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

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 3:48 PM:

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.

Who woulnd't be! Since it makes no sense.

To you, of course.

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?

Things change.

Indeed.

It's absurd to discriminate against homosexuals. Move on.

Now all you have to do is convince the various legislators involved.

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.

It's a matter of discrimination to deny them the right to marry.

Yes, it is. The question is whether it is unlawful discrimination or whether
it is discrimination based in some legitimate societal concern. As I've
said, I happen to think that the whole issue of state involvement in the
issue of marriage should be limited to recording of the contract.

Which, after much blather from you, brings us right back to the simple point
that this is no better than deying the right to marry to black people.

Incorrect.

Which is discriminatory,

Discrimination is not a priori unlawful or even immoral.

Discrimination against gay people simply because you do not like gay people
is no better than discrimination against black people simply because you do
not like black people.

On that we can agree.

It is most certainly immoral, and should be unlawful
in a society that is not governed by hatred.

Well, here we diverge somewhat. The issue of making "discrimination"
unlawful is a delicate one because it necessarily impacts an individual's
First Amendment rights of freedom of association and free exercise of
religion.

The justifications for banning racial discrimination in the providing of
public accommodations had to surmount the freedom of association hurdle, and
it was a very difficult fight. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the
pubic interest in preventing racial discrimination in public accommodations
outweighed the First Amendment interests of restaurant and motel owners.
Since then the racial anti-discrimination laws have spread to most public
accommodations, including businesses, home loans and suchlike. It is still,
however, not only legal, but moral for people who don't care for blacks to
decline to associate with them outside the realm of public accommodation.
You may find such bigotry to be indefensible, but the right of freedom of
association does not require someone to defend their choices.

But again, the racial anti-discrimination laws are based on a status, not on
a behavior. While it may be reasonable to compel a southern motel owner or
restaurant owner to treat blacks equally, the issue of homosexuals is
somewhat more complex.

For example, a motel owner, or more applicably an apartment owner who is
deeply religious and believes that homosexual sodomy is a heinous and
disgusting sin, and that facilitating it is also sinful, ought not be
compelled to rent a basement apartment to two gay people who will be
engaging in acts the owner finds intolerable. To force the landlord to
suffer this outrage is an infringement of HIS First Amendment right to
freedom of association, which implicitly includes a right to NOT associate
with people he doesn't like.

So, when you say that it's "immoral" for a religious person to discriminate
against gays, you are in fact saying that the individual has no right to
disassociate himself from a group of people whom he finds to be
objectionable.

Another example is that of the Jewish landlord who survived the
Bergen-Belsen death camp, but whose family did not. Should he be compelled
to rent his basement apartment to a neo-nazi white supremecist merely
because it's "discriminatory" of him to decline?

So, while we may agree that it's narrow-minded and bigoted to discriminate
against gays (and we do) we have to balance the First Amendment rights of
individuals against the desire of gay individuals to force their agenda
and/or their behaviors on those unwilling to tolerate or accept such
behavior. Again, it's not the fact that one is of homosexual orientation,
it's the issue of what one chooses to DO about that orientation, and how far
another individual, or indeed society as a whole, is required to go by way
of tolerating and accepting such conduct.

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.

Being black is a status, being black and wishing to get married is a
voluntary choice.

Yup. And it's unlawful to discriminate in marriage based on race.

Being gay is a status, being gay and wishing to get married is a voluntary
choice.

Correct.

Being disabled is a status, being disabled and wishing to get married is a
voluntary choice.

Indeed.

However, from the above examples, only gay people are not allowed to get
married. That's discrimination, and it is discrimination founded in hatred
and fear.

I agree. As I said, I see no reason why the state should have any say
whatsoever in re marriage. Nor do I think that the state should deny the
right of an individual to designate ANYONE to receive whatever benefits may
accrue to an individual. In fact, I object to the government offering
benefits to families or married couples that they will not offer to a single
person. That's discrimination that has no rational basis at all. If a public
benefit is available, it should be available to every individual, regardless
of spousal status, and that individual should be permitted to designate a
beneficiary without regard to spousal status. That's my solution to the
problem.

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.

Marriage is a great many more things than that.

Not from the point of view of the state.

In the simplest and most important terms, it is the highest-ranking social
status for relationships in north american society. Making it unavailable to
homosexuals is all about hatred and fear and wanting to deny that group
access to the same social status that can be enjoyed by heterosexual
couples.

I agree. But add to that "non-married" couples and single persons. The
common excuse given by government for providing preference to married
couples has to do mostly with creating the next generation of taxpayers.

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.

What is it with freaks like you?

Interesting. I'm actually agreeing with you, you ****wit, and you're still
being insulting.

Would it not be easier to simply allow gay
marriage? Good grief.

No, it wouldn't. This is because the whole "state sanctioned marriage" issue
is so deeply ingrained in our societal psyche that it's going to be pretty
much impossible to get society to agree to give state sanction to
homosexuals for what most of America views as a sacred relationship between
a man and a woman. It's a societal mores and beliefs issue.

The problem is that what gays *say* they are mostly interested in is gaining
access to the public benefits of state sanctioned marriage like social
security, pensions, rights of survivorship and other legal issues that
attach only to "married" couples.

It's my view that this is only part of the agenda. I believe that gays are
demanding equal rights when it comes to marriage for another reason: They
want their lifestyle to be legitimized and equalized with heterosexual
relationships. This is why the ideas I espouse above are not often embraced
by the gay community in my opinion. It's more about an attempt to force
society into acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle than it is about access
to benefits, which can be accomplished in other ways.

While I understand the desire of gays to be "mainstreamed" in society, so
that their lifestyle becomes non-controversial and accepted, I often think
that they are going about it in the wrong way, and that they are alienating
the people they need to persuade by engaging in radical actions that focus
attention on their lifestyle.

Fact is that most people in America don't think that the homosexual
lifestyle is acceptable. One does not persuade these people to accept
homosexuality as within societal norms by rubbing their noses in it day in
and day out. We can see that this tactic is not very effective in the large
number of state legislatures that are passing specific laws refusing to
recognize gay marriages that are sanctioned by some states.

Now, the issue of the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Constitution
aside for a moment, is there perhaps a better plan for garnering acceptance
than radical homosexual politics?

That being said, however gays wish to put forth their agenda is up to them,
and I certainly hope that they succeed. I, for one, don't care what they do
in their bedroom. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans do care, and
it is they who have to be persuaded.

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."

And you are wrong.

Well, legally speaking, I'm right.

And so is the law.

That's a complex issue of both law and societal belief. You are, of course,
entitled to your opinion.

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.

Perhaps you should give them the benefit of your wisdom as to how they
should go about it.

Not my department.

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.

Oh, you are one of those guys that blames the girl for dressing
provacatively when she is raped, aren't you?

Well, no, not exactly. Provocative dress never justifies rape. However,
dressing (and acting) provocatively may impose a large burden of personal
responsibility on an individual who might have been better off to dress and
act more modestly. Moreover, at some point, provocative conduct may be
justifiably viewed as consent to sexual activity that imposes a strict
burden of unequivocal and firm revocation of consent if rape is to be
claimed.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Yes, well, that's the thing about being a marginalized group, if you just
shut up and take it, you'll stay marginalized. The fact that you are
shutting up and taking it might be welcomed, but it's not likely to bring
any progress.

I wasn't suggesting that.

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.

The choice of analogy happens to be the same choice of analogy that is most
popular with right-wing religious fanatics.

It's a valid analogy, why shouldn't they use it?

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.

It's amazing. The same guy that doesn't want the state to take away the
right to keep an assault weapon under his pillow thinks it's just fine for
the state to tell people what parts of their bodies they can rub together.

You grossly mischaracterize my statements. Not that I'm surprised.

Only in America!!!

Hardly. In most of the rest of the world as well. You think it's bad here,
try Iran or Saudi Arabia or Africa, where they flog you, cut off your hands,
or your head or your clitoris for "immodesty." Not sex, just dressing
wrongly or revealing your face to a non-family male. As for homosexuals, in
most of the world, they get killed outright.

Homosexuals in America ought to consider themselves extremely lucky.

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?"

Rape and pedophilia (whatever your definition) have nothing to do with two
consenting adults having sexual relations, and the attempt to link
homosexuality with rape and pedophilia are typical descipable tactics of
anti-gay fanatics.

Again, it depends on how you define the terms.

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?

I'd agree that concealing sexuality from children is unhealthy.

But I'm starting to get very lost once again in figuring out how this
relates to the fairly simple issue of gay marriage.

It has to do with how societies regulate themselves.

People who don't want gay people to get married don't want it because they
don't like gay people.

Well, they are allowed not to like gay people, after all. Should they be
forced to like gay people? Would that not infringe on their fundamental
right of freedom of association?

It's really not all that complicated.

Problem is it's quite complicated. It's not a simple legal matter, it's a
complex societal matter that involves many factors.

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.

The people who are against gay marriage are against it because they hate
and/or are afraid of homosexuals/homosexuality.

Perhaps. Then again they may simply believe that marriages are for
heterosexuals because heterosexual relationships are the glue that keeps
society running. After all, homosexuals cannot procreate among themselves.
Clearly society has a bias towards favoring the traditional
man/woman/children family model that provides societal stability and
continued existence.

Whether that ought to be used to interfere with the intimate relationships
between people who choose not to procreate is another matter entirely.

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.

Here we go again.

Gay people do not have a monopoly on sodomy.

True. Nor are anti-sodomy laws only applied to gays. We've been over this.

So gay marriage is not about sodomy.

Good point. It is true that marriage is about much more than sex, but most
of society recognizes that sex is an important part of marriage. In the
traditional mode, it's there for the survival of the species, for without
heterosexual relationships, children are not born.

So, while gay marriage is not ALL about sodomy, it is at least in part about
sodomy.

Those who oppose gay marriage do not want gay people to get married, because
they don't like gay people.

Which is their right. It would seem to me that the objective would be to get
them to like, or at least be neutral towards gay people. This is in fact
what's happening, over time, in the US. Acceptance of gays in society is
light years ahead of where it was even when I was dating a bisexual girl. As
a society, however, we haven't yet come to acceptance of gay marriage.
Eventually I suspect we will, though it may well take another generation or
two.

That's discrimination based in fear and hatred, and it is most certainly
immoral, and most definitely pathetic.

Well, it's bigoted, but as to "immoral," that's not quite so simple. One has
to agree on a definition of "immorality" before making such a statement.
Problem is that the definitions of "immorality" used by straights and gays
are just about exactly 180 degrees opposed.

This makes it very difficult for people to come to consensus about what is
immoral and what is not.

Scott Weiser: asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum

**** you to, dickwad. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

--
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

© 2005 Scott Weiser