BoatBanter.com - View Single Post - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:29 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/1/05 10:01 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that
society as a whole makes, through the representative democratic
process.

So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered, you'd
go
along with it?

I would object to it, because it's a very, very bad idea.

So is discrimination based on sexuality. No better than discrimination based
on race.

Interesting thesis, inapplicable analogy.

Totally applicable.

While discrimination based on sexuality may interfere with someone's
pleasure, it's hardly the same thing as denying someone the tools for
defending their very lives.

?

If you (as I am sure you dream) were the leader of a country and you
declared that homosexuals have the status of slave, could you then see that
parallel?

If black people were not allowed to get married, that would be
discrimination.

Why is it different for gay people?

Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning homosexual
sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The AIDS
epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in the eyes
of those who make the laws.

How does gay marriage increase the spread of AIDS? My gawd you can be an
idiot. Yes, let's reduce the spread of AIDS by ensuring that gay people
continue to be marginalized and their relationships considered second class.
That will help promote safe sex for sure!

As to racial discrimination, that falls into a different category. Race and
sex anti-discrimination laws are "status" based laws. People cannot choose
not to be black or choose not to be of one sex or the other. Thus, the law
says, it is wrong to discriminate against someone for something they cannot
help or control.

Or, you are one of these freaks who thinks people "choose" to be gay. Yeah,
that's an attractive option, being gay in America. I'm sure every homosexual
in America woke up one day and said "Yeah, that's a good idea, I think I'll
choose my sexuality based on my best chance of being discriminated against
as a matter of routine, and possible getting my skull bashed by some
neurotic redneck who blames gay people for turning the girl he liked into a
lesbian." LOL. Yes, I'm sure being gay is a choice big big sneer.

Anti-sodomy laws are not "status" laws. They regulate *behavior.* One may
not be able to help being homosexual (which is to say sexually attracted to
someone of the same sex), but one CAN control what one DOES about that
attraction. Thus, it is the behavior...the physical acts associated with
those sexual feelings...that the law proscribes.

ROFL. Well, I don't hear you promoting lesbian marriage!!!

Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity between
adults and children. A pedophile may argue that he is being "discriminated"
against because he is sexually attracted to children, but that does not
preclude the state from proscribing the act of having sex with children.
Being sexually attracted to children is not a crime, nor is being attracted
to someone of the same sex. It is what one DOES about that attraction that
is within the purview of the law.

Only two gay people are consenting adults, thus making your analogy to a
pedophile insultingly ridiculous and irrelevant.

I hope I don't need to point out to you that there are some heterosexual
couples that engage in anal sex, and some homosexual couples that do not.
You do realize that, right?

So, your comparison between race and sexual orientation is inapplicable.

No, it isn't in the least.

Now, if you grant that the state does have the power to proscribe SOME
sexual behavior (such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes to
control.

There is no relevant comparison between pedophilia, rape, and homosexuality.
This is totally illogical.

On the other hand, if you argue that the state has no authority to
regulate ANY sexual conduct, then you authorize child sex and rape.

On the other hand, if you argue that two consenting adults, whether of the
same sex or opposite sex, should have the right to get married, this has
nothing to do with authorizing child sex and rape, and renders the entire
hypothesis the ridiculous piece of crap that it is.

Then
again, it's rational to make a distinction between forcible and consensual
sex, so let's do so. Let's say that while the state has the power to
proscribe non-consensual sexual behavior, we have yet to determine whether
the state has the power to proscribe consensual sexual behavior.

What, if any, limitations on consensual sexual behavior would you recognize
as legitimately within the sphere of state control?

The state can't to a thing to limit consensual sexual behaviour. I don't
think law enforcement has the resources to go busting into the nation's
bedrooms and doing sniff tests to see who has been porking whom.