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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/7/05 11:13 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

?

Preventing someone from enjoying an orgasm (regardless of the sex of the
partner) is not the same thing as placing them at risk of death because they
have been forcibly disarmed. You can always make up for a missed orgasm, but
once you're dead, you're dead.

What the hell are you talking about now?!?!?

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?

Slavery is unlawful.

It is now.

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

Indeed. And unlawful discrimination at that. Being black is a status. One
does not get to choose to not be black.

Why is it different for gay people?

It's not different for gay people. It's not illegal to be gay.

Just illegal for gay people to get married. Which is discriminatory, just as
it would be if black people were not allowed to get married.

It may, however, be illegal to engage in same sex behaviors.

Having sex with someone is a voluntary act without which one will not die
nor be physically harmed. It's a behavior, not a status. Slavery is a
status. It's the status of involuntary servitude. Being black is a status.
It's a racial characteristic that one cannot change.

Sexual behavior is entirely under the control of the individual. Every
person has a desire to engage in sexual behavior. The physiological changes
that take place during sexual excitement are the same for both men and
women, regardless of the stimulus. It's a behavior. You can control it. You
are not harmed by not being permitted to engage in a particular sexual
behavior.

The society in which one lives generally dictates rules of conduct and
morality for its members, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the
type of society and its governmental structure.

In any society, certain behaviors are unacceptable, and for the overall
well-being of the society, as judged by the society, those behaviors can be
constrained to some degree or can be prohibited. The reasons for such
constraints and their justification in the moral and ethical sense depend
largely on the society as a whole and what it recognizes as important rights
worthy of protection.

Thus, while in one society consanguinity (incest) may be acceptable, in
another it may not be. Likewise, in Canada, the age of consent for sex is 14
years old (as I understand it) while in the US, it's generally at least 18.
Thus, in Canadian society, it is acceptable for a 50 year old man to have
sex with a 14 year old girl. In most places in the US, that¹s not legal. It
depends on the society.

Thus, if "gay people" wish to engage in behaviors that are proscribed in one
place or society, they need only go to some place or society that does not
proscribe their behaviors.

I daresay that most lesbians engage in sexual behaviours that pose a much
lesser risk than routine heterosexual sexual behaviours. Thus, according to
your logic, perhaps only lesbians should be allowed to get married?

No, wait, that just sounds stupid and ridiculous.

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?

I said nothing whatever about gay marriage.

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.

How does "marginalization" or "second classing" of gay sexual behavior
either reduce or increase the AIDS problem?

I merely said that in the view of those who make the law, homosexual acts
were considered to be (and not without some justification) a primary vector
for the transmission of AIDS. Even the gay community came to this
realization, and to their credit, they were pioneers in the practice of safe
sex practices, to the point where now, heterosexual transmission has risen
above homosexual transmission.

How does the rate of AIDS in the lesbian community compare with that of the
heterosexual community? Perhaps heterosexual sex and homosexual sex should
be outlawed, and only lesbians should be having sex.

No wait, that sounds ridiculous and stupid.

The point is that in a society of law, decisions are made about what conduct
is acceptable and what conduct is not. That is the purpose of government and
law, and nothing done by way of prohibiting homosexual sex acts is, legally
speaking, a violation of the Equal Protection provisions of the
Constitution.

Then the Equal Protection provisions of the Constitution suck eggs, and the
people who have the power to improve those provisions should stop being a
bunch of discriminatory pukes and get to work on fixing it.

Whether those laws currently reflect the will of the society is an entirely
different matter. If the society has changed its views on homosexual sex
acts, then society is free to repeal the anti-sodomy laws. And wonder of
wonders, that's been happening all over the US in the last 10 years or more.
In many places homosexual sex is no longer unlawful.

Whoopdeedoo!

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.

You may try the ad hominem route by implying that I'm a homophobe, but
you'll just be making a fool of yourself.

I have no idea if you are a homophobe.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other what a person's sexual
orientation is. In fact, my very first girlfriend in high school was
bisexual, and I had a good relationship with her...and her female lover. I
grew up spending most of my summer vacations being around stage actors, and
many of them were gay...at a time when being gay was not only illegal, but
could be personally dangerous. I had many gay acquaintances and I learned
quite early on not to be judgmental about other people...something you need
some work on.

That sounds so...judgmental?

You are making the common mistake of confusing an intellectual debate with
personal beliefs or attributes. You're not the first Netwit to make that
mistake, nor will you be the last.

Actually, I think you have deluded yourself into thinking that you are
capable of intellectual debate. But it is cute that you think that's what
you have been doing.

The actual issue is whether the fact that one is gay, and that one may be
attracted sexually to a person of the same sex excuses pleasure seeking
CONDUCT that is proscribed by law. Remember, one may be physically attracted
to someone of the same sex, or to a child of 12, but that doesn't mean you
must, or must be allowed to ACT on that attraction. Celibacy is always an
option.

What the...?

The law, in this case, is an ass. It's not the fault of gay people that the
law is an ass. It's the fault of people who have the power to change the law
that the law is ass.

Talk about intellectual weakness...comparing adult homosexual consenting
relationships with pedophilia? What is the point of that?

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!!!

I'm neither promoting nor denigrating it. It's not currently under
discussion.

It is now.

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.

You miss the point.

Not at all.

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?

Of course. It's central to my argument because if anal sex is proscribed by
law, then it MUST be proscribed for EVERYONE, regardless of sexual
orientation. Surprise! That's just the way it works. That's WHY the civil
rights of homosexuals are not violated by bans on sodomy.

What kind of a screwed up country tries to put a ban on what consenting
adults want to do in their own bedrooms?

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

No, it isn't in the least.

Yes, it is. You're just too ignorant or too narrow-minded to accept it.

No, it isn't, and no, I'm not. One of the problems is I don't think we are
even talking about the same issue.

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.

No, not at all. The comparison is not between the acts, the issue is whether
the state has ANY power to proscribe ANY sexual act by ANY person.

But there is a huge difference between relations between consenting adults
and acts of rape or pedophilia. To include them together in this way is
totally illogical, and frankly, indecent.

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.

Not really. You're just incapable of working through the logic involved
because it doesn't fit with your worldview.

Um. That's right. My "worldview" is that what consenting adults do in their
own bedrooms has no connection whatsoever with rape or pedophilia, and that
only a very disturbed person could form such a connection and think it
logical.

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 do 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.

Okay, so you admit no proper constraint on consensual sexual behavior. Fine.
Let's examine your stance a bit.

First example: Persons A and B decide to have sex. Person A has a
potentially deadly STD and both deliberately fails to inform B and refuses
to use protection, thus infecting B with a disease that eventually
debilitates and kills B.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in proscribing unprotected sexual
activity by a person knowingly carrying a dangerous STD?

The fact that sex is involved is irrelevant. Deliberately exposing someone
to a deadly disease - whether done by injecting them with a needle while
they are asleep or by having unprotected sex with them - should be criminal,
in my opinion.

Second example: Persons A and B like to engage in sadomasochistic and "water
sports" as well as coprography. They choose to do so while B's underage
children observe. The children are not involved in the acts, but merely
watch.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in protecting these children from
exposure to such acts?

Sure, in the same way that it is inappropriate for children to have access
to the porn channel.

What does any of this have to do with discriminating against homosexuals?

Third example: Persons A and B get off on having sex in public places in the
view of passers-by.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in prohibiting public displays of
sexual behavior?

Sure.

What does any of this have to do with discriminating against homosexuals?

Third example: Persons A and B engage in consensual sexual activity that
includes partial asphyxiation. A strangles B during a sex act, but during
orgasm fails to release the stranglehold and B dies.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in prosecuting A for homicide, in
spite of the fact that B consented to the strangulation?

You got me, sounds like a debate for a Law and Order episode during ratings
week.

What does any of this have to do with discriminating against homosexuals?

Fourth example: Persons A and B engage in consensual bondage and torture. A
binds B and causes serious physical injury to B that requires
hospitalization, at public expense, to heal and rehabilitate B.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in proscribing consensual sexual
behavior that poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to
one of the partners?

You got me, sounds like a debate for a Law and Order episode during ratings
week.

What does any of this have to do with discriminating against homosexuals?