A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
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?!?!?
I'm not surprised you're confused.
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.
Yup. What's your point?
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.
Yup. Marriage is a sanction of the state, at least insofar as the benefits
conferred upon couples who are married under state law. The state has
authority to determine to whom those benefits are offered. Whether they
should offer those benefits to gay couples is a matter of public policy, not
a matter of rights.
Which is discriminatory,
Discrimination is not a priori unlawful or even immoral.
just as
it would be if black people were not allowed to get married.
Nope. Once again, being black is a status, being gay and wishing to get
married is a voluntary choice. Prohibiting state-sanctioned marriage because
of ones status is generally unlawful. Prohibiting state-sanctioned marriage
because of ones choices of behavior is not.
My take on it is that the state should have nothing whatever to do with
marriage at all, either by sanction or prohibition, and any benefit of the
state offered to two people cohabiting should be offered to any two people
cohabitating, without regard for sex, race or religion.
"Marriage" is one of two things: It is either a religious observance, in
which case the state has no place in the equation, or it is a civil contract
between two individuals, in which case the only interest of the state is
that the contract be valid and enforceable.
If an individual has a benefit or a right, like a pension or health care or
the right to determine medical treatment, available to them, then that
person should be able to assign "power of attorney" and beneficiary status
on ANYONE THEY WANT, whether a spouse, sex partner, brother, sister, friend
or whatever. The state has no legitimate interest in dictating to whom an
individual may grant power of attorney or to whom a person may grant state
benefits due that person.
That would take the whole marriage issue off the plate entirely. Gay people
can engage in whatever solemnization of their partnership they choose, they
can write whatever contract of cohabitation they choose, and heterosexuals
can do the same thing, and the state would do nothing other than simply
record (not license) the transaction in the county records.
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, thatıs 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?
It's not my logic. It's the logic of the law. I never said that the law was
"right." I'm merely explaining to you why it's not a violation of a gay
person's civil rights to prohibit sodomy or "gay marriage."
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.
I don't disagree.
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!
Indeed.
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.
Perhaps.
It's not the fault of gay people that the
law is an ass.
Probably true, though they don't necessarily always act persuasively to
convince those who have the power to change the law that it's in society's
best interests to do so.
It's the fault of people who have the power to change the law
that the law is ass.
Indeed. Thus, one would think that rational and dispassionate debate would
be preferable to radical flaunting of something that many members of society
find to be obscene and disgusting. Whether that feeling is justifiable or
not is beside the point. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Talk about intellectual weakness...comparing adult homosexual consenting
relationships with pedophilia? What is the point of that?
It's not a comparison, it's an analogy. Try to discern the difference.
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?
It depends on what the acts are. There are numerous reasons the state might
have a legitimate interest in banning certain private conduct.
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.
Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.
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.
Not at all. For one thing, your definition of "pedophilia" presumes that no
child is capable of giving consent. While this is the current legal policy,
any child psychologist or historian can tell you that this is not
necessarily universally true.
Heck, as recently as the last century, it was not at all unusual for girls
of 13 to be of "marriageable age." How have children changed in the
intervening hundred years that makes them any less "marriageable?"
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.
But if the state deems that it is the sexual activity that produces the
highest risk of transmission, why can not the state proscribe unprotected
sexual activity?
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.
Some people would argue that exposing children to sex early, even if they
don't participate, is psychologically beneficial, and that in fact,
concealing sex and sexuality from children, even when they are quite young,
is pathological behavior that is harmful to the child's healthy sexual
development, in part because it reinforces the "forbidden fruit" syndrome.
This was a strongly prevailing attitude in the 60's, particularly in
alternative "free" schools.
Who's right?
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.
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.
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?
What it has to do with it is that the state obviously does have some
interest in regulating private consensual sexual behavior. What the limits
on that interest is are a matter of societal beliefs and mores, not just the
personal preferences of the people involved.
Sometimes, the exercise of even carefully protected and explicitly
recognized fundamental rights are justifiable regulated. Viz: the First
Amendment does not protect one from state sanction for falsely shouting
"FIRE" in a crowded theater.
Likewise, if the people who have been granted authority to enact law find
reasons to prohibit sodomy, well, that's what they are paid to do and we
have two choices: We can accept their judgment, or we can unelect them and
elect those who see things differently and then change the law.
But the fact that a prior administration has made a particular choice about
regulating sexual conduct does not mean that the regulation is illegal,
immoral or fattening. Society determines what is immoral and illegal.
Science generally determines what's fattening.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
İ 2005 Scott Weiser
|