Wednesday, May 16, 2007

New word in Polish dictionary: homoagitacja?


Equality Parade, Warsaw, May 19 14.00…… Krzysztof Bosak, leader of the Youth Movement of the League of Polish Families not pleased: “ Public propaganda of homosexual lifestyle is a threat to public morality and is against natural law as well as family values, which are in our Constitution….”.

Or homo-agitation in English. It’s the linguistic contribution to the Polish language of education secretary, Roman Giertych.

To agitate means to arouse interest in (a cause, for example) by use of the written or spoken word.

Homo-agitation will not be allowed in schools – meaning gay groups will not be allowed into schools to ‘promote’ homosexuality - if Giertych gets his way. He is going to create a new law to ban these heathens entering the gates.

In the mind of Roman, heterosexual kids could turn gay at any second, if exposed to 'homosexual propaganda'.

His idea of a law banning gays from high schools has support from Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski and from Andrzej Lepper, also part of the coalition, Giertych cliamed today.

His is an interesting, and fluid, view of sexuality. It’s even one many gay and lesbians might agree with, in a way.

I remember great rage among my fellow sociology students when models of homosexuality were introduced in lectures claiming that a part of the brain of homosexuals was somewhat unusual.

Or how about the (in)famous Xq28 chromosome. This, I remember caused outrage among gay campaigners when geneticist Dean Hamer published his research in 1993. That would mean that gays are, in some way, 'abnormal'.

The dominant view in sociology back then (late 1980s, early 1990s) was based on a Foucaultian model of sexuality – of the power of ‘discourse’ and ‘counter-discourse’. The work of British sociologist Jeffrey Weeks is typical of this view. Any biological explanations were not PC, even ‘fascist’.

Well, they needn’t have worried – as they have an unlikely ally in Education Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister Roman Giertych – the man who gets highly agitated by the thought of homo-agitation. He’s a man, basically, who is afraid of speech and the power he thinks it has - another curious similarity between the conservative nationalists and some trendy liberal, deconstructionist post-modernist.

We live in strange times.

81 comments:

geez said...

Hamer has also postulated that there's a "God" gene.

And I read today that there's some new cheap test that can determine the sex of the fetus at 6 weeks.

Won't be long now before folks will have the "right to choose" early on to "terminate a pregancy" on the basis of sex/gender, likely sexual orientation, and who knows what else.

beatroot said...

I really don't think people will be interested - all parents are interested in is that the baby is healthy.

And the link between our genetic, biological make up and sexuality is very very complicated. It's one of the things I spent a lot of the time as sociologist studying and lecturing. HIV was scaring the shit out of people in the west then, so this was a big research area.

There is an interaction betwen the two - an 'articulation'. But what that all actually means, I never did find out.

And these days I could not care less.

Sexuality is like food - do it, have a nice. varied diet - and then shut up about it. It's not the meaning of life - it's not 'a way of life' - our sexuality is not the most important identity we have. But at a time of 'identity politics' it has become - both with gays, and their opponents - 'an issue'.

Zzzzzzzzzzz

Anonymous said...

this is why poland has no friends :-(

geez said...

BR wrote: all parents are interested in is that the baby is healthy.

<><

China.

And I know more than a few people in the US and Poland who believe that homosexuality is an embarrassment of supreme proportions, a deformation, and then some. Given a choice, I don't doubt they would choose to get out the vacuum cleaner.

beatroot said...

First of all: the people who think like that are also against abortion. So the hoover is not an option.

And Geez - if they think like Roman Giertych then they must believe that you can talk someone into a sexuality.

This is my point.

opamp said...

In Polish school, there is no freedom of speech. Either you teach approved line, or you get fired. Period. (Unless you teach religion, then you can escape with teaching stuff like creationism). So this is nothing more than upholding the general rule in this area.

Now, I actually support this ban because I believe that politicizing sexual orientation (and this what the LGBT rights groups are doing, essentially) is inappropriate and dangerous.

geez said...

BR, don't you know any folks who aren't at all religious who don't like gays? Maybe you've been in Poland too long.

beatroot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beatroot said...

Geez - of course I know that it's possible to hate gays and not be a catholic. But these people are generally Conservative - and there are clusters of belief, and 'homophobia' and anti-abortion are one of those clusters.

Opamp
I actually support this ban because I believe that politicizing sexual orientation (and this what the LGBT rights groups are doing, essentially) is inappropriate and dangerous.

How is it 'dangerous'? Don't I remmeber you saying once that homosexual was 'natural'?

michael farris said...

"I actually support this ban because I believe that politicizing sexual orientation ... is inappropriate and dangerous"

Don't get irony, very much, do you?

Anonymous said...

Why Mr. Jarosław Kaczyński agrees with this law? Why? Why? Why?
It's a common gossip that he himself is a homosexual, so is it to cover his preferences?
There must be a reason for sth like this (bottom right picture, taken at the last Tolerance Parade in Warsaw):
http://pancygaro.fotolog.pl/730948,komentarze.html

opamp said...

How is it 'dangerous'?

Because contemporary politics is all about privileging certain groups in order to gain voting support, and brainwashing the public to believe that these privileges are morally justified.

Additionally, always in context of gay rights it is raised that gays enrich the society. Take, for example, this gem, from an article discussing affirmative action for gay university students:

Passalacqua said that gay students bring “a unique quality” to the college, which he said tries hard not “to be too homogeneous.”

Now this is what I call homosexual propaganda. "Unique quality"! It has as much merit as saying that people with other natural traits, such as blond hair and blue eyes also bring unique quality... Oh, wait, this has been tried before.

(For more fun, go to the PubMed database, and search for 7860982).

The danger is that once the state starts collecting the data on citizen's sexuality for the reasons of preventing the discrimation, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will not be used for bad purposes later on.

We have known since Kinsey that human sexuality is naturally very diverse, so there is absolutely no reason to make it a political matter.

geez said...

BR, you still make it sound that it's mostly Catholics who have the major problem concerning homsexuality. Well, yea, in Poland but that's mostly because there are so many Catholics. But worldwide, I think it's much more widespread than that. I know it is. And even in Poland, there are a lot and indeed a growing number of not-very conservative Catholic young folks. And the number of non-Catholic young folks are growing, too.

And did you get my remark about China? Female infanticide is not all that uncommon there. So consider how simple it will be now with as 6 week test, supposedly as easy to self-administer as one of those drugcounter pregancy tests. becomes more widely available.

beatroot said...

Anon
The old classic about Jarosław being gay is rather a cheap way to try and win an argument and I am not going there.

Opamp
I completely agree about what you say on affirmative action. It’s actually very patronizing to those groups…’gays are special’ blah blah. I come from the old left (now defunct)which wants people to be treated EQUALLY….nobody is ‘special’.

But gays going into schools and explaining that homosexuality is not a disease, and nothing to be ashamed of, will help homosexual kids come to terms with themselves. Having to hide ones sexuality is a miserable way to live.

And Geez
I am certainly not claiming the Catholics are the main problem. Not at all. Bigots are well represented in all types societies. But I am here in Poland, so I have to deal with the realities here. And there are not too many Islamic fundamentalists around Warsaw at present. But there are catholic nationalists.

Anonymous said...

«but there are catholic nationalists.»

They are in their country aren´t day?
Why don´t you fuck off from Poland and go home?

Damo said...

I really don't think people will be interested - all parents are interested in is that the baby is healthy.

That statement hardly applies to India and China where abortion has been widespread, partly due to gender. One of the ironic consequences of ultra-sound testing is that some used it to advocate a pro-life position, others for gender selected abortion.

For example, The Lancet reported last year that there may have been up to 10 million female fetuses aborted in India since the mid-eighties. Interestingly, they also asserted that sex selective abortion is less common among the poor/uneducated than the wealthy/educated sectors of society.

Wiki

Damo said...

It has as much merit as saying that people with other natural traits, such as blond hair and blue eyes also bring unique quality... Oh, wait, this has been tried before.

Does Godwin's law apply?

I would like to suggest we create a 'Haggard law', after that great bastion of evangelical hypocrisy, Ted Haggard! It would go like this - The first to mention the possibility of Jaroslaw K. being gay in an online debate loses the discussion and is eliminated from making any more comments. We can amend the rules in the event that some day he actually does come forward and admit a sordid past.

But in the meantime, let's leave the guy's sexuality out of the discourse.

beatroot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beatroot said...

They are in their country aren´t day? Why don´t you fuck off from Poland and go home?

Oooo, your level of political debate is just awesome! I help pay for the education system, therefor I have a right to say anything I want.

Anonymous said...

«I have the right to say anything I want»

Until one day... that is sooner than you expect.

Anonymous said...

http://www.modelguns.co.uk/uzi.htm

Such a brave guy (behind a computer) I hope you can fight like a man...

beatroot said...

grow up.

Anonymous said...

Shut your gob faggot lover!

Harry said...

Good to see that the Gietych Jungen are still maintaining their normal superb level of debating skills. Got to laugh at the 'fight like a man' line when it comes from people who won't even attack an 80-year old woman unless there are at least four of them and one of her. Anyway, turning away from the children for a minute.

Opamp: you're still missing the point entirely. It's not about any group being privilaged, it's about everybody being equal. Either everybody is equal or we may as well rebuild the ghetto walls (personally I'd go for reopening the ghetto but that's because I'd be one of the people living inside the ghetto and my quality of life would become much better).

Beatroot: You've missed the obvious comment. If Roman truly wanted children to be put off homosexuality, he'd state that he is gay and that any child who experiments with homosexuality is certain to grow up to be just like him. That should frighten them into hetrosexuality.

varus said...

Erm i have got this straight? Beatroot has been threatened by a replica gun. I know we are talking in a virtual world, but surly it will take more than a lot of air to prepare a nice beatroot salad (sorry BR couldn't resist. That link says the gun:

"takes a PFC cap (PFC caps included: 1 box). The cap produces the blowback actions/ smoke and ejects the shells"

Sounds truly scary!!! Maybe anonymous should have researched that link a bit more before posting it.

geez said...

Anybody here think than anon, prolly a semi-Catholic "Polish nationalist" (if he could find a woman who would fuck him), would have any problem with his wife/partner aborting a fetus if even so much of a hint of homosexuality was identifiable prior to birth?

opamp said...

But gays going into schools and explaining that homosexuality is not a disease, and nothing to be ashamed of,

Of course, it is even beneficial! But, there should be some control over what and how they are saying. Like, teaching children a radical feminist theory of five genders.

Anyway. It would have been a non-issue, if Polish schools had sex ed classes taught by competent people. But of course, our bigots wouldn't allow that...

@harry:

you're still missing the point entirely.

I am not. The equality of homosexuals are guaranteed by the fact that (1) homosexuality is not punishable and (2) discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is forbidden. That's it. This what is being preached now under the title of "gay rights" are in fact demands for privileged treatment (cf. gay marriage). This is fundamentally unacceptable.

geez said...

BTW, BR, why you gotta pick on Lurch?

beatroot said...

Op
Anyway. It would have been a non-issue, if Polish schools had sex ed classes taught by competent people. But of course, our bigots wouldn't allow that...

Well, that hits the nail on the head. I must admit I was a bit surprised to hear that gays and lesbians were going into schools to talk to kids. That should all be done by the school. But we can’t blame that all on Giertych. It wasn’t too great before.

And I have to agree too that ‘gay rights’ is a daft, and potentially divisive concept. There should be human rights, same for everyone, and that’s it. But it must be the same for everyone.

Geez
Yeah, you are right. The photo is a bit insulting to poor old Lurch. And comparing the Adams family to the Giertych nationalist dynasty is a bit unfair too. Apologies.

Damo
I second 'Haggard’s law',

Varus
'Research a link'? Research? :-))

Harry said...

Opamp said:
what is being preached now under the title of "gay rights" are in fact demands for privileged treatment (cf. gay marriage).


Not this shite again. Want me to point out that you are either lying or moronic? We've covered the lies you reproduced about gay marriage. Gay marriage is not about privileged treatment for some, forbidding gays from marriage is about privileged treatment for some.

beatroot said...

Harry, don’t start the name calling again.

Gay marriage is not a ‘gay right’. It’s just a human right, full stop.

heat_seeker said...

I think the gay community in Poland faces 2 major challenges (1) most Poles (even the educated ones…) equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and (2) the catholic church perceives marriage as an issue of a religious sacrament rather than civil/constitutional rights. Hence, a very strong emotional response to the notion of a gay marriage. It’s sad but true.

beatroot said...

Both true point and welcome heat-seeker (where do we get our daft nom de plumes from?)

But that is not what my post is really about. It’s about the idea that you can talk someone into wanting to shag someone of the same sex.

Derrida would just love it!

Both conservative and liberal are enthralled at the power of words and speech. They think it’s dangerous. And that’s where this very censorious atmosphere has come from – both in and outside Poland, in different ways. Religious Hate laws in UK. Banning gays in schools in Poland. Same difference, same shit.

opamp said...

forbidding gays from marriage is about privileged treatment for some.

If you start from a notion that humans have an inherent right to marriage, yes.

However, I do not agree with this notion. I view the marriage as a purely utilitarian social construct, with the purpose of facilitating reproduction and raising children. Consequently, I view gay marriage as an attempt to obtain undeserved privileges, previously granted to incite people to have children.

Gay marriage is only becoming acceptable because the idea of the purpose of marriage has shifted from having children to having fun.

geez said...

the idea of the purpose of marriage has shifted from having children to having fun

What? I thought it was primarily about love and commitment. Not even all heterosexual married couples can produce children. And better that some of them don't imho. And how many heterosexual married couples will say that marriage is all about fun?

Iza said...

The most shocking idea here is that Giertych is saying that I will be "converted" to homosexuality by talking to homosexuals or being informed about homosexuality.

What???


And here I thought we all had the free will to do what we want. Apparently, homosexuals are out on a rampage to gain as many members as they can. Perhaps for an airline discount....



That seems to be as effective and convincing as Catholicism's campaign to get more priests.

Honestly, this is ridiculous. No matter what you or I or the next person believes, I don't know anyone (personally) whom I could convince to become homosexual (if that's even possible, I haven't heard of that happening).

Maybe if they were hypnotizing people with their words, but Giertych doesn't say anything about that.

beatroot said...

Op
I view the marriage as a purely utilitarian social construct, with the purpose of facilitating reproduction and raising children.

It’s a social construction of course, but the purpose of that construction changes over time.

In the beginning….marriage was a construct designed to transfer land, property, from one generation to another. They did this by transferring land from the male side of the marriage (plus dowry). That’s what it was for.

Then it became a religious thing. A union made in heaven!

Children have played a major part of all this. They are the line of decent, they have been a source of income and a continuation of property relations, etc.

But these days a family is not an area of production, or just reproduction. Marriage now means – if anything – like what Geez says, a sign of commitment in societies where people don’t really feel committed to anything much at all.

In that case, a gay marrying is pretty much the same as a heterosexual marrying, and so should be encouraged.

heat_seeker said...

Opamp – you are confusing two very different concepts and trivialize a valid legal discourse. Marriage as support of procreation is theological concept designed to preserve clarity of lineage. In the legal context marriage is a creature of contract. It has been a contractual issue for as long as human history goes. It is the recognition of the contractual aspect of the marriage that the gay community is fighting for: the right to make medical decisions for each other, the right to inherit pension benefits, the right to function as a family unit in the eye of the law.

Are you married Opamp? Did you get married to have more fun? Hope it’s been working out for you….

beatroot said...

My girlfriend and I cannot have children. Nobody’s fault. A nasty illness intervened. But that will not stop us getting married. In fact, it’s all the more reason to get married – to show each other that we mean business and the relationship is not just ‘utilitarian’.

I just got round to buying the engagement ring a couple of weeks ago. So I gotta do it now!

opamp said...

Marriage as support of procreation is theological concept designed to preserve clarity of lineage. In the legal context marriage is a creature of contract.

True; however, there are certain restrictions on who can make such contract (i.e. is polygamy allowed or not). And these restrictions are there for a reason, namely because of

the right to function as a family unit in the eye of the law.

Yes! Eligibility criteria for marriage reflect the concept of family. Allowing gay marriage means that two married gays become a family. And since they are now a family, what about them having children? Not to mention purely practical problems, because we already have a ton of law codes (and many tons of case law) written with only heterosexual couples in mind.

Not that I see any problem with two gay people signing a civil contract regulating inheritance etc.; in fact I'd encourage them to do so. Just don't call that a marriage.

@beatroot:

Good luck!

Harry said...

So basically then opamp, before any two people can get married, regardless of their sex or sexuality, in your world they would have to first both pass fertility tests. If they can not reproduce, they can not get married. Or at least not to each other, if either of them is fertile then that person can get married and enjoy the benefits that status brings, they just can not do it with the person that they would like to do it with. And kudos to you for refusing to tell Beatroot that he can not marry his partner! Way to stick to your principles!

What a nice world you live in opamp. Can we come and live there? While we are there can we all sit in a big circle while you explain the real meaning of Matthew chapter seven verse one to us all? And after that can you perhaps take the fertile half of all the couples who have failed your fertility test and so can not be married in your world and you can match them with a suitable breeding partner who they can spawn with.

BTW: Please post your fertility certificate on the internet. If you can not then please post your solemn oath to never apply for married status. Alternatively just post a confirmation that you are a narrow-minded bigot. Oh, sorry, you've already posted that several times.

Heat_seeker: isn't it funny how people associate homosexuals with paedophilia but never associate an organisation which has a firm track record of protecting paedophiles (i.e. the Catholic church) with paedophilia? The organisation gives shelter to known paedophiles like Joseph Henn and Barry Bosa, promoted the aptly named Bernard Law who cover up for all the paedophiles and then made sure he had a job which gave him security against extradition but still people can not link it with paedophilia....

prostak said...

Hello again, chaps.

I believe, varus, that beatroot was threatened by a mere picture of a model gun, which takes me back to my philosophy degree when I try to contemplate its relation to a genuine threat. Anonymous has shut up since then, anyway, probably got excited over that picture and occupied himself elsewise *ahem*.


And opamp, I personally still fail to see the distinction between the marriage and civil union, or however you wish to call it, other than mere nominality. If we're talking about having kids, I have no problem with this. My neighbours are a lesbian couple, and they bring up their kid (which one of them had a year or so ago after anonymous sex - and before we judge, bear in mind sperm donation was anonymous in the UK til a year or so ago, think of it on those terms) perfectly well. Sod the 'two mums' nonsense, as someone who didn't really have a dad as a kid (sorry, I know you're out of medals), I'd've preferred two parents of either gender to one mother trying desperately to juggle the firey knives of concurrently raising a kid and earning enough money to do so. I also firmly believe that two people in love deserve the same treatment by the law as every other couple, whatever their respective genders. The sooner kids are allowed the chance to see this as normal, the better.

Oh, and congratulations to the soon-to-be Mr and Mrs Beatroot!

prostak said...

apologies for that 'word', nominality, creeping in there. I'm tired and took a stab... and lost. Sorry.

heat_seeker said...

Good point Harry - it is indeed highly hypocritical. Incidentally. those are the same people (i.e. the Church) who support (run?) re-education camps for the homosexuals - Do they have those in Poland?

Damo said...

I just got round to buying the engagement ring a couple of weeks ago. So I gotta do it now!

Though you're a root vegetable, I'm sure you've got the balls.
Trzymamy kcziuki(?)

geez said...

Congrats (assuming MbT sez tak) BR (and I guess U2 MbT).

varus said...

In all of the above i tend to agree with the notions that marrige is about a) committment b) legal rights to speak as one, share pensions, make medical decsions etc. It is not about children, as this is the same sort of logic that presoposes that when you get married you automatically must have children and if you don't then your just plain wierd. I have been married for approaching five years and my wife and i are healthy as far as we know, yet we don't have kids. Are we the devil incarnate? In some eyes, yes!! But i don't beleive we are and that we are not doing anything wrong. Therefore, gay marriage is the same as hetrosexual marrige and should have all the same rights.

varus said...

P.S. Congratulations and goodluck to Beatroot.

Anonymous said...

Pity she´ll be a widow soon.

heat_seeker said...

anon - you've crossed the line. You are not as 'anonymous' as you think. Don't be surprised when bad things start happening to you. Good luck - you'll seriously need it.

beatroot said...

Yup. This little shit ‘anon’ very certainly has ‘crossed the line’. Which means digging around in Statcounter so I can get his ISP, server, etc and simply block him from this site.
But can I be bothered?

Pity someone who can come out with such vile nonsense. He must be a very sad person. And he is useful: he shows morons like himself for what they are. Can you imagine anyone like that winning a rational argument?

Scum. That’s the price we pay for free speech. But they are very isolated, marginal people. Not a threat to civilization. This is not the 1930s.

prostak said...

Dearie me, why does this issue always cause such anger amongst certain types of individual? Ultimately, it comes down to where a gentleman wishes to stick it, as it were (lesbians don't even seem to exist for these people) - as long as you're not coming home to find gay men indulging themselves and each other all over your living room like massive termites or suchlike, why does it bother you? More to the point, what damn business is it of yours?
Homosexuality has been documented as long as sex itself has... I wonder what hard right Greeks do, can they bring themselves to promote ancient Greek culture (when their nation was the greatest in the world, picking at the nationalist bone) in schools when so many leading thinkers of the time are known to have had sex with men?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
beatroot said...

No. I am not even reading this crap anymore. If you can't disguss something like an adult then o and play with your lego bricks.

opamp said...

@harry:

I am not married, thank you.

And many thanks for suggesting that I should personally hate people I don't agree with; I shall consider this as the position of the more enlightened.

@prostak:

Sod the 'two mums' nonsense, as someone who didn't really have a dad as a kid (sorry, I know you're out of medals), I'd've preferred two parents of either gender

This is the error in your logic. You assume that the child should have two parents purely for economic reasons. This is not the case.

A child should have two parents of different genders to observe both male and female role models. And this is something a homosexual couple cannot deliver by definition.

And if the economic reason would be indeed the main one, then I claim that it is much better to introduce a polygamous marriage. For example, in a marriage of three partners you could have two partners working and the third one looking after the kids. That would make much more income available for raising children! Plus, if at least one partner would be of a different gender, the child would see both male and female role models. So this is clearly a more beneficial solution. Heck, partners can even engage in homosexual acts if they wish to! Take for example a union of a straight man, one bisexual woman and one lesbian. Everyone is happy and children have daddy and mommy (well, two of them, in fact).

So, why we don't introduce this family model (which has an attested history of operating correctly over thousands of years) and are instead promoting a completely artificial (and biologically untenable) model of homosexuals with children, I cannot fathom.

My neighbours are a lesbian couple, and they bring up their kid (which one of them had a year or so ago after anonymous sex [...]) perfectly well.

I'm sure they do.

But why stop there? I mean, the medicine will soon allow two lesbians to have children with their own mixed genetic material (e.g. biologically theirs children). So maybe we should write in the constitution that having children via artificial insemination is an inherent right of lesbians. And since it is an inherent right, it should be financed by the state. But how do we get the money for this? Oh, I know, tax everyone! Which means everyone not being a net recipient of this service (i.e. these pesky heterosexuals!) should finance the lesbian's children. Yes, I am sure the LGBT activists would love my idea. And if these children could be genetically engineered to be tolerant homosexuals, now that would be heaven on earth: a homosexual community free of sexual discrimination in any form!

michael farris said...

"A child should have two parents of different genders to observe both male and female role models"

I'm sorry, this only makes sense if you assume that there is a set of behaviors that women have that men don't and vice versa. To the extent that that is true, it usually involves things most people absolutely do not want their children to "observe".

It might make sense if you redefine "male and female role models" as "culturally appropriate sexual stereotypes" and assume that most heterosexual couples can and should embody such stereotypes in front of their children. IME real life is a lot messier than that and most people I know can cite instances of both of their parents displaying behaviors that don't conform to the stereotypes.

What children need are good adult role models, period.

opamp said...

To the extent that that is true, it usually involves things most people absolutely do not want their children to "observe"

Because we all known that women just go crazy after guys who can't hold a hammer (and cry like a baby after hitting themselves with it)!

Harry said...

opamp said...
@harry:

I am not married, thank you.

You will be taking a fertility test and forcing any potential wife to take one before you get married, won't you? Please do confirm that you would not marry somebody who is unable to have children and that you will never marry if you are unable to have children.

And many thanks for suggesting that I should personally hate people I don't agree with; I shall consider this as the position of the more enlightened.
Why do you bother with such pathetic lies? At least when you were lying about Holland allowing polygamous marriage people had to click on links I posted to check that you were lying. Now all people have to do is look a little above your post, read the post which you deliberately do not quote from and see that you are lying yet again. I made no comment at all about you hating people or how you should feel towards people who disagree with you or even about anybody who disagrees with you.

Now, please post to Beatroot explaining why he personally should not be permitted (in your opinion) to marry his partner.

opamp said...

The difference between homosexualism and infertility is that the latter is (at least sometimes) curable. Therefore there is no reason to a priori deny the right to marriage to the infertile couples. This holds true even with presently incurable cases, because there is a possiblity of a viable treatment being developed in the near future.

opamp said...

Not to mention that your idea of a mandatory fertility testing is completely impractical; introducing such requirement would only create an additional source of income (i.e. bribes) for doctors.

michael farris said...

"there is no reason to a priori deny the right to marriage to the infertile couples ... there is a possiblity of a viable treatment being developed in the near future."

If you tortured your logic any more, it would report you for violating the Geneva conventions.

You're starting at your conclusion (gender status quo) and working backwards to justify it, not impressive at all.

geez said...

In some and indeed many cases, there is NO possibility of any treatment being developed in the near or distant future or ever.

Anonymous said...

@opamp: "So maybe we should write in the constitution that having children via artificial insemination is an inherent right of lesbians. And since it is an inherent right, it should be financed by the state. But how do we get the money for this? Oh, I know, tax everyone!"

can you base this on past precedent??

because that seems kind of ridiculous to me... and probably everyone else as well

prostak said...

Opamp,
I was in no way suggesting two parents is best for purposes of economic viability. My point was merely that in a single-parent family, sacrifices have to be made that inevitably affect parent/child contact time. Likewise with two parents where one of them (normally the dad in every society I've known) works 60+ hours a week, the child grows up not knowing its own parent. Whether male or female, that's gotta be detrimental. I think michael put it rather well, and more importantly succintly, in the post up there ("What children need are good adult role models, period.").

I'm not even gonna touch the suggestion that gayness may be curable in your other post there, other than to ask if you think 'the difference between homosexualism [sic] and infertility' really is curability? Do gay men the world over dream of one day taking a pill that will rid them of their bottom love, suddenly looking at Liza and Shirley in a red-blooded, manly way?

What is a human right and as such should be enshrined as such in codified law is difficult, particularly taking into account access to biotechnological developments such as the lesbians having IVF scenario you describe. For one, straight couples don't have a right to IVF, they have to pay. Assuming capitalism, we ensure that if something is possible, the right amount of money can secure it - from owning a property to travelling into space. Based on that, however, the concept of 'inherent' rights isn't something I think could be extended beyond the big ones, such as right of movement through public spaces, to IVF: for straight or gay couples. Don't presume to know what LGBT activists would support, cos I've never heard a homosexual expressing a wish that everybody be thus.
Also, taxing everybody to pay for the upkeep of the nations youth regardless of whether the taxpayers in question are straight, gay, infertile or proud parents of 12 - this is an interesting idea you posit, tell us more; perhaps we could even pay for their schooling and basic healthcare?

Harry said...

opamp said...
The difference between homosexualism and infertility is that the latter is (at least sometimes) curable. Therefore there is no reason to a priori deny the right to marriage to the infertile couples. This holds true even with presently incurable cases, because there is a possiblity of a viable treatment being developed in the near future.

I can tell you right now that somebody who has had both testicles removed because of testicular cancer is not going to be having children anytime soon.

Although scientists at Newcastle university in 2006 did manage to create an artifical sperm and then graft DNA from a donor mouse onto that sperm and use it to fertilise a mouse. Six of the seven baby mice born as a result lived into adulthood. So maybe a man who has lost both testicles can have babies thanks to modern science.

Of course, the same is also true for two women. DNA from one could be used to make a sperm and then used to fertilise the other woman. And for two men DNA from one could be used to make an egg and then after being fertilised it could be put into a surrogate mother.

So there is no reason to ban gay marriage because soon gay people will be able to have children of their own.

Of course if you want to ban gay marriage only because you are a narrow-minded bigot, just say so.


BTW: if you think straight people should not pay for gay people to have children I assume you think that gay people should now have tax cuts because they do not get any benefit from the education system for their children and their children make no use of the health care system.

opamp said...

I can tell you right now that somebody who has had both testicles removed because of testicular cancer is not going to be having children anytime soon.

And he will of course have no problem with finding a potential marriage partner. Nor with a lack of sex drive.

Of course, the same is also true for two women. DNA from one could be used to make a sperm and then used to fertilise the other woman

Of course. I have dealt with this very idea above.

I assume you think that gay people should now have tax cuts

Interesting. The conventional wisdom is that gays are richer precisely because they don't have to spend money on children. So you say that we should favor the rich(er) with the tax cuts?

One more question. Consider the following: the Polish family code states that if a married woman gets pregnant, the child is automatically assumed to be of her husband, unless he petitions the court to establish if he is indeed the child's father.

Assume now, that we have two married lesbians. One of them gets pregnant with a man. How should we apply the law now?

1. Assume that the other lesbian is the child's father, which is analogous to a heterosexual couple but absurd? And, should the biological father have any parental rights in this case?

2. Lay the responsibility on the child's biological father, which is logical, but means that homosexual and heterosexual couples are not equal before the law?

Next, assume that the child's mother dies. Who should be given the custody now? Her partner, or the biological father?

In short, homosexual marriage looks good on paper, but it leads to a lot of legal mess.

opamp said...

[IVF for lesbians scenario]

because that seems kind of ridiculous to me... and probably everyone else as well


Well, the idea of legalized gay marriage probably seemed ridiculous to everyone 100 years ago.

The reasoning is in fact quite very simple. LGBT groups want homosexual unions to be equal in rights to the heterosexual unions. They are trying to achieve it gradually, i.e. gay rights -> gay marriage -> gay adoption. (And we have that already!)

And if gays didn't want to have children, LGBT groups wouldn't be pushing for their right to adopt children. So if the "reproductive cloning" I describe becomes viable, I see no reason why homosexuals wouldn't want to benefit from this, given developments up to date.

And you can bet that then some activist will come up talking about an inherent right of every couple (heck, of everyone by him/herself) to have children in their own image.

Not that this would be evil or something. The question is -- would this be worth it.

opamp said...

I'm not even gonna touch the suggestion that gayness may be curable in your other post there

Huh? I never meant that. Gayness is not a disease!

prostak said...

Opamp,
I apologise and retract my comment, in that case. I thought that the suggestion that homosexuality is curable, and thus a disease or disorder, was implicit in your earlier post. Again, my apologies.

Harry said...

Hey opamp, you going to explain to Beatroot why you think that he should be banned from marrying his partner? Or you just going to keep on putting out smoke in an attempt to hide your bigotry?

michael farris said...

Okay, I'll give opamp his talking point (he really should start reading national review).

Non-fertile straight couples should be allowed to marry because by being straight they benefit by and benefit the childbearing/raising potential of fertile straight couples. That is allowing them to marry doesn't dilute the link between marriage and having and raising children.

No, it doesn't make sense to me either but it is the party line for US cultural conservatives.

opamp said...

@harry:

Hey opamp, you going to explain to Beatroot why you think that he should be banned from marrying his partner?

Again, I still see no reasons why he should be a priori banned. I do however see reasons why homosexuals shouldn't be a priori allowed to marry.

If you call that bigotry, I can live with it.

@michael farris:

Uhm, thanks. Makes some sense to me...

michael farris said...

"Makes some sense to me..."

Good, that makes one of us.

beatroot said...

Opamp
It has nothing to do with kids. For non religious people - especially evangelical root veg humanists - it is just a public show of commitment. That's it. I know. I am one.

opamp said...

just a public show of commitment.

So, why does it have to be state sanctioned? Why not just do themselves tatoos or something and be done with it.

beatroot said...

It has to be sanctioned by the state because the state is where the 'people' are expressed.

michael farris said...

Not to mention that 'the state' is the only party that can enforce commitment. When a person commits they also make themselves vulnerable.
An awful lot of marriage law is devoted to making sure that both parties live up to the commitment and neither takes undo advantage of the other. Those that aren't allowed to marry the adult of their choice can either be very lonely or be very vulnerable (and private contracts can't make up for the legal shortfall between married and unmarried couples).

michael farris said...

"Makes some sense to me..."

I'll also mention the rest of the US cultural conservative argument (not overtly stated but very much there) It goes (roughly): "Of course no real man would ever want to get married and give up happiness to raise children, so we have to trick them into it, for their own good."

Harry said...

opamp said...
So, why does it have to be state sanctioned? Why not just do themselves tatoos or something and be done with it.


Because (i) the state gives special rights to married couples as a result of the state sanctioned status of marriage, and (ii) either everybody is equal or some people are ubermenschen and others are untermenschen, you seem to consider yourself to be one of the ubermenschen, I disagree: you are equal to other people and should have equal rights to other people. Pity that you won't give other people equal rights to yours.

IVF Clinic India said...

Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!

www.muebles.cn said...

Thank you for the post, really useful data.