tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post3788276334526404236..comments2023-05-31T02:48:49.298-07:00Comments on PEARL DIVER: Is Homosexual Sex Abnormal? Respectful Discussion With a Pearl Passer-byPearlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13696307318838041605noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-11125319424069064592009-01-29T20:26:00.000-08:002009-01-29T20:26:00.000-08:00Fannie: Not a single one of the commenters here ex...<B>Fannie</B>: <I>Not a single one of the commenters here explicitly condemned this act of violence or even expressed disappointment that it happened.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>True. Then again, not a single commenter here tried to describe the rape as an expression of "disappointment" or found it "interesting" that you found it "over-the-top inappropriate."op-edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01281133721763371602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-31781316431546691312009-01-29T19:53:00.000-08:002009-01-29T19:53:00.000-08:00Fannie, those are fine sentiments and a good assum...Fannie, those are fine sentiments and a good assumption.<BR/><BR/>But have you not asserted that you "understand" the angry protests of the anti-8 side?<BR/><BR/>It is not just about the violence, the threats of violence, but also about the reprisals and the villification. It is also about the hostility toward the amending process itself. It is also about the way that the anti-8 side openly used inflammatory rhetoric -- calling opponents "bigots" is not peaceful when screamed in faces, chanted in front of churches, and routinely excused by the leaders of the protests -- grassroot and official.<BR/><BR/>Do you "understand" their angry, because you share it? I would expect so.<BR/><BR/>I do, but not in a sympathetic way for the anger is unjustified. It is merely an outburst of aggression and, yes, prejudice and intolerance. No excuse for it. None.<BR/><BR/>* * *<BR/><BR/>If you want to show that you are capable of comparing apples to apples, then, consider the response of marriage defenders to the following:<BR/><BR/>1. The legislative expansion of domestic partnership into a localized merger with marriage -- against the man-woman criterion approved by 60% of the electorate in a statory enactment.<BR/><BR/>2. The attempt of legislators to over-ride the electorate's constitutional authority re that same statute.<BR/><BR/>3. The AG's weak argument in court -- abandoning the strong argument that won in other states.<BR/><BR/>4. The judiciary's imposition of the merger of DP and Marriage and its elision of the actual disagreement. <BR/><BR/>5. The impositoin of gay identity politics into the state's constitutional jurisprudence.<BR/><BR/>6. The judiciary's failure to wait for the outcome of the pending vote on the marriage amendment.<BR/><BR/>6. The anti-8 side's disparagement of the amending process as "mob rule".<BR/><BR/>7. The AG's current argument against the constitution of California.<BR/><BR/>8. The Governor's abandonment of the state constitution.<BR/><BR/>9. The anti-8 side's court case against a fair election result.<BR/><BR/>You may claim to have witnessed only peaceful protests, and your experience may be valid, however, the inflammatory rhetoric was an incitement to violence in the dozen or so large protests that I witnessed. Perhaps we can exchange videos and photos. I can point to a very prominent pro-SSM blogger who declared open war on the Mormon Church. <BR/><BR/>Like it or not, if your campaign seeks to villify those who dsisagree by labelling them "bigots", that incites violent reactions to fair votes.<BR/><BR/>The incident at El Coyote was an outright reprisal against someone for having participated in the marriage amendment campaign -- just as anti-8ers has participated. Yet there is no comparable blacklist targetting reprisals against vulnerable individual anti-8ers.<BR/><BR/>The aftermath has become poisonous precisely because the core of SSM argumentation, and its pro-SSM campaign, is identity politics fueled by the emotivism -- a deliberate attempt to rile people up based on false equivalencies -- and not based on reason, fair discussion, and peaceful resolution of contentious issues.<BR/><BR/>The vote was peaceful. The anti-8 protest, not so much.Chairmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10485251953071927097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-22344566225096871262009-01-29T15:45:00.000-08:002009-01-29T15:45:00.000-08:00op-ed said:"Which does not say that there weren't ...op-ed said:<BR/><BR/>"Which does not say that there weren't violent 'over-the-top inappropriate' rallies. What is truly interesting is that you don't express any disappointment at those."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I wanted to end my participation in this thread on the more positive note above with Pearl, and to avoid personal character trials. I have appreciated the discussion here when it has been focused on substantive issues.<BR/><BR/>Yet, due to op-ed's parting statement, I see that I need to say aloud what I take for granted in other people: I am disappointed whenever people use violence. Based on accounts that I have read and my own attendance at rallies, I think that reports of violence among LGBT activists have been greatly exaggerated. Yet, I am nonetheless disappointed that some LGBT rights activists have engaged in violence.<BR/> <BR/>The thing is, I tend to assume that most people already know that violence is wrong. I would agree that non-violence is a shared value among most Americans, gay or straight. So, unless a person expressly condones an act of violence, I try not to assume or insinuate that he or she approve of it. <BR/><BR/>For instance, in one of my previous comments, I mentioned the gang-rape of a lesbian woman in California that occurred after Prop 8 passed. Not a single one of the commenters here explicitly condemned this act of violence or even expressed disappointment that it happened. Yet, working from my assumption that most people know that violence and rape are wrong and disapprove of such things, I didn't find it "interesting" that you failed to express disappointment. Unless I hear differently, I have been working from the assumption that you all know that the rape of a woman is wrong, even if she is a lesbian. <BR/><BR/>In the future, I would appreciate if someone just outright asked me how I felt about something rather than make insinuations or vaguely note that my silence on an issue is "truly interesting." <BR/><BR/>Take care everyone.Fannie Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04296502470605119779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-37000170153381649452009-01-27T19:35:00.000-08:002009-01-27T19:35:00.000-08:00Sorry everyone. I was skiing this weekend. Fresh p...Sorry everyone. I was skiing this weekend. Fresh powder is irresistible to me. My question was also asked by Op-Ed. I think. <BR/><BR/>If a sister is attracted to her brother, is it wrong for anyone to prevent them from being married.<BR/><BR/>I think this was pretty well covered. Enjoyed reading through all the comments.<BR/><BR/>Thanks, Pearl-Lady.G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00337033834795532441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-66310121102430152502009-01-27T19:14:00.000-08:002009-01-27T19:14:00.000-08:00Fannie, yes, I expressly stipulated "assuming cons...Fannie, yes, I expressly stipulated "assuming consent".<BR/><BR/>In your response to my basic questions, drawn directly from your previous comments, you did not plainly state the distinction(s) "in a pathological sense".<BR/><BR/>You simply labelled some things pathological and the other thing not pathological.<BR/><BR/>* * *<BR/><BR/>You said: To understand pathology, it is essential to understand social taboos and norms.<BR/><BR/>And then you said: The taboo against incest, for instance, is largely believed to have arisen in order to promote alliances with outside groups. The taboo against homosexuality, to be very general, arose as some sort of biblical "crime against nature." <BR/><BR/>If you want to point to the Bible, then, incestuous sexual relations and same-sex sexual relations are very apt analogues in the scriptural context.<BR/><BR/>However, both sexual taboos existed prior to the Bible and, also, have existed and continue to exist in societies and sub-groups where the Bible has not been a powerful influence on social norms.<BR/><BR/>Thus, your "largely believed" and "to be very general" are inadequate qualifiers.<BR/><BR/>* * *<BR/><BR/>You said: Another distinction is that unlike incestuous behavior between two consenting adults, homosexuality is an orientation.<BR/><BR/>Here you suggest a difference between orientation and behavior. Yet you immediately talked about "having sex" -- which is behavior.<BR/><BR/>You returned to statistical rarity but that can apply to both same-sex sexual behavior and incestuous sexual behavior.<BR/><BR/>You may not be aware of the evidence that siblings, raised as strangers, can experience strong sexual attraction and affinity. It is also experienced by cousins. (Whatever the cause, it may also apply to child-parent duos, though I know of no studies on that twist.) Whether we are speaking of behavior or sexual attraction, I don't think your remarks demonstrate a distinction that is nearly as significant as you might hope it to be.<BR/><BR/>Where same-sex sexual behavior is socially accomodated, or even encouraged, there will be higher prevalence of that behavior. Likewise with incestuous sexual behavior -- look at cousins and in-laws (i.e. affinity), for example.<BR/><BR/>Now, if you meant to distinguish some internal and subjective feeling from behavior, then you need to be more clear on what distinguishes incest from homosexuality, in a pathological sense.<BR/><BR/>Incest can be pathological even if not acted upon, yes? It is not just some sick joke that people have these feelings and inclinations, surely. The psychology is at issue, not just the behavior, right?<BR/><BR/>Clearly, this is not just about statistical rarity. Nor is it just about social norms. There is more at issue.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, you've implied that sexual behavior based on orientation is not pathological, by definition.<BR/><BR/>You earlier comment, and your most recent, thus raised the question about bestiality and pedofilia, in a pathological sense.<BR/><BR/>If most instance of pedofilia, by your estimate, are incestuous, then, you might also have to contend with the statistical evidence that most pedofiles prey on their same-sex.<BR/><BR/>Look, Fannie, my comment is not intended to equate homosexuality, pedofilia, and incest (andn bestiality). But you claim there is some significant difference "in a pathological sense". Thusfar your comments point to similarities.<BR/><BR/>Especially given your emphasis on statistical rarity. I think there is more to it than that. You probably should broaden you understanding of normality, abnormality, and pathology.<BR/><BR/>Even with pedofilia, and perdastry, the issue of consent has become less definitive than you might assume, within the psychological profession.<BR/><BR/>* * *<BR/><BR/>Note, please, that Pearl's blogpost expressly asks about sexual behavior, not just orientation.<BR/><BR/>"Is Homosexual Sex Abnormal?"<BR/><BR/>I take it that for you, orientation alone, is the most significant factor in deciding whether or not same-sex sexual behavior is okay, in a pathological sense. Right?Chairmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10485251953071927097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-47956846030969811812009-01-27T18:22:00.000-08:002009-01-27T18:22:00.000-08:00Fannie: there is a lot in that "dumbed down defini...<B>Fannie</B>: <I>there is a lot in that "dumbed down definition" that cannot be handled by private contracts, contrary to your claim.</I><BR/><BR/>That may be true, but you failed to point to any. All you did is point out differences between <I>marriage</I> and <I>private contracts</I>. I am not arguing those things are, or should be, the same.<BR/><BR/><B>Fannie</B>: <I>...I don't expect you to agree with me that gays and lesbians in same-sex relationships are similar enough to heteros in marriages to enable them to receive the benefits of marriage.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sure I would feel the same way if <I>I</I> thought procreation was unimportant and facile.<BR/><BR/>Procreation is <I>not</I> unimportant. On the contrary, it has profound impacts on all of society and to the couple involved. And it is not facile, but rather presenting unique challenges to all of society and particularly the couple involved. Society has <B>no reason</B> to treat any non-marital arrangement like marriage, and <B>no reason</B> to treat any marriage like non-marriage.<BR/><BR/><B>Fannie</B>: <I>It's interesting that you call the collective LGBT response to disappointment "over-the-top inappropriate." I attended several Prop 8 rallies, none of which were remotely violent...</I><BR/><BR/>Which does not say that there weren't violent "over-the-top inappropriate" rallies. What is truly interesting is that you <I>don't</I> express any disappointment at those.op-edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01281133721763371602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-155862807199938662009-01-27T17:32:00.000-08:002009-01-27T17:32:00.000-08:00Hi Fannie,I hope you've had a lovely day. Thank y...Hi Fannie,<BR/><BR/>I hope you've had a lovely day. Thank you for sharing your perspective on the protests you attended. I am glad that JointheImpact saw fit to reel in the early, post-Prop 8, frenzied protesters under a banner of civility.<BR/><BR/>I find your barely veiled contempt for David Kupelian's journalism background interesting. After all, who's to say that "an actual historian" would be more of an expert on marketing and public relations strategies than a journalist? I suppose if he did his research he could be, but then, under those qualifications, so too could a journalist be.<BR/><BR/>Your comments are always welcome and appreciated. This has been an excellent discussion and I sincerely hope you will also be well.<BR/><BR/>Peace and blessings,<BR/>PearlPearlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13696307318838041605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-30094993156330957082009-01-27T15:35:00.000-08:002009-01-27T15:35:00.000-08:00Actually op-ed, I didn't misread your statement at...Actually op-ed, I didn't misread your statement at all. I believe we have, unfortunately, talked past one another. The relationship I described is that of a same-sex relationship (and many heterosexual marriages), and there is a lot in that "dumbed down definition" that cannot be handled by private contracts, contrary to your claim.<BR/><BR/>Further you say:<BR/><BR/>"There is no reason to treat one relationship based on the needs of another. Or put another way, an individual who chooses not to enter into a given relationship has every right not to be treated as if they had."<BR/><BR/>Actually, there are many reasons to, not the least of which is that under equal protection principles, similarly-situated persons are entitled to equal rights under the law. That being said, I don't expect you to agree with me that gays and lesbians in same-sex relationships are similar enough to heteros in marriages to enable them to receive the benefits of marriage. So you can spare me that one. Secondly, as didactic pairs, same-sex relationships and heterosexual marriages have many common needs, legally and financially. It's just not accurate to say "there is NO REASON to treat one relationships based on the needs of another" [emphasis added] when there are so many commonalities. <BR/> <BR/><BR/>Pearl,<BR/><BR/>It's interesting that you call the collective LGBT response to disappointment "over-the-top inappropriate." I attended several Prop 8 rallies, none of which were remotely violent and I have supported the large, peaceful grassroots Join the Impact movement. So, based on my tangible experience, I do not share your opinion at all. In fact, from my perspective, the response that many of you have taken in labeling the community that I am a part of in mob-like terms is so exaggerated that it's almost amusing.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, as a fellow lover of books, I'd like to recommend John D'Emilio's book Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities. I have hunch that this book, written by an actual historian, will give you a more accurate history of the LGBT movement than the The Marketing of Evil. Personally, I will be picking up a copy of the The Marketing of Evil if my library carries it. So thanks for bringing my attention to it.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the hospitality here. Perhaps I'll comment on another one of your posts in the future. Take care.Fannie Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04296502470605119779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-6881090632353094412009-01-26T21:04:00.000-08:002009-01-26T21:04:00.000-08:00I would like to clarify Fannie's erroneous stateme...I would like to clarify Fannie's erroneous statement:<BR/><BR/><B>Fannie</B>: <I>I would like to clarify op-ed's erroneous statement regarding the ability to </I>[sic]<I> same-sex couples to contract for the benefits of marriage.</I><BR/><BR/>I never said any such thing. Mine is not the first post in this thread Fannie has misread. In fact, what I said is that the relationship Fannie described, <I>which is not marriage</I> but rather a simple association between adults, could be accommodated with just private contracts.<BR/><BR/>"There is nothing in your dumbed down definition of marriage that cannot be handled by private contracts already."<BR/><BR/><B>Fannie</B>: <I>...there are many protections and benefits that go along with the legal status of marriage that same-sex couples cannot contract for.</I><BR/><BR/>Which is as it should be. There is no reason to treat one relationship based on the needs of another. Or put another way, an individual who chooses not to enter into a given relationship has every right not to be treated as if they had.op-edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01281133721763371602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-76192975722242379952009-01-26T20:27:00.000-08:002009-01-26T20:27:00.000-08:00Okay Fannie, I'm ready to try again. The kids are...Okay Fannie, I'm ready to try again. The kids are fed and busy for the moment. We'll see how long that lasts before the lateness of the hour strikes. :0)<BR/><BR/>I hope you will forgive my incessant reference to <I>The Marketing of Evil</I>; it just happens to be my current nightstand read and contains so much interesting and illuminating information such as deserves to be shared.<BR/><BR/>You mentioned: <I>"Even if you do not support calling it "marriage," I do know that some of you would at least agree that same-sex couples deserve these tangible benefits and protections that cannot be encompassed in contract law. If you do not agree, then I wonder why."</I><BR/><BR/>I am one who does not agree and I will tell you why since you wonder. :0) Yes I believe that homosexuals should have the same protections as any other human in the United States, but they have those already. As far as benefits specifically ceded to sexual orientation, well, I hope you'll excuse the elementary nature of this response but, as the old adage goes, "if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile."<BR/><BR/>You may feel indignant about this comparison, but this is exactly the plan that has been drafted by Kirk and Madsen in their homosexual agenda, <I>After the Ball</I>: <I>"Such declarations of civility toward gays [like the "benefits" you seek affirmation of concession for in your comment], of course, set our worst detractors on the slippery slope toward recognition of fundamental gay rights."</I><BR/><BR/>So you see, this attitude of "push a little harder, push a little harder, push a little harder, get a little more", is exactly the type of behavior that has carried us to our current impasse over the venerated term "marriage." My good friend, Euripides, said it best when he wrote in <A HREF="http://selfevidenttruths-euripides.blogspot.com/2009/01/curmudgeon-before-my-time-top-ten.html" REL="nofollow">a top ten post</A>: <I>"Here's the crux of the gay agenda. They insist that all they want is to be left alone. Well, to be left alone and have tax breaks. To be left alone, have tax breaks and medical privileges. To be left alone, have tax breaks, medical privileges and be allowed to marry. To be left alone, have tax breaks, medical privileges, be allowed to marry and openly teach gay sex in school...."</I><BR/><BR/>It truth, where marriage is concerned, Chairm has the best response I have seen of late and I hope he/she won't mind my correction of a few typos while I paste the quote here. :0)<BR/><BR/><I>"Marriage is both-sexed, not one-sexed, so if a person chooses to form an arrangement that is short either man or woman, then, that person has excluded himself from marriage while including himself in some non-marital type of relationship."</I><BR/><BR/>In other words, marriage is not exclusive as it is currently defined. All citizens of our country are equally blessed with the "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex. If they choose to pursue a variant relationship, they are consciously choosing to exclude themselves from marriage; they are not <I>being excluded</I> by heterosexuals or the institution of marriage.<BR/><BR/>You see, Fanny, it's not the angry mob blowups that are frightening. In fact, those are helpful to the cause of defending marriage as they illuminate the seething lack of control that resides just beneath the surface of the pretty, fashionable MOB facade. I recognize that viewed as individuals in their daily lives, many homosexuals are perfectly respectful contributors to society. But their collective reaction to disappointment was <I>so</I> absolutely over-the-top inappropriate, and when combined with that little axiom that reveals, "the first reaction is the truest," it just reaffirms for many (including me) that the lack of control is not isolated to just a few individuals erroneously representing the whole of the homosexual community. But, I strayed from the topic of fear. I am not afraid of the anger. Anger (without violence) is easy to deal with. It is overt and blatant and visible. No, anger is the least of my worries. In truth, it is the scheming and planning, desensitization, marketing strategies and public relations gambits, and grade-school homosexual education that have me concerned because with these covert tactics, society isn't even aware that there is something to combat until it is too late and we've been duped on a large scale.Pearlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13696307318838041605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-68722548412518313562009-01-26T20:06:00.000-08:002009-01-26T20:06:00.000-08:00In the span of all of history--30 years is a prett...In the span of all of history--30 years is a pretty teeny slice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-31481049625538252612009-01-26T18:24:00.000-08:002009-01-26T18:24:00.000-08:00Ah, Fannie. I had a sparklingly, brilliant commen...Ah, Fannie. I had a sparklingly, brilliant comment (at least <I>I</I> thought it was), in response to this revised comment of yours. And, of course, when I hit "post comment," it disappeared. Grrr.... So, I will try again once the kiddos are in bed for the evening.Pearlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13696307318838041605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-15976248364453160752009-01-26T17:52:00.000-08:002009-01-26T17:52:00.000-08:00[I deleted my comment from 3:36, because it contai...[I deleted my comment from 3:36, because it contained a significant typo. To avoid confusion, I am re-posting my corrected comment]<BR/><BR/>When I began commenting in this thread, I intended the scope of my comments to encompass the question of the normality/abnormality of homosexuality and to clarify the issue regarding the ban on gay male blood donors. I see that the conversation has strayed from those topics onto the more specific topic of marriage. Further, as I am quite outnumbered here and many questions/responses have been posed, I'm sure you will understand that I cannot get to them all. Especially at the beginning of a busy work week.<BR/><BR/>As I don't expect to change anyone's mind on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, I'd like to leave this conversation for perhaps another day. Instead, I would like to clarify op-ed's erroneous statement regarding the ability to same-sex couples to contract for the benefits of marriage. <BR/><BR/>Actually, there are many protections and benefits that go along with the legal status of marriage that same-sex couples cannot contract for. Social security survivors benefits, for instance, is one. The right to a green card marriage for immigration purposes, is another. Same-sex couples cannot "contract" to jointly file their federal taxes, is another example. Even if you do not support calling it "marriage," I do know that some of you would at least agree that same-sex couples deserve these tangible benefits and protections that cannot be encompassed in contract law. If you do not agree, then I wonder why.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, in a comment yesterday, I see that one of Pearl's readers said <A HREF="http://pearl-diving.blogspot.com/2009/01/sold-on-homosexuality-marketing-of-evil.html?showComment=1232956740000#c136769016688191329" REL="nofollow">"I don't have any positive associations regarding these people (as a group in general)..."</A> Now, I would be interested in an articulation of who exactly "these people" refers to, but as a lesbian it's difficult not to feel frightened by such a broad de-humanizing statement. I sense that some of you are frightened by what you perceive as an epidemic of rampant anger among LGBT rights activists, but as someone who is not violent I'd just like to put it out there that it's frightening when you paint us all with the same broad brush. I see you cherry-picking activists who are angry, and discounting those who condemn violence and displays of anger. <BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://www.jointheimpact.com" REL="nofollow">Join the Impact</A> movement, for instance, is probably the largest grassroots advocacy group for the LGBT community. It sprung up as a direct result of Proposition 8 and its mission statement specifically says:<BR/><BR/>"JoinTheImpact, as an entity, will not encourage divisiveness, violence, or disrespect of others and we do not approve of this."<BR/><BR/>Are you not aware that this organization exists? This non-violent movement is sweeping the nation and many LGBT people are a part of it. Why do you only focus on those who are violent? What if I focused on those on your side who were violent, and made the generalization that most of you here were violent? What if I looked at the <A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/02/BAB9152HP7.DTL" REL="nofollow">4 men who recently gang-raped a lesbian woman in California,</A> and said that because of this violent assault I have no positive association of men or of heterosexuals? Many of you are making the exact same types of generalizations. Anger and violence are not "homosexual" problems. They are human problems. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, because you hold erroneous views of what you believe most "homosexuals" are like, it is not surprising to me that you do not see our shared human need to care for and protect our families. Because yes, we have families too. Even if you would not call our families by the same name as yours.Fannie Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04296502470605119779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-4419579154018281422009-01-26T15:38:00.000-08:002009-01-26T15:38:00.000-08:00Chairm has asked multiple times the difference, pa...Chairm has asked multiple times the difference, pathologically, between homosexuality and incest. (I do assume here that you are referring to incest between two consenting adults, and not between say, a parent and a child). That's a really broad question and I really don't think one-liner soundbites can do the answer the justice it deserves. <BR/><BR/>To understand pathology, it is essential to understand social taboos and norms. Social taboos surrounding homosexuality and incest have arisen for very different psychological and sociological reasons. The taboo against incest, for instance, is largely believed to have arisen in order to promote alliances with outside groups. The taboo against homosexuality, to be very general, arose as some sort of biblical "crime against nature." <BR/><BR/>Another distinction is that unlike incestuous behavior between two consenting adults, homosexuality is an orientation. While having sex with someone of the same sex and having sex with a related person are sexual behaviors that deviate from the norm of having sex with unrelated opposite-sex persons, we don't say that people have "an incestuous orientation." In actuality, for whatever reasons, incest between two consenting adults is very rare. And I would be highly interested to hear if anyone has heard of adults who claim to only be sexually attracted to adults that they are related to. Most often, incest is committed by male adults on unconsenting female children. In the case of these individuals, they probably suffer from pedophilia as defined by the DSM-IV. Unlike such incestuous pedophiles, gay people are not pathological under the current norms of professional psychology.<BR/><BR/>That's really all I have time for at the moment. Yet, that being said Chairm, you would receive a warmer reception and a more detailed response from me if you showed more of a willingness to answer question my friends and I have put forth to you in the recent past. If you would like me to remind you what those questions are, let me know. <BR/><BR/>And to anyone, what do you believe distinguishes homosexuality from incest, bestiality, and pedophilia?<BR/> <BR/><BR/>Secular Heretic. You're right, you didn't say "all" psychologists used to believe SSA was a disorder, you said "practically all" of them did. My mistake. Although, I do wonder if you still believe 30 years to be "a few." ;-)Fannie Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04296502470605119779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-49632770418527869542009-01-26T15:36:00.000-08:002009-01-26T15:36:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Fannie Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04296502470605119779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-52555018416415861632009-01-25T19:01:00.000-08:002009-01-25T19:01:00.000-08:00Fannie: A lifetime faithful romantic commitment be...<B>Fannie</B>: <I>A lifetime faithful romantic commitment between two women is like marriage because, to many...the essential meaning of contemporary marriage is...</I><BR/><BR/>"To many," the world is flat. That doesn't mean we should change our shipping lanes to keep the boats from falling off.<BR/><BR/>The "to many" appeal is merely an excuse for an argument. It is not an argument itself. It concedes that one's beliefs are not based on reason because no reason is given. Instead, the only reason offered is because someone might agree with them. It is equivalent to answering Fannie's question by saying "to many," "a lifetime, faithful romantic commitment between two women is equivalent to having sex with animals or children."<BR/><BR/><I>...the essential meaning of contemporary marriage is a lifetime legal commitment between two unrelated, consenting adults to take responsibility for each other (and their children, if any) and to share their lives and home together.</I><BR/><BR/>And why does government need to get involved in that? Consenting adults are perfectly capable of looking after their own interests.<BR/><BR/>I don't doubt that you can define down marriage until it includes who you want it to and excludes who you want it to. Your problem comes in creating a dumbed down definition that still warrants special government recognition. There is nothing in your dumbed down definition of marriage that cannot be handled by private contracts already.op-edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01281133721763371602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-35986015591465830022009-01-25T17:32:00.000-08:002009-01-25T17:32:00.000-08:00"how a lifetime, faithful romantic commitment betw...<I>"how a lifetime, faithful romantic commitment between two women is equivalent to having sex with animals or children?"</I><BR/><BR/>Even a relationship between two monogamous women is not on the same playing field as a family. Families offer children the opportunity to have a mom and a dad. Lesbian relationships create fatherless children, and abuse the rights of children to have both genders by their very nature. <BR/><BR/>Children have a right to a mom and a dad.beetlebabeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01587351134369209698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-45304808534469195442009-01-25T17:26:00.000-08:002009-01-25T17:26:00.000-08:00Fannie has compared how marriage and two lesbians ...Fannie has compared how marriage and two lesbians are alike, but she's completely missed where they differ. As Pom-apple said,<BR/><BR/>"Why do we value voluntary social restraint? For children. That's it.<BR/><BR/>"It's not a hetero vs. homo argument, it's a mono hetero gold standard vs. everything else argument, because history, science and experience show that this is best for children.<BR/><BR/>"You can have all the religious, personal creeds you want, but only the ideal that puts a child's needs before the individual's own sexual desires deserves the support of society."<BR/><BR/>And I'll re-quote something I wrote from before along those same lines (though Pom-apple put it more succinctly)<BR/><BR/>"Marriage, is becoming more and more deviant. But what is most disturbing is the notion that the lifestyle of life long care and nurture of your co-creator in having children, as well as those children, is becoming deviant.<BR/><BR/>"Consider how in the case of Rosie O'Donnell, or ex-Governor McGreevey their choice to marry is in deviation of that marriage ideal. In Rosie O'Donnell's case, she openly puts her sexual bias in front of her kids longing for a father. IN McGreevey's case, it is also his sexual bias that not only keeps him from taking part as a functional family unit, but motivates and is called on for justification to remove their children from the mother's attention and affection.<BR/><BR/>"In our world everything has a cost. And if nothing else steps forward to pay that cost, then the payment is in the burning want of something. And whether you call it deviant or normal, these children are in want because their care-givers are putting their own sexual bias in front of the children's needs.<BR/><BR/>"As our adult needs of sexual bias (be it promiscuity, homosexuality, or simply the need to have a sexually active or attractive relationship) will cost us our dearest treasure. Our functional and in-tact family kinship, our kin altruism.<BR/><BR/>"Marriage is not against those exercises of free will, but it is not compatible with them either. Nor is our society's dissemination of love, understanding, and self-esteem as capable to meet children's needs if marriage as an institution is made subservient to these biases."<BR/><BR/>Andrew Sullivan, and virtually every neutered marriage advocate, miss entirely how marriage is something more. Something that is so ingrained in our human capacity and operation that we use words like "purpose" and "design". Something which is our gift to future generations. They miss that their ideals do come in conflict with marriage ideals. <BR/><BR/>They have many good ingredients for a relationship that are noble, but they miss out on how marriage is something more.On Lawnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10016822063573312097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-83825089268521780222009-01-25T16:25:00.000-08:002009-01-25T16:25:00.000-08:00I said...Many psychologists disagree. Only a few y...I said...<I>Many psychologists disagree. Only a few years back practically all agreed that same sex attraction was a disorder.</I><BR/><BR/>Fannie said...<I>Secondly, you claim that it was only a "few years back" when "all" psychologists believed homosexuality to be a disorder.</I><BR/><BR/>You have misquoted me Fannie.<BR/><BR/><I>The commonality between these three is that homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia are statistical variations from the norm (meaning "average"). I wonder if anyone here can offer any other arguments as to how a lifetime, faithful romantic commitment between two women is equivalent to having sex with animals or children?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think they are equivalent. They do have something in common though. All are sexual disorders. Non of these desires lead to the fulfillment of the purpose of sex.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-18003990051725225412009-01-25T13:17:00.000-08:002009-01-25T13:17:00.000-08:00"Sorry, Fannie, no offense you understand,"No offe..."Sorry, Fannie, no offense you understand,"<BR/><BR/>No offense taken, Pearl. I'm not offended that you and your readers believe marriage to be something different than what I believe it to be.Fannie Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04296502470605119779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-57253603126813595302009-01-25T12:57:00.000-08:002009-01-25T12:57:00.000-08:00That's easy, op-ed. A lifetime faithful romantic ...That's easy, op-ed. A lifetime faithful romantic commitment between two women is like marriage because, to many (including Andrew Sullivan who I'm stealing <A HREF="http://www.slate.com/id/3642/entry/23844/" REL="nofollow">this quote</A> from, "the essential meaning of contemporary marriage is a lifetime legal commitment between two unrelated, consenting adults to take responsibility for each other (and their children, if any) and to share their lives and home together."<BR/><BR/>Since I answered op-ed's one-liner, I certainly hope others will answer my question and clarify how a lifelong, faithful romantic commitment between two women is like having sex with children or animals. I am very interested in the reasoning process that would lead people to believe that.<BR/><BR/>Pearl, I understand your concern that opening up marriage to same-sex couples will mean that we then will not be able to draw the line anywhere in the future. If you've never read it, I would encourage you to read Andrew Sullivan's piece (that's linked to in my comment here). <BR/><BR/>Although I don't anticipate that you'll agree with him on much, he does do a good job of explaining how the "rules of marriage have changed beyond recognition in the West over the past few thousand years." For instance, it used to be that slaves could not marry. Yet, when legal marriage was opened up to slaves, it did not then mean that marriage was opened up to everyone. Drawing new lines around who can enter marriage does not mean the abandonment of all lines.<BR/><BR/>I know you all believe marriage to be something different, but many heterosexuals and many of those who advocate for same-sex marriage believe that marriage is a lifetime legal commitment between two unrelated consenting adults. The line stops there. Using that definition, there is then no reason to allow men to marry turtles or men to marry little boys.<BR/><BR/>I hope that makes sense.Fannie Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04296502470605119779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-30707445611527371722009-01-25T11:02:00.000-08:002009-01-25T11:02:00.000-08:00Bravo Op-Ed! Excellent question. (Sorry, Fannie, ...Bravo Op-Ed! Excellent question. (Sorry, Fannie, no offense you understand, your questions are necessary for the discussion, but I do so love the brilliant responses from my like-minded friends here).<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, Fannie, you could just answer Chairm's questions as to how these sexual preferences/orientations can be distinguished from each other?<BR/><BR/><I>What distinguishes incest from bestiality and pedophilia, "in the pathological sense"?<BR/><BR/>What distinguishes incest from homosexuality, "in the pathological sense"?</I><BR/><BR/>The comparison is common because it is a valid concern. If we redefine marriage once to accommodate consensuality, what stops us from redefining it again for another deviant, yet consensual, relationship? That seems to be the course of action advocated for in the gay activist bible, <I>After the Ball</I>, which was introduced by Kirk and Madsen, two Harvard graduate homosexual activists, shortly following the 1988 War Conference:<BR/><BR/>"When you're very different, and people hate you for it, this is what you do: first you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then - when your one little difference is finally accepted - can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one. <I>You hammer in the wedge narrow end first</I>. As the saying goes, allow the camel's nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow."<BR/><BR/>And Beetle, thanks for reminding us that the reason for all of this marriage defense is to protect the children. It is absolutely true.Pearlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13696307318838041605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-22444092443661861002009-01-25T10:49:00.000-08:002009-01-25T10:49:00.000-08:00Or to marriage, for that matter.Or to marriage, for that matter.op-edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01281133721763371602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-61320029010149858052009-01-25T08:00:00.000-08:002009-01-25T08:00:00.000-08:00Finally, some have compared homosexuality to besti...Finally, some have compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. This is a common tack. <BR/><BR/>The commonality between these three is that homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia are statistical variations from the norm (meaning "average"). I wonder if anyone here can offer any other arguments as to how a lifetime, faithful romantic commitment between two women is equivalent to having sex with animals or children?Fannie Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04296502470605119779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3480712880513420472.post-35265292382132121102009-01-25T07:45:00.000-08:002009-01-25T07:45:00.000-08:00I said:"However, according to the norms of profess...I said:<BR/><BR/>"However, according to the norms of professional psychology, only bestiality and pedophilia are "abnormal" (in the pathological sense)."<BR/><BR/>Secular Heretic said:<BR/><BR/>"Many psychologists disagree. Only a few years back practically all agreed that same sex attraction was a disorder."<BR/><BR/>Again, you are missing it. Re-read my statement, I am using the my chosen words very carefully. According to the NORMS of professional psychology, homosexuality is not a pathology. Yes, currently some psychologists, like those who promote "ex-gay" therapy, believe homosexuality to be some sort of disorder. My point is that that idea is certainly not the prevailing norm among professional psychologists today. <BR/><BR/>Yes, many psychologists used to believe that homosexuality was a disorder, but that is no longer the case. (Although even in the early years of research on sexuality, homosexuality was not universally labeled a pathology. <A HREF="http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/havelock.htm" REL="nofollow">Psychologist Havelock Ellis,</A> for instance, in 1901 argued that homosexuality was inborn and not a disorder). The professional norms have changed. Whether due to new information, less prejudice, or a vast homosexualist conspiracy. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Secondly, you claim that it was only a "few years back" when "all" psychologists believed homosexuality to be a disorder. Actually, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973, the American Psychological Association in 1975. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of a "few years," but I don't consider 30-some years to be "a few." :-)<BR/><BR/>Third, for those who suggest that the topic of this conversation is "boring," perhaps they need to be reminded that they are not required to participate in that which they find dull. Personally, I find it fascinating to better understand other people's opinions. And, I gather that those who dedicate their blogs to opposing homosexuality and LGBT rights also do not find the topic to be "boring." <BR/><BR/>Take care everyone.Fannie Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04296502470605119779noreply@blogger.com