Why can't I leave this alone? Here is a little play-by-play of Beanturd's philosophy...
Moe, let me list some things for you and maybe this will help understand me better.
-I believe homosexual relations should have 100% the same rights as heterosexuals. Even with adoption. In a perfect world I would love every child to have a mother and father. But there are too many children needing loving parents that this makes my perfect world an impossibility.
His thinking starts from a perfect (edenic?) whole: the world as it should be. These ideas are clearly religiously inspired (probably Mormonism since the emphasis is on family and he makes repeated reference to genealogies). We can also probably assume that he sees his family, his race, and his self as the defining SUBJECT of power with respect to the structure of family and it's importance in the human story. In other words, if everyone were to follow those rules, which he embodies and ultimately defines, then the world would in fact be a perfect place and this issue would be null; it seems that the issue of homosexuality may just vanish. Jumping ahead, because the world doesn't follow these prescriptions it is flawed. We have fallen from Eden. Because of this beanturd is, from his position of moral authority, deciding that he should open his heart to the lesser and let them love each other and the less fortunate children born outside of his plan for nature (please note the position of power he is in, and how many times I am forced to write the words "he" and "his". Everybody else in this story gets their name from him: "homosexuals", "sinners", etc.). Note: his whole argument is pinned on the perfection of the original whole. This kind of metaphysics was proven to be entirely irrational back in the 17th century as a consequence of Spinoza's proofs. P.S. that was a LONG time ago.
-I believe the term "marriage" has always been assoctiated with as a hetorosexuality and family. Family is where I believe marriage has biological meaning. Since heterosexual relations are the only ones to be able to create genetic families that go beyond generations.
here Beanturd is employing a semantic hook. The very essence of the word "marriage" is supposed to smack me across the face with some kind of truth. Well, there has never been a word in the history of language that maintained a static meaning. If it is important to people's experiences, then it is alive and re-interpreted constantly. Let's not forget that in the US the legal definition of the word "person" at one point didn't include people of African descent. Privileging the essence of a word is, in a word, retarded.
We jump from the essence of "marriage" to the essence of "family". At this point every problem with his restrictive and incorrect assumptions of biology come to the fore. See my previous posts.
-I believe one of the biggest social problems is the disrespect of the power of reprodcution. I believe pushing the relations to be viewed as "equal" takes us further into this direction. I think we are better off accepting and acknowledging all our differences.
This first statement is a puzzling (and, I suspect, incomplete) statement. I'd guess it is loaded with religious, social, and political opinions against anybody that dares to tread on straight sex in any context. This is tied to his concept of Eden and vision of nature: if people respected reproduction in that way, then, bam! problem solved. Then, he confuses
"equal" with respect to the law with
"equal" in body, feeling, and (I have to take it here) purity. This is obviously an egregious political/legal error. How empty does this last sentence feel to you? Let's acknowledge our difference so that I can show you what is special and what is not!
