Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Gay and Lesbian Rights Gay and Lesbian Political Rights Forum - For topics and discussions about LGBT


Thanks Tree17Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 29th, 2015, 06:40 AM   #1
Member
 
Hax Templar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 69
Rentboy, Gay Marriage and “Social Reference Points”.

Lately some gay rights activists have been confusing their allies by complaining about a raid against Rentboy, a website that has for years promoted gay prostitution. Some people who favor gay marriage are against prostitution. Yet some people are in favor of both. It's only natural for people who are pro-gay marriage and anti-prostitution to be confused by that. Marriage is often presumed to be incompatible with prostitution; why then are some prominent gay marriage activists now calling for decriminalizing prostitution?

The simple reason is that you were had: those gay activists do not view marriage the same way you view it. To them, marriage and prostitution are not opposed to each other. To understand how and why they could believe those things are reconcilable can get a little complicated:

Let's begin with the proposition that there are two kinds of sex. The first kind of sex carries with it emotional potential and (arguably) spiritual potential. A second kind of sex does not. It has been said, rightly, that most sexual relationships have some form of economic aspect. What makes prostitution offensive is not that it's economic in nature because everything is at least partly economic; prostitution is offensive because it's only economic. Those other potentialities that are so important to some people do not exist within a prostitution relationship.

This applies even in the "hookup" culture. It's always presumed that on some level, one person (or even both) possess some form of affection for each other but don't want to get into it for their own reasons. If two people were hooking up and they both completely lacked any level of affection for each other, it would seem like two psychopaths rutting and would probably be every bit as offensive to people as prostitution is, maybe even more offensive.

What makes a man supporting his wife different from a man supporting a prostitute? Increasingly there are people today who argue that there is no difference but some of us know better. It goes beyond questions about love and emotion: when two people can become one physically, they can also become one spiritually, forming a new person who could be a member of a community. This theoretical person, who was formed by her parents in a way similar to how others in the community were formed, believes what the others believe. In this sense, heterosexual love and marriage can be communalistic.

As the Rentboy incident shows us, some and perhaps even most gay people are not offended by prostitution. They can even consider it related to their battle for "marriage equality”. This is because to them, marriage only symbolizes the strength of their emotions. Marriage has no communal function in their minds, it only has its emotional significance. Using surrogate mothers or sperm donors can give homosexual people children but it does not physically unite two of them together. Those children of theirs have no necessary connection to their marriage. Deeper spiritual meanings about building communities and two flesh becoming one have no relevance to gay marriages. In this sense, homosexual love and marriage is individualistic.

As such, gay marriage is necessarily individualistic (emotional) but traditional marriage can be communalistic (social and extra-emotional). In defending gay prostitution the "what happens behind closed doors" argument has been used, the same argument that was used to defend gay marriage. This is because to many gay marriage activists, both marriage and prostitution are just things that "happen behind closed doors." Gay marriage was not being promoted out of communal or spiritual concerns, it was raised out of emotional and individualistic concerns.

This is also why gay marriage poses a real threat in terms of the "slippery slope". We are expected to subsidize two people's emotions but it is impossible for outsiders to know what emotions someone is really feeling. This means that if marriage is reduced to being only a recognition of individual emotions, the slippery slope towards things like plural marriages and temporary marriages is open because those things may also contain as strong emotions. The only limiting factor is whether enough people believe that those who live "alternative lifestyles" are genuinely in love with each other.

In the extreme outcome, we have to recognize the emotion of love in plural marriages, in brothers who really love each other, in everybody who can legitimately claim to love. Yet if everyone gets the subsidy then no one gets the subsidy. What began as an attempt to have the government recognize and subsidize love as an emotion ends with the government not recognizing love at all.

What is needed to prevent the subsidy of all these alternative relationships is a clearly agreed upon reference point. Any reference point must be clear and physically demarcated before it can be considered indisputable. A union of two flesh into one, which suggests the permanency of the relationship (traditional marriages having far lower divorce rates than gay marriages), can serve as such a reference point. Nothing else is the same.

It's sometimes pointed out that all traditionally married people cannot have their own children. That is not the point. The point is not what people are feeling or even what each individual couple can do. The point is whether the form of the relationship can reliably produce a clearly demarcated reference point. It does not need to produce it every time, it only needs to be able to produce it reliably. Whether a "slippery slope" is real depends on if we have a reliable reference point that is capable of preventing the slip. In traditional, communalistic marriage we reliably find such a reference point while in subjective, emotional marriages that never produce unifying children we do not find such a point.

It is fair that people want the government to acknowledge "love" because everyone likes love. Yet love is not a thing that can reliably be identified by itself. Insofar as marriage laws happen to have acknowledged love it was purely coincidental; love coincided with the physical reference point of two people's shared children, whom they have chosen to stay together to raise, a physical manifestation of love that itself resides within the social edifice of marriage. It was never the love itself that was being identified, recognized or subsidized. It was the reference point that was recognized. That is the best thing that anyone should reasonably expect government to be capable of because if we are going to just take people's words for it, we may as well start subsidizing a man and his gay prostitute.
Hax Templar is offline  
Old August 29th, 2015, 07:24 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 21,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax Templar View Post
Lately some gay rights activists have been confusing their allies by complaining about a raid against Rentboy, a website that has for years promoted gay prostitution. Some people who favor gay marriage are against prostitution. Yet some people are in favor of both. It's only natural for people who are pro-gay marriage and anti-prostitution to be confused by that. Marriage is often presumed to be incompatible with prostitution; why then are some prominent gay marriage activists now calling for decriminalizing prostitution?

The simple reason is that you were had: those gay activists do not view marriage the same way you view it. To them, marriage and prostitution are not opposed to each other. To understand how and why they could believe those things are reconcilable can get a little complicated:

Let's begin with the proposition that there are two kinds of sex. The first kind of sex carries with it emotional potential and (arguably) spiritual potential. A second kind of sex does not. It has been said, rightly, that most sexual relationships have some form of economic aspect. What makes prostitution offensive is not that it's economic in nature because everything is at least partly economic; prostitution is offensive because it's only economic. Those other potentialities that are so important to some people do not exist within a prostitution relationship.

This applies even in the "hookup" culture. It's always presumed that on some level, one person (or even both) possess some form of affection for each other but don't want to get into it for their own reasons. If two people were hooking up and they both completely lacked any level of affection for each other, it would seem like two psychopaths rutting and would probably be every bit as offensive to people as prostitution is, maybe even more offensive.

What makes a man supporting his wife different from a man supporting a prostitute? Increasingly there are people today who argue that there is no difference but some of us know better. It goes beyond questions about love and emotion: when two people can become one physically, they can also become one spiritually, forming a new person who could be a member of a community. This theoretical person, who was formed by her parents in a way similar to how others in the community were formed, believes what the others believe. In this sense, heterosexual love and marriage can be communalistic.

As the Rentboy incident shows us, some and perhaps even most gay people are not offended by prostitution. They can even consider it related to their battle for "marriage equality”. This is because to them, marriage only symbolizes the strength of their emotions. Marriage has no communal function in their minds, it only has its emotional significance. Using surrogate mothers or sperm donors can give homosexual people children but it does not physically unite two of them together. Those children of theirs have no necessary connection to their marriage. Deeper spiritual meanings about building communities and two flesh becoming one have no relevance to gay marriages. In this sense, homosexual love and marriage is individualistic.

As such, gay marriage is necessarily individualistic (emotional) but traditional marriage can be communalistic (social and extra-emotional). In defending gay prostitution the "what happens behind closed doors" argument has been used, the same argument that was used to defend gay marriage. This is because to many gay marriage activists, both marriage and prostitution are just things that "happen behind closed doors." Gay marriage was not being promoted out of communal or spiritual concerns, it was raised out of emotional and individualistic concerns.

This is also why gay marriage poses a real threat in terms of the "slippery slope". We are expected to subsidize two people's emotions but it is impossible for outsiders to know what emotions someone is really feeling. This means that if marriage is reduced to being only a recognition of individual emotions, the slippery slope towards things like plural marriages and temporary marriages is open because those things may also contain as strong emotions. The only limiting factor is whether enough people believe that those who live "alternative lifestyles" are genuinely in love with each other.

In the extreme outcome, we have to recognize the emotion of love in plural marriages, in brothers who really love each other, in everybody who can legitimately claim to love. Yet if everyone gets the subsidy then no one gets the subsidy. What began as an attempt to have the government recognize and subsidize love as an emotion ends with the government not recognizing love at all.

What is needed to prevent the subsidy of all these alternative relationships is a clearly agreed upon reference point. Any reference point must be clear and physically demarcated before it can be considered indisputable. A union of two flesh into one, which suggests the permanency of the relationship (traditional marriages having far lower divorce rates than gay marriages), can serve as such a reference point. Nothing else is the same.

It's sometimes pointed out that all traditionally married people cannot have their own children. That is not the point. The point is not what people are feeling or even what each individual couple can do. The point is whether the form of the relationship can reliably produce a clearly demarcated reference point. It does not need to produce it every time, it only needs to be able to produce it reliably. Whether a "slippery slope" is real depends on if we have a reliable reference point that is capable of preventing the slip. In traditional, communalistic marriage we reliably find such a reference point while in subjective, emotional marriages that never produce unifying children we do not find such a point.

It is fair that people want the government to acknowledge "love" because everyone likes love. Yet love is not a thing that can reliably be identified by itself. Insofar as marriage laws happen to have acknowledged love it was purely coincidental; love coincided with the physical reference point of two people's shared children, whom they have chosen to stay together to raise, a physical manifestation of love that itself resides within the social edifice of marriage. It was never the love itself that was being identified, recognized or subsidized. It was the reference point that was recognized. That is the best thing that anyone should reasonably expect government to be capable of because if we are going to just take people's words for it, we may as well start subsidizing a man and his gay prostitute.
Uh yeah, interesting. So, what's your point?
Hollywood is offline  
Old August 29th, 2015, 07:56 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,702
Just one correction Traditional Marriage has a divorce rate (2%) that is double the rate for same sex marriage(1%).
Each year 2% of traditional marriages and 1% of same sex marriages end in divorce,
that may change as same sex marriages "age" but that's what it is now.

And it means nothing, I see same sex marriage as the first step to redefining family in legal terms. Traditional extended family structure is not compatible with capitalism, in a system that requires labor to be mobile, traditional extended families cannot exist, the "nuclear family" is an unstable transition state, incapable of dealing with the pressures of modern life.
Something new is needed, and that can be cradle to grave socialism, or a new family structure to replace the old structure of the extended family.
In that way, same sex marriage can be seen as the first step to preserve capitalism.
goober is offline  
Old August 29th, 2015, 08:39 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Just one correction Traditional Marriage has a divorce rate (2%) that is double the rate for same sex marriage(1%).
Each year 2% of traditional marriages and 1% of same sex marriages end in divorce,
that may change as same sex marriages "age" but that's what it is now.

And it means nothing, I see same sex marriage as the first step to redefining family in legal terms. Traditional extended family structure is not compatible with capitalism, in a system that requires labor to be mobile, traditional extended families cannot exist, the "nuclear family" is an unstable transition state, incapable of dealing with the pressures of modern life.
Something new is needed, and that can be cradle to grave socialism, or a new family structure to replace the old structure of the extended family.
In that way, same sex marriage can be seen as the first step to preserve capitalism.
There is no usable or credible evidence of the divorce rate of same-sex marriages and it will take years to have credible evidence.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old August 29th, 2015, 08:44 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
There is no usable or credible evidence of the divorce rate of same-sex marriages and it will take years to have credible evidence.
Actually there are numbers, as I said the numbers may change over time.
But the numbers don't form a point of the argument.
goober is offline  
Old August 29th, 2015, 09:28 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 9,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
There is no usable or credible evidence of the divorce rate of same-sex marriages and it will take years to have credible evidence.
Alabama governor who called marriage equality a ?social experiment? slapped with divorce papers
Thanks from RNG
skews13 is offline  
Old August 29th, 2015, 10:00 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
The muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), the only species in genus Ondatra and tribe Ondatrini, is a medium-sized semiaquatic rodent native to North America, and is an introduced species in parts of Europe, Asia, and South America.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old August 29th, 2015, 10:18 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
There is no usable or credible evidence of the divorce rate of same-sex marriages and it will take years to have credible evidence.
Same sex marriage has been legal in Mass for over 10 years.

Or is 10 years not "years" in your book?
Thanks from foundit66
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Old August 29th, 2015, 10:29 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Same sex marriage has been legal in Mass for over 10 years.

Or is 10 years not "years" in your book?
It's right wing thing, when you think the data supports your conclusion you hammer the data, as in Same Sex couples have a higher divorce rate, it proves we should outlaw same sex marriage.
When the actual numbers show the same sex divorce rate is half the Traditional Marriage Divorce rate, the numbers are meaningless....

ObamaCare was going to be a disaster because no one would sign up, costs would skyrocket, the numbers of uninsured would rise, and unemployment would soar. When more people than expected sign up, when costs are lower than projections, when the number of uninsured goes down, and we see the most robust job growth since the 90's. ObamaCare is still a disaster, because those numbers mean nothing.

It's what happens when you live in a fantasy bubble, no matter what happens in the real world, everything in the fantasy bubble is exactly what you expected. So the Zimbabwe style hyperinflation that the right predicted would be the result of Obama's stimulus package, that's happening now, the government is hiding the truth, faking the numbers, the $2.17 I paid for gas this morning was triple what I paid when Bush was in office, right?
Thanks from foundit66 and imaginethat
goober is offline  
Old August 29th, 2015, 10:46 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Same sex marriage has been legal in Mass for over 10 years.

Or is 10 years not "years" in your book?
In my book there are fifty states, and in my book those legally married in Massachusetts were not able to divorce in other states if they relocated. In my book, that makes the data from one state meaningless compared to other states. In my book, as in all books of relevant data, data must be representative of the whole (fifty states), and the data must encompass a time-span long enough to be compared to data with a longer time-span.
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Tags
gay, marriage, points”, reference, rentboy, “social



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
In reference to all the riots Engineer Racism 7 August 24th, 2014 06:50 AM
Input (For Future-Reference), For Gamers.... Medicine Man Current Events 2 May 16th, 2014 03:53 AM
Lefties useWingnut web sites, Conservaitves reference the actual report. TNVolunteer73 Current Events 28 March 17th, 2014 05:44 PM
Another Gop Homophobe Rents A Rentboy skrekk Gay and Lesbian Rights 19 August 14th, 2011 06:23 PM
Clinton: RFK reference unrelated to Obama CNN Current Events 2 May 25th, 2008 08:21 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.