| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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, 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? 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 © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 8-Mar-2005, KMAN wrote:
It's absurd to discriminate against homosexuals. Move on. Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights. In fact, he only supports the status quo. It is impossible for him to imagine that amerika can be improved in any way. Given that his view of the world is from the inside of his ass, it's not surprising. Mike |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 8-Mar-2005, KMAN wrote: It's absurd to discriminate against homosexuals. Move on. Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights. In fact, he only supports the status quo. It is impossible for him to imagine that amerika can be improved in any way. Given that his view of the world is from the inside of his ass, it's not surprising. Mike He's so worried about sodomy, and now it makes sense, he's concerned about additional brain damage. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael commenting on Weiser:
============== Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights. =============== And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation. frtzw906 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Michael commenting on Weiser: ============== Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights. =============== And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation. To that bunch of leftist socialist pricks? No way. They aren't interested in freedom and rights, they are just interested in forwarding their socialist agenda. They are actually a dangerous, seditious group that ought to be run out of town on a rail, at the very least. -- 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 |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
