in disgrace,I think I'm going to join the Talibans.
It is their right to make a mockery of the efforts of their parents,grandparents and all of their line that worked,suffered and fought for such egoistic bastards to see the light of sun.It is even their right not to do their duty to the future of the society.They can ''beep'' each other in the ''beep'' all day long for all I care.But I cannot accept that their unions to be named marriage just to give them satisfaction,because such unions are anything but marriages.And I cannot accept their ostentatious public behaviour.It insults my feelings.

p.s Great post JAD.