Why is homosexuality "indecent", part II

[ambitious_wench]

For those that have been debating (very nicely, too, BTW!) on why homosexuality is indecent, I'd like to point out something important: All the reasons given were based on religious beliefs.

"God says..."
"God commanded..."
"The Bible says..."

Now, Let's move away from that argument. Here in America, we have a constitution that states:
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This line has wide-reaching effects. The first part says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. I believe that can be logically extrapolated to say that Congress shall make no laws that impose the religious belief of one group over another. Those that believe that homosexuality is immoral based on religious reasoning do not have the right to impose their belief on me and all others who don't follow their religion.

The second part says "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
I believe that it gives me the right to marry another consenting adult of the same gender as myself. After all, the Goddess wants me to have her blessings on my marriage to another woman.

Religious reasons for denying me the right to marry is in direct violation of the constitution of the United States. This is why civil rights is not an issue for popular vote. If it were, the states would still have the whole "equal but separate" thing going on for the African Americans. In certain states, miscegenation laws would still be in place and enforced.

Now, can anybody give me non-religious reasons why homosexuality is indecent?
Or failing that, can anybody rebut my use of the constitution?

Anybody?

Comments

[panacea1.livejournal.com]

Now, can anybody give me non-religious reasons why homosexuality is indecent?
Or failing that, can anybody rebut my use of the constitution?

The problem is, as far as I can see, that the decency (or lack thereof) of homosexuality is nearly always decided by the individual or society on religious grounds. Sexual customs and the determination of what is or isn't permissible is invariably colored by the socio-religious standards of the group making that determination.

You and I practice a religion where the closest thing we have to liturgical text states "All acts of love and pleasure are My rituals" and, not surprisingly, our religious community is widely tolerant of an array of sexual preferences and practices which I would find astonishing, were it not for the marvel that is the internet. ;-)

A religious community which draws its authority from a (more or less) standard scripture, and whose scripture is widely interpreted to forbid homosexual relations, is going to see it differently. And the authoritarian faction of that religious community is not going to be satisfied with forbidding homosexual relations within itself, but will (and does!) seek to eliminate (or at least marginalize) homosexuality in the larger society.

There are arguments against homosexual marriage on economic rather than moral grounds, but you haven't asked for those. (Nor can I argue them particularly well, being as how I disagree and all that.)

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

I'm begining to think I need a wider group of participants, here. Maybe even some *gasp* conservative Xian types to debate this with.

Anybody out there who can debate the economic reasons to exclude homosexual marriage in our society?

I think one of the things that is going to go up the conservatives' collective arseholes is that as it stands right now under US jurisprudence, the Constitution trumps the Bible. That's gonna go over like a stripper doing the hootchy-coo at a revival meeting.

[shanmonster.livejournal.com]

I think I remember reading somewhere that since gay men generally seem to land higher-paying jobs than straight ones, and since they also tend not to have femilies, they hoard their money rather than spending it and helping the economy.

But I may be completely off base....

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

my first response to this was to laugh.

Then I took a moment to think about it.

Gay men--what about lesbians? I don't make that much money--especially now since I'm underemployed.
hoarde their money--Um, I thought that saving money was a *good* thing.
Besides, Gay men are known for spending money. Vacations, tipping, retail shopping.
How can someone make such a blanket statement about a small segment of the population (1%, if you listen to them, 10%) if you listen to us have such an impact on a huge economy?

I'm gonna have to say that this is probably not a full accounting of the position you read. Not to worry, dear, I suffer from CRS, too.

Edie

[shanmonster.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it does seem like a spectacularly-stupid reason, doesn't it?

[panacea1.livejournal.com]

The main one I was thinking of was the "But it's Bad For Business!" line of reasoning, which goes something like:

"If we let gay people marry, then we'll have to give them the same spousal benefits as heterosexual married people, which means we'll have to pay more for benefits, cause, y'know, they might have AIDS or something and that's expensive, and we don't want to shell out a dime more for employee benefits than we have to..."

(Which is a bad argument in my opinion because, among other reasons, it assumes the necessity of the current system of funding access to health care and disability insurance, which I happen to think is astonishingly fucked up to begin with. But I digress.)

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Most workers in America *don't* get free health benefits. And it's about time they paid for them in the first place, because it's good business to do so. See, if you pay for worker's health benifits, you increase employee loyalty, increase productivity, lower the turn-over rate, decrease sick pay, and increase employee morale.

[panacea1.livejournal.com]

Most workers in America either don't have access to an employer-subsidized health plan at all, or can't afford to pay their share of the plan their employer does provide. I'm not arguing against wider accessibility to health care, quite the opposite: I don't think health care coverage should be tied to employment or marital status, period, because it's obvious to me that the current approach (where employee health care is seen as cutting into immediate profits as opposed to the longer-range human-capital improvement you describe) is not working for society as a whole.

But that's got nothing to do with the gay marriage argument.

[shanmonster.livejournal.com]

The non-religious reasons aren't terribly logical ones:

- It's disgusting
- Gays are often child molesters
- They're perverts. Just look at what they do at those Gay Pride parades!
- They are flighty and unstable on average

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Not to mention patently false, in many cases.

- It's digusting
So is open heart surgery. And many citizens think that heterosexuality is disgusting.
- Gays are often child molesters
Not as many as heterosexuals.
- They're perverts. Just look at what they do at those Gay Pride parades!
One man's perversion is another man's darg show.
- They are flighty and unstable on average
No more so than heterosexuals.

[djfiggy.livejournal.com]

Did you have a peep at the "Food For Thought" post I made yesterday?
It might seem interesting to look at.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

A very interesting read, indeed, Dyl. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

[mdrnprometheus.livejournal.com]

Your use of the Constitution is correct as long as you're not a strict constructionist. However, that's precisely why there are things like the Federal marriage amendment.

More generally: you are trying to use legal doctrine and logic to argue against an emotional/religious case. In politics, emotion trumps reason 100% of the time. As such, this is pretty much just intellectual masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

I'm not familiar with the term "strict constructionist"--would you educate me?

I'm not sure I agree with your statement that emotion trumps 100% of the time in politics. I'm not sure it's that high. But I know it's high enough that I don't want this to be political, but judicial.

As for intellectual masterbation, well, considering the number of folks who've participated in this discussion, wouldn't you say it's more of an intellectual orgy? *GRIN*

Now, were did I put those latex-thought barriers...
Edie

[mdrnprometheus.livejournal.com]

As far as "strict constructionist", I think this article pretty accurately sums up both denotation and connation.

I have not really seen any long-term triumphs of reason over emotion. At best, I've seen the reasonable people get together, figure out the emotional case for their side, and sell that.

wouldn't you say it's more of an intellectual orgy?

Safest kind.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Brilliant article! Thank you for pointing it out. I had to chuckle at the final definition: A strit constructionist is a judge who is hostile to criminal defendants and civil rights plaitiffs.

Edie

opening the door and taking a peek at the other side.

[romeoblack.livejournal.com]

Here is your disclaimer for the following post:
I, being of sound mind and body, do not hold with the opinions about to be shared.

Now that that is over with,

Non-religious reasons that homosexuality is wron

1. It breaks up the image of the "typical american family". (2.5 kids, 1 dog, a minivan in every garage, wife does the chores, husband goes to work and wins the bread.) Which in turn demoralizes the youth of America and breeds dissent among the next generation.

Rebuttal: I don't have the time to do the research, but there is a large percentage of Divorced parents in the U.S. which means that the picture perfect image of marriage is shattered


2.What's next? People wanting to marry animals?

Rebuttal: That's a whole other can of worms. If any of you want to comment and help me create an informed opinion, feel free!


that's all I can think of for now. It's late and my brain is starting to shut down.

Re: opening the door and taking a peek at the other side.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

*beam* Taht's my boy!

As for the zoophilia thing, there's two aspects that are important to remember. This is known as the fallacy of the "slippery slope", the implication being that because the speaker sees homosexuality as morally equal to zoophilia, there will automatically follow that if you legalize one, you must legalize the other.

The arguments against this are: There is no such thing as a "slippery slope" in legal matters. It's been nearly 34 years since Loving vs. Virginia struck down interacial marriage, which at the time was again equated with homosexuality and zoophilia. Each instance has to be considered on it's own merits in a court of law, and it's possible to strike down part of a law.

Secondly, marriage is a contract between two people who are capable of entering a binding contract. You cannot marry a person in a coma, you cannot marry a child, you cannot marry the mentally incompetant. An Animal is not capable of entering a contract because it cannot comprehend the concept of a contract.

Hope this helps.
Mom.