(Im)mutability of Same Gender Attraction

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Really, the only relevant fact is immutablility. I'll concede the whole debate the day they prove being gay is a choice.

Wow. You really are on a weak footing, then. I can think of lots of better arguments.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

The question is whether or not a government wants to sanction and promote a certain kind of relationship because either it is (1) a public good or (2) because it is viewed as an individual right regardless of whether it produces a good. Why does the question of whether one has any choice about desiring that relationship matter?

Good point, but the immutability question has a large impact on whether or not people view gay marriage as a valid individual right.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Good point, but the immutability question has a large impact on whether or not people view gay marriage as a valid individual right.

As far as gay marriage being an indivdual right, I find the question of immutability utterly irrelevant.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

As far as gay marriage being an indivdual right, I find the question of immutability utterly irrelevant.

Sure you do, but I am talking about the public at large. I daresay that the ever-growing consensus on immutability is the most likely reason that we are even debating the issue.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

So if my desire to burn your house down is immutable, then it is violative of the equal protection clause for legislation to forbid be from doing so? You're even a level or two above superficial with that argument. Dig deeper. I know you can.

You said immutablity was irrelevant. I proved to you it wasn't. What's your point now? Are you saying that the prospect of piromaniacs becoming a suspect classification in Supreme Court precedent means the Court or the public shouldn't make immutability shouldn't a factor? It's a stupid point.

As we see with the Supreme Court's treatment of gender cases, the analysis doesn't stop with immutablity. But it's the single most significant factor and immutablity always takes the runner to rounding third base (rounding second base in the case of women). Gays have a Constitutional case because we all know intuitively their condition is immutable.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Wow. You really are on a weak footing, then. I can think of lots of better arguments.

Lebowski is right. Immutablitiy is the reason this issue has traction. There are no better arguments. Immutablity is what distinguishes gay marriage from polygamy, in fact. Another reason why Mormons want to downplay this all important factor.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Good point, but the immutability question has a large impact on whether or not people view gay marriage as a valid individual right.

Not a good point. It flies in the fact of decades of Bill of Rights jurisprudence. Immutablity is all important.

[creekster]

So, by SU's standards, any realtionship in which the individuals claim thaey were created with the desire to be togehter (for romantic and intimate purposes, as SU said) must be allowed and proteted as marriage?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Lebowski is right. Immutablitiy is the reason this issue has traction. There are no better arguments. Immutablity is what distinguishes gay marriage from polygamy, in fact. Another reason why Mormons want to downplay this all important factor.

Is it different? What if you are immutably unable to remain monogamous? The whole population of French males would so testify.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Good point, but the immutability question has a large impact on whether or not people view gay marriage as a valid individual right.

In other words, if I think something is morally wrong I am less inclined to prevent you from doing it if your desire for it is the result of feelings and instincts as opposed to a decision making process. But all sorts of illegal behaviors are the results of feelings and desires, maybe most. We do, however, make distinctions based on state of mind, for example, a murder of passion is less serious that one that is premeditated. But that analogy too is problematic because we are talking about giving a right rather than punishing a crime.

I just think in the end it is a moral choice that society has to make. I am unconvinced by cost/benefit, mutable/immutable arguments. It still all comes down to what does society want to allow.