Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Why I oppose gay marriage rights

1) I do not oppose gay marriage rights to genetic gays, if they exist.

2) But a significant fraction of today's gays are acquired gays. It may be a conscious choice. OR, as is more often the case, it may be due to disturbing environmental circumstances that change them into gays.This statement is supported by this wiki page in the following text:
Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0-17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18-39% and the unique environment 61-66%. The individual's unique environment includes, for example, circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences. [...] In men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors.

(Journal references are also available if you still suspect the claim)

This much having been made clear at the outset, I make my case for why I oppose legalisation of gay marraiges when it is not genetic (as is the case with a majority):
No matter how sophisticated and evolved we may be, there are the natural/inherent traits in us and the acquired. When gayness is an acquired trait, it is a mental imbalance, arising from disturbing environmental circumstances. Like with a person wishing to commit suicide or a person who turns a serial killer. In the latter two cases, what we do as concerned citizens is to try and counsel them and get to the root of what factors are causing them to behave in this unnatural way. While serial killers are punished first, to immediately restrained them, they are also later counseled and studied. Yet in the case of gays, some people are arguing to let them suffer the imbalanced state and not trying to address the problem. (If you say gays are happy doing gay acts, and it is not a disease, serial killers are also in a similar perverse state of mind where they are happy after they commit that particular crime which their disordered mental state thinks pleasurable. But neither is behaving in keeping with the natural order of things. That is why they are both forms of mental imbalance). So the right thing to do would be to counsel gays and try to get to the root of what environmental factors are causing them to behave this way, rather than encourage them to continue in their disordered state by sanctioning marriage and other demands they may eventually make. As for the liberty argument, which states that serial killers cause societal harm whereas gays do not and hence must be allowed to do what they please, it is just that the former is obvious physical harm whereas the latter is pernicious mental harm, to themselves and to those around them. For instance, it is not the natural state for a child to be reared by two males. And at the level of infant psychology, instinct dominates over the liberal reasoning and tolerance capacity that adults have. This would thus result in unhealthy children. A similar example to gayness would be why drugs are made illegal in many countries. Although the physical harm might only be to the individual, there is pernicious mental suffering caused to those around him. Or for that matter, why sodomy is illegal in many countries. Sodomy is a good example. It may be a private and consensual act but sanctioning sodomy is sanctioning that disorderly state of mind that the concerned individuals might acquire that could eventually lead to an unhealthy set of moral values which can lead to instability in society if the practice becomes widespread.

I encourage rational discussion.

21 comments:

Mistress of Art said...

Hey,
I've never approached the gay rights issue from this angle. What you're saying seems to make sense, but I have one doubt. Gays, usually make the choice to be so, hence its a matter of choice. Where does the mental imbalance walk in?

Karthik Sivaramakrishnan said...

Not everything that is 'chosen' by an individual qualifies as doing good to himself and/or the society. People choose 'suicide' in a disturbed state of mind. They often regret that choice if successfully counseled. Criminals and rapists, too, choose to commit the crime, but they cause damage to society and must be restrained by law.

p.s: I appreciate your question and the openness to contemplation.

Katte said...

As people fortunate to be in a society that harbors freedom, what we can give back to the system, or rather what we are obligated to return to it, is an open minded attitude towards people who are making choices that are unlike ours. The freedom you and I are enjoying; the rights to an equal standing, to education, to liberty; are the result of someone somewhere making a call about welcoming people unlike himself into the shade of a protective cover. People unlike him in age, sex, race, skin colour and probably many more. Someone thinking outside his prejudices about where that line is that lets an indivdual be what he wants to be and society get what it wants out of him. Sexual preference is one such factor, in my opinion. If you ask me, the only real societal harm is the lack of a gay marriage to produce offspring. Isn't there a wide spectrum of activities apart from creating babies that an individual can contribute to society in?

Katte said...

(contd.)
Is there a guarantee that being gay is a factor that can be counselled out of an individual? Isn't there a possibility that a non-repressed gay person might have one lesser thing to keep him from being fruitful to society? Isn't marriage more about companionship and harmony than creating babies?

Karthik Sivaramakrishnan said...

@Katte:
As people fortunate to be in a society that harbors freedom, what we can give back to the system, or rather what we are obligated to return to it, is an open minded attitude towards people who are making choices that are unlike ours.

I am not sure I understand you correctly. I get the impression that you are saying we are 'obligated' in some way to society? How?
In any case, please see my response to 'mistress of art' on the nature of 'choices'.

The freedom you and I are enjoying; the rights to an equal standing, to education, to liberty; are the result of someone somewhere making a call about welcoming people unlike himself into the shade of a protective cover. People unlike him in age, sex, race, skin colour and probably many more.


I don't understand again. I am unlike in age, sex and race to whom? I am not quite sure I understand what issue you are talking about.However, I get the impression that someone is doing me a favour? Charity as it were? I don't believe in charity. If someone has welcomed me somewhere, there is something that someone has to gain from welcoming me, even if its a non-measurable like happiness, for instance.

Someone thinking outside his prejudices about where that line is that lets an indivdual be what he wants to be and society get what it wants out of him. Sexual preference is one such factor, in my opinion. If you ask me, the only real societal harm is the lack of a gay marriage to produce offspring.


What do you mean the lack of a gay marriage to produce offspring? How is that even possible with current technology?

Isn't there a wide spectrum of activities apart from creating babies that an individual can contribute to society in?

Yes, individuals can contribute to society in many ways.

Is there a guarantee that being gay is a factor that can be counselled out of an individual?

No, there is no such guarantee. But that doesn't mean we let them suffer. We must try.

Isn't there a possibility that a non-repressed gay person might have one lesser thing to keep him from being fruitful to society?

Yes, gays must not be repressed. They must be treated like any other individual in all other respects. It is important to make sure they are given equal job opportunities and fundamental rights and so on. It is only in the matter of sexual orientation that they are mentally imbalanced. But even there, they must be counseled out of that state with minimal loss of self-respect.

Isn't marriage more about companionship and harmony than creating babies?

This is a very good question. Marriage, to the individuals concerned, might be about love and companionship and other such traits. But the system of marriage has been legally instituted to 1) provide a stable environment for children and 2) keep a male and female bound to each other through disincentives to separation in order to ensure societal stability. By legally sanctioning a gay marriage, you are endorsing the idea of acquired gayness. The implication of that by very virtue of the definition of acquired gayness is an increment in the number of such gays. A propagation of which phenomenon can lead to population imbalances in the long run but societal destabilising in the short run.

Katte said...

What I meant is that the freedom we enjoy today is a result of our forefathers not being restrictive about things like race, sex or social status. The only people they kept out of the circle of people who get to enjoy it are people who were harmful to the society, the criminals. I cannot think of any societal harm from gay people except them not bearing kids. I was therefore suggesting that we need to pay this non-restrictive attitude forward, unless there is due reason.

But that doesn't mean we let them suffer. We must try.

What is this suffering? What if it is not? Can we know from this side? What is your view on allowing a hypothetical gay person who still wants to be that way and get married, post-counselling?

You make an assumtion that people are better off after they are cured of their 'mental imbalance'. Is this true from that individual's point of view? Or is it a compromise for the society? Will *we* ever know??

By legally sanctioning a gay marriage, you are endorsing the idea of acquired gayness.

Is it this we are sanctioning, the idea of acquired gayness, or are we sanctioning the idea of acquired gayness deserving equality in front of the law; it not deserving discrimination?

hammy said...

I'm sorry I walked in so late into the discussion. Let me put some context here.

The first time I heard about gay people, I was repulsed, and I heard religious people talk about how it is against the will of God, and I thought they were right... Hey, stop doing those bad acts, people, or God will smite your ass!!

But when I grew up and learned that it is not as much a matter of choice as imbibed in them (we'll get to your statistics later), then I had to take what I stake to be the rational view... If it's in their blood, it is imbibed... and as such, it is THEIR life to live. Despite what any religious scholar would say, I support the Church of Tolerance, and it pleads equality.

They are different. And they are difficult to understand. We cannot fully understand their rationale, because they are wired in a different way. That does not take away an iota of their right to live. They should be given just as much right as the rest of humanity. The first step to that is to recognize... whole heartedly, that they ARE humans. And to give the matter an objective and fair assessment, you will HAVE to first acknowledge that your set of beliefs and thoughts MAY not be relevant to them. Of course most of them are, but you have to know that you may be wrong on some counts - like the definition of natural.

Though you have addressed this point, I'll reiterate it.. Comparing gayish tendencies to the deranged minds of rapists and serial killers are just deplorable. Those acts result in harm to people around, and that is what makes it amoral. The rationale for the gay rights movement to people who can't understand their mentality is "What they do in their own time, without causing harm to anyone else, is their business; they should be free to do that"

But your argument against this seems to be that it is unnatural - to be raised by two people of the same gender... Who defines what is natural? I accept that it is uncommon, but that's because society frowns on it, and has been against that for ages. In today's generation, we CAN find people who have been raised by gay parents, and they have turned out no worse than people raised by straight parents. People's definition of what is 'natural' seems to conform to what seems right for them, rather than any factual evidence. For this minority of people, some of the acts that you and I consider unnatural are as natural as anything we consider natural. You have to be open about that.

And about sodomy... Sodomy is not banned because it festers perversions. It may be one of the self serving ridiculous banners behind which people make up the law against the act, but the truth of the matter is... sodomy is banned because the bible says it is wrong. And you have to remember that most people practice the bible teachings selectively (rightly so; if people practiced everything taught in the bible, ours would be a sorry world indeed)...

About the statistics... It is certainly interesting fodder, but statistics have been thrown about for either sides of the argument (I confess I can't remember any now)... But in the end, what this bit of info means, even if taken at it face value, is that sexual preference is augmented by environmental factors as well...

So what? Most of your individuality IS shaped by your environment. You are the sum of your experiences, and that includes your thought, dresses, cultural inclinations, manners, vocation, hobbies, food habits, peer fashion, community gatherings, feedback, mentoring, down to the decision of whether you want a mustache. That doesn't take away the relevance of who you are and what you want to be.

On the face of it, your argument of sexuality selection is a matter of hot debate all over, and I stick by Bill Maher who says "Why should they CHOOSE to be gay? So they can get beat up more during high school?"

Seriously, gay people are on the discriminated end of the spectrum... If you HAD to choose a side, why pick the one that's getting bashed, killed, tortured and flushed?
(to be continued)

hammy said...

(contd. from previous comment. Damn, this is long. :D )

I'll accept.. there are some unfortunate people who gets FORCED into a lifestyle that they do not want to be in... but that's definitely a minority. The converse is actually true. There are a lot of closeted homosexuals who live their lives in a lie... trying to conform to a society that wouldn't accept them as they are... sacrificing his/ her life, the life of the spouse, and concerned family... That by far outweighs the minority of people forced into an unhealthy sexual life.

You're basically advocating for the ridiculously motivated group that aims to 'cure' homosexuality; putting it at terms with a defect/ illness that people can get past... It's just a forum that motivates people to live in denial.

All that being said, I must say the statistics you put up have been the only fresh piece of argument I've seen against the gay thing in a while. I still don't think that's a significant point, but it is a point nevertheless. Keep writing...

Karthik Sivaramakrishnan said...

What I meant is that the freedom we enjoy today is a result of our forefathers not being restrictive about things like race, sex or social status. The only people they kept out of the circle of people who get to enjoy it are people who were harmful to the society, the criminals. I cannot think of any societal harm from gay people except them not bearing kids. I was therefore suggesting that we need to pay this non-restrictive attitude forward, unless there is due reason.

By legally sanctioning a gay marriage, you are endorsing the idea of acquired gayness. The implication of that by very virtue of the definition of acquired gayness is an increment in the number of such gays. A propagation of which phenomenon can lead to population imbalances in the long run. In the short run it could lead to increase in crimes such as male child abuse.


What is this suffering? What if it is not? Can we know from this side? What is your view on allowing a hypothetical gay person who still wants to be that way and get married, post-counselling?

I concede that that they may not feel they are suffering just as a serial killer may not feel he is suffering when obsessed with raping and killing teenage women. But both are a menace to society at different levels and in different degrees and it is the duty of law to ensure that they are not encouraged to be that way. For the good of society if not for the good of the individual. Hence, gay marriage cannot be sanctioned.

You make an assumtion that people are better off after they are cured of their 'mental imbalance'. Is this true from that individual's point of view? Or is it a compromise for the society? Will *we* ever know??

As I stated above, perhaps it is a compromise for society. But then, putting behind bars a child molester is also a compromise for society. The individual might be happier doing what he was doing. The duty of law is to ensure societal harmony, not individual happiness.

Is it this we are sanctioning, the idea of acquired gayness, or are we sanctioning the idea of acquired gayness deserving equality in front of the law; it not deserving discrimination?

What I mean by use of the term 'sanctioning' is that it is easier for me, for instance, to prevent my child from turning gay if it is illegal than legal. When it is legal, it means my child can say something to the effect of 'but dad, society approves of it. Why do you complain?'

Katte said...

The individual might be happier doing what he was doing. The duty of law is to ensure societal harmony, not individual happiness.

There is a line Karthik, where one takes over and the other stops. Historically, systems which take one side have failed. The question really is, is letting a gay person's individual happiness, if it is being in a gay marriage that brings it, really harmful to social harmony? Is the presumed harm a manifestation of our ickiness with things not like us or is there a real quantifiable harm? Why are you calling it a 'menace to society'? Why are you comparing it to rapists and serial killers whose mental imbalance has quantifiable harm? I agree with the population imbalance argument. That is the only one I could think of, too.

But your other one,

In the short run it could lead to increase in crimes such as male child abuse.

This argument is equivalent to saying that encouraging heterosexual marriages leads to female child abuse.

In any case, I think, this comment trail is going away from taking a stance on same-sex marriages to scrutinizing homosexuality itself.What really is this about?

I have been dumbfounded myself about how I am unable to come up with a single argument against homosexuality that does not apply to heterosexuals too, except the population imbalance one. That is when I started wondering if the bias against homosexuality is a result of some secondary characteristic in us to discourage some practice that can lead to human extinction if everyone does it. But I think this is a cognitive bias. To assume that something dangerous that a subgroup is doing will be done by every member of the whole group. More importantly, I see even in your arguments, a fear that one of your own descendants will do it, thereby opening a possibility that your own DNA might get wiped out from the face of the earth. Is it a valid fear? I think, yes. I fear that too. But is it fair to deny that sub-group equality in front of the law? This is where the question of whether being gay is a result of nature or nurture comes in. If being gay is a result of nature (i.e genetic) then only extreme steps are available. If being gay is a result of nurture then society can invest in methods to curb such nurture. But is preventing gay people from getting married in a country where being gay is legal one of the modes to curb such nurture? I am yet to see the causality.

Which brings us to: What is a better form of social strategy? Giving a potentially risque individual pursuit the benefit of the doubt unless proven harmful or blocking all potentially risque behaviour? On one extreme we have some states banning women from exposing any skin at all. On the other we have really liberal states which legalize prostitution and drug use. This is the line I am talking about where individual happiness must be weighed against societal harmony and a sweet spot arrived at. Whichever stance you and I take is just a measure of where we think that sweet spot is, or how 'liberal' we are. I don't think any spot is right or wrong. But some of these governments are legalizing some of this hoping to have better control over it. Because, historically people will not stop doing some things just because they are illegal. But that is a whole new topic in itself. Let's leave it for later.

Anyway, I enjoyed thinking about this and had fun commenting. Thank you.

greenhorn said...

Though I agree that homosexuality should not be compared to rape and murder - I am interested in how the proponents of homosexuality view zoo-sexuality - people who are sexually attracted towards animals. Almost any argument in favor of homosexuality supports zoo-sexuality as well.

If one is fine, shouldn't the other be considered normal as well?

RukmaniRam said...

erm. let me get this straight: you think being gay, atleast being 'acquired gay' is a mental imabalnce of some sort, and should/can be counseled out. That leads directly to opposing the existence of gays.. but you are simply opposing their legal/religious union. why?

Katte said...

There are aspects to a gay marriage that cannot be proven for a zoo-sexual marriage.

a) Consent from both parties.
b) Both parties having been protected equally by the law, in isolation, prior to marriage.
c) Consent being at an age considered mature enough to make that consent (lest this go into a question about consenting minors)

Again, one is not pro or anti homosexuality. That is a different matter, a matter or preference. The issue is curtailing legal rights to persons found to be like this in society, whether they got there via nature or nurture.

Also as a counter argument, I'd like to ask, would you curtail marriage rights to sterile men or women past menopause?

Karthik Sivaramakrishnan said...

@Hammy:
I'm sorry I walked in so late into the discussion. Let me put some context here.

The first time I heard about gay people, I was repulsed, and I heard religious people talk about how it is against the will of God, and I thought they were right... Hey, stop doing those bad acts, people, or God will smite your ass!!

But when I grew up and learned that it is not as much a matter of choice as imbibed in them (we'll get to your statistics later), then I had to take what I stake to be the rational view... If it's in their blood, it is imbibed... and as such, it is THEIR life to live. Despite what any religious scholar would say, I support the Church of Tolerance, and it pleads equality.

Please refer statistics presented. You can also find journal articles. The genetic factor is quite small.

They are different. And they are difficult to understand. We cannot fully understand their rationale, because they are wired in a different way. That does not take away an iota of their right to live. They should be given just as much right as the rest of humanity. The first step to that is to recognize... whole heartedly, that they ARE humans. And to give the matter an objective and fair assessment, you will HAVE to first acknowledge that your set of beliefs and thoughts MAY not be relevant to them.

I agree with each line of the above paragraph.

Of course most of them are, but you have to know that you may be wrong on some counts - like the definition of natural.

Let's cut down to brass tacks. It is not my definition of 'natural'. A T-piece fits a U-piece to use an engineering euphemism. And then little T and U pieces are born. That has not been defined by me. That is the evolutionary set up.

Though you have addressed this point, I'll reiterate it.. Comparing gayish tendencies to the deranged minds of rapists and serial killers are just deplorable.

Please read calmly what I wrote. I am not comparing the acts. I am merely stating that all of these tendencies arise from mentally perverse states of mind in which an individual derives pleasure from something damaging to society.


Those acts result in harm to people around, and that is what makes it amoral. The rationale for the gay rights movement to people who can't understand their mentality is "What they do in their own time, without causing harm to anyone else, is their business; they should be free to do that"

This is not true. As I mention in my post and repeating again in response to Katte's discussion:
By legally sanctioning a gay marriage, you are endorsing the idea of acquired gayness. The implication of that by very virtue of the definition of acquired gayness is an increment in the number of such gays. A propagation of which phenomenon can lead to population imbalances in the long run. In the short run it could lead to increase in crimes such as male child abuse.

Karthik Sivaramakrishnan said...

@Hammy:
But your argument against this seems to be that it is unnatural - to be raised by two people of the same gender... Who defines what is natural? I accept that it is uncommon, but that's because society frowns on it, and has been against that for ages. In today's generation, we CAN find people who have been raised by gay parents, and they have turned out no worse than people raised by straight parents. People's definition of what is 'natural' seems to conform to what seems right for them, rather than any factual evidence. For this minority of people, some of the acts that you and I consider unnatural are as natural as anything we consider natural. You have to be open about that.

Please see earlier definition above of 'natural'. It is an evolutionary set up. Not my choice.

And about sodomy... Sodomy is not banned because it festers perversions. It may be one of the self serving ridiculous banners behind which people make up the law against the act, but the truth of the matter is... sodomy is banned because the bible says it is wrong.

This is incorrect. Sodomy has been and is illegal in many non-christian nations.

And you have to remember that most people practice the bible teachings selectively (rightly so; if people practiced everything taught in the bible, ours would be a sorry world indeed)...

About the statistics... It is certainly interesting fodder, but statistics have been thrown about for either sides of the argument (I confess I can't remember any now)... But in the end, what this bit of info means, even if taken at it face value, is that sexual preference is augmented by environmental factors as well...

This is not statistics thrown about arbitrarily. It is supplemented by scientific evidence. You may start off by reading this: [1] V Savolainen and L Lehmann, " Evolutionary biology: Genetics and bisexuality", Nature 445, 158-159 (11 January 2007) and then discover more for yourself :)


So what? Most of your individuality IS shaped by your environment. You are the sum of your experiences, and that includes your thought, dresses, cultural inclinations, manners, vocation, hobbies, food habits, peer fashion, community gatherings, feedback, mentoring, down to the decision of whether you want a mustache. That doesn't take away the relevance of who you are and what you want to be.

On the face of it, your argument of sexuality selection is a matter of hot debate all over, and I stick by Bill Maher who says "Why should they CHOOSE to be gay? So they can get beat up more during high school?"

Why should someone choose to be a serial killer? So they can go to jail?"

Seriously, gay people are on the discriminated end of the spectrum... If you HAD to choose a side, why pick the one that's getting bashed, killed, tortured and flushed?


I'll accept.. there are some unfortunate people who gets FORCED into a lifestyle that they do not want to be in... but that's definitely a minority. The converse is actually true. There are a lot of closeted homosexuals who live their lives in a lie... trying to conform to a society that wouldn't accept them as they are... sacrificing his/ her life, the life of the spouse, and concerned family... That by far outweighs the minority of people forced into an unhealthy sexual life.

You're basically advocating for the ridiculously motivated group that aims to 'cure' homosexuality; putting it at terms with a defect/ illness that people can get past... It's just a forum that motivates people to live in denial.

Denial of what? In fact, we who advocate counseling are the ones who acknowledging that they have a problem with respect to sexual orientation.

All that being said, I must say the statistics you put up have been the only fresh piece of argument I've seen against the gay thing in a while. I still don't think that's a significant point, but it is a point nevertheless.

Why is evidence not a significant point?

Karthik Sivaramakrishnan said...

@Katte:
The individual might be happier doing what he was doing. The duty of law is to ensure societal harmony, not individual happiness.

There is a line Karthik, where one takes over and the other stops. Historically, systems which take one side have failed. The question really is, is letting a gay person's individual happiness, if it is being in a gay marriage that brings it, really harmful to social harmony? Is the presumed harm a manifestation of our ickiness with things not like us or is there a real quantifiable harm? Why are you calling it a 'menace to society'?

As I stated earlier:
By legally sanctioning a gay marriage, you are endorsing the idea of acquired gayness. The implication of that by very virtue of the definition of acquired gayness is an increment in the number of such gays. A propagation of which phenomenon can lead to population imbalances in the long run. In the short run it could lead to increase in crimes such as male child abuse.


Why are you comparing it to rapists and serial killers whose mental imbalance has quantifiable harm?

How is mental imbalance quantifiable?


I agree with the population imbalance argument. That is the only one I could think of, too.

But your other one,

In the short run it could lead to increase in crimes such as male child abuse.

This argument is equivalent to saying that encouraging heterosexual marriages leads to female child abuse.

No. Unlike gayness, which will spread by endorsing, straightness is present by default. So female child abuse is present by default. But male child abuse will increase because the number of acquired gays will increase with legal sanction, by definition of acquired gays.

In any case, I think, this comment trail is going away from taking a stance on same-sex marriages to scrutinizing homosexuality itself.What really is this about?

I don't see how one is independent of the other.

I have been dumbfounded myself about how I am unable to come up with a single argument against homosexuality that does not apply to heterosexuals too, except the population imbalance one.

Read my earlier arguments on problems with homosexuality.

That is when I started wondering if the bias against homosexuality is a result of some secondary characteristic in us to discourage some practice that can lead to human extinction if everyone does it. But I think this is a cognitive bias. To assume that something dangerous that a subgroup is doing will be done by every member of the whole group.

Human extinction is a remote possibility. But degradation of the moral fabric of society is more immediate. Let me give you the example of liberal sexual values in western society leading to destruction of the family system of society: At that time people argued for individual liberty and liberalised sexually, but now it has led to enormously high single-parenting in western societies and the consequent problems of high crime rates, and all but virtual collapse of the family system.


More importantly, I see even in your arguments, a fear that one of your own descendants will do it, thereby opening a possibility that your own DNA might get wiped out from the face of the earth.

Haha! Note how I said 'for instance' at the start of the sentence :) I have no such fears for my children. They will grow up rationally.

Is it a valid fear? I think, yes. I fear that too. But is it fair to deny that sub-group equality in front of the law? This is where the question of whether being gay is a result of nature or nurture comes in. If being gay is a result of nature (i.e genetic) then only extreme steps are available. If being gay is a result of nurture then society can invest in methods to curb such nurture.

Yes, by not legally endorsing demands which will further propagate their presence.

Karthik Sivaramakrishnan said...

@Katte:
But is preventing gay people from getting married in a country where being gay is legal one of the modes to curb such nurture? I am yet to see the causality.

Yes, you are yet to see the causality. It is in the definition of acquired gayness. The environmental factors which lead to acquired gayness include presence in a gay environment. So the legal sanctioning will lead to an increase in the number of such acquired gays by limiting the legal barriers.

Which brings us to: What is a better form of social strategy? Giving a potentially risque individual pursuit the benefit of the doubt unless proven harmful or blocking all potentially risque behaviour? On one extreme we have some states banning women from exposing any skin at all. On the other we have really liberal states which legalize prostitution and drug use. This is the line I am talking about where individual happiness must be weighed against societal harmony and a sweet spot arrived at. Whichever stance you and I take is just a measure of where we think that sweet spot is, or how 'liberal' we are. I don't think any spot is right or wrong. But some of these governments are legalizing some of this hoping to have better control over it. Because, historically people will not stop doing some things just because they are illegal. But that is a whole new topic in itself. Let's leave it for later.

Yes, this is tangential and better left for later.

Anyway, I enjoyed thinking about this and had fun commenting. Thank you.

I think your comments and questions have been well thought out. I appreciate your effort.

Karthik Sivaramakrishnan said...

@greenhorn:
Though I agree that homosexuality should not be compared to rape and murder

I never compared the acts. I merely made a reference to the presence of an imbalance in state of mind that leads to these acts.

I am interested in how the proponents of homosexuality view zoo-sexuality - people who are sexually attracted towards animals. Almost any argument in favor of homosexuality supports zoo-sexuality as well.

If one is fine, shouldn't the other be considered normal as well?
Indeed it can be argued that beastiality must be sanctioned even before homosexuality. Because 1) Animals have no legal rights and hence we only need to attend to the demands of one party. 2) Beastial couples are less likely to adopt human children. Hence the future is less likely to be harmed.
That being said, the reason beastiality should not be permitted is the same as for homosexuality: It leads to breakdown of the moral fabric of society. Please refer recent response to Katte about the effect of liberalised sexual values on western society.

Karthik Sivaramakrishnan said...

@Rukmani:
erm. let me get this straight: you think being gay, atleast being 'acquired gay' is a mental imabalnce of some sort, and should/can be counseled out.

Yes.

That leads directly to opposing the existence of gays..

No. There is no direct causal connection between the earlier statement and this and I've not made any such causal claim either. Please refer to responses to Katte in the comments for why I oppose the propagation of gays through legal sanction. Briefly: 1) Long-term it leads to population instability. But more importantly, short term it leads to 1) Unhealthy children(male and female) 2) Increased male sexual abuse. 3) Destabilising the moral fabric of society. (See recent response to Katte on the effect of liberalised sexual values on western society) 4) Increase in the number of acquired gays promoting a vicious spiral of 1, 2 and 3.

but you are simply opposing their legal/religious union. why?

I oppose the legal union because by endorsing the idea of gayness you are increasing the probability of an increase in the number of gays by definition of acquired gayness because the environmental factors which lead to acquired gayness include presence in a gay environment.

Fabien said...

nature or nurture? you can debate all you like about research of twins being both gay or having different sexual orientations, either way you view it, it bears no relation to any conclusive view on this. I know brothers who are both gay, i know brothers & sisters where one is straight and one is gay. i also know twins where indeed both are straight.

parents do the best parenting job they can, with the genes they have and the environment their families grow up in. so what is your point? straight parents brings kids up, some are gay, some are not. that is life and how it is. nothing you can do about it. gay parents bring kids up too, some are straight & yes some are gay.

mental imbalance? tell that to the millions of gay people who have contributed positively to our history, philosophy, culture, politics, science and engineering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people

from roman emperors to ground-breaking scientists, teachers and writers to doctors and musicians, there is no denying their positive contribution to society.

in fact, did you know that the man who broke the code during ww2 was a gay man called alan turing, who effectively helped end the war against the german nazis. as a reward for helping end the war however, he was castrated and forcibly treated with chemicals which drove him to suicide.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/09/11/alan.turing.petition.apology/index.html

"By legally sanctioning a gay marriage, you are endorsing the idea of acquired gayness"

Karthik, let me ask you a simple question: did you choose to be straight?

you just are, right?

did i choose to be gay? no, i just am... the same way you just happen to be straight.

there is no such thing as 'acquired gayness' - you can't have certainty in this since there is no such thing as 'acquired straightness' either. people are how they are (most likely from a combination of nature & nurture)

why don't you think back to as far as you can, when did you ever acquire to be heterosexual? seriously, was it a choice for you to find opposite members of your sex attractive?

it's just instinct and what comes naturally to people.

Fabien said...

ultimately it is people's lives you are talking about here... and you, like me, have no fundamental right at all to deny other people the same rights you/we enjoy. we are all a human race, each different but all needing the same things of security, love, happiness and nurturing relationships in life.

throw around statistics if you will (which as we know statistics can be skewed to suit preferred agendas), however it comes down to the fact that i'm not preventing you from loving who feels natural to you, just as you similarly should have no right to prevent me from loving who feels natural to me. - this is the crux of the argument that the majority has enjoyed a privilege that a minority are still being denied- incidentally race equality & womens' rights all stem from the same argument that one group has no right to seek to put down another group by the sheer notion of difference.

why do people oppose same-sex marriage? is it that the institution of marriage is so insecure that men & men or women & women marrying each other suddenly reduces all heterosexuals' marriages to a crumbling mess?

if the institution of marriage is indeed so fragile, let's ban divorce then(!) but i have a feeling the human need to be loved and love each other is much stronger than that.

bear in mind 90% of the population is said to be heterosexual and around 10% are said to be gay. therefore we are talking about a very small minority of people here - are you suggesting if we let 10% of the population enjoy something that 90% of the rest of the world enjoy, it would destroy the entire institution?

how weak straight people's relationships must be if they feel so threatened by this notion. let's give marriages some credibility here, it is after all an institution that will survive as long as the planet survives. it is strong and stable and certainly has room to accommodate the remaining 10% of the world's population who also want to love and be loved.