JL: I'm sorry that happened to you, but assault is not unique to homosexuals. In this matter, the crimes of an individual are as irrelevant as the contributions of an individual. That's why I said I wasn't talking about eliminating individual homosexuals. There's no guarantee that your assaulter wouldn't have assaulted a teenage girl instead, were he heterosexual, just like there's no guarantee Elton John or Oscar Wilde would have been any less successful had they NOT been homosexual.
Are you sure that he was a homosexual and not a pedophile? there is a distinction.
And I am very sorry you had to experience it...
No homosexuality is not so say no pedophilla...they are two different things.
And as a side note, many cultures still consider a 14 year old the right age for marriage....as these cultures blend in with our society, it is harder to enforce our laws...
Most of the anti arguments have been rehearsed before and they are still invalid as arguments, reflecting prejudice far more than they do cogent thought.
America was founded on the right to have life, liberty and to pursue happiness. It was founded to prevent religious oppression and domination, for individuals to have the right to be different and to be respected.
When you deny people rights to have their relationships accepted and protected, whether or not you agree with them, you demean the founding principles and create a class of second class citizens.
Even heterosexual couple are allowed to be married whether or not they intend to undertake a breeding programme - they are given protections, recognition and responsibilities which are denied to other citizens.
The religious reich think that their interpretation of morality is the only correct one and throw a hissy fit when they cannot get their own way. Politicians desperate for votes climb upon the bandwagon of reaction.
In many parts of the world this unfairness has been recognised, it is happening in Canada too.
Religions may define marriage how they will but they have no right to dictate in a civil or secular sense about how marriage should be defined by others.
Courts are there to interpret the law and one such court has broken ranks and set off a panic reaction. From my understanding of the legal situation, this ruling is only applicable in the Commonwealth of Massachussetts and, thanks to DOMA, is not binding upon any other state of the union. Most states have already passed legislation to exclude same sex marriages in their own state in any case.
Bush talking about a constitutional amendment is NOT to protect his beliefs about marriage but to enforce them upon the entire nation. It seeks to deny the right of a state, which DOMA actually supported, to make its own definition, if it cared to, to define marriage being one man and one woman or otherwise.
Believe it or not, this is NOT a sexual issue - it is not legitimising what people do in their bedrooms, but it is everything to do with legitimising relationships of citizens who are supposedly equal under the law and who have expectations of equality under the law.
So throw up all the old red herrings - NAMBLA, paedophiles, the family, reproduction or whatever. Bring up all the religious objections you can think of, but that still does not detract from the CIVIL and SECULAR issue at hand.
In the early 20th century, there was another group of people who thought their way was best for the nation - forcing through a constitutional amendment called PROHIBITION. Look what good that did for the nation.
Just a joke, lighten up ehh? Zix I agree that there should not be any "special circumstances" or laws or rules for homosexuals. Being straight does not give us any advantages, why should it apply in their case? I just think it is thought about WAY too much.
And just because many homosexuals in the past contributed greatly to society it was NOT because they were gay, it was because they contributed, imo
Datway - nobody is claiming special rules etc for homosexuals, only equal ones otherise logic dictates that heterosexuals get special treatment.
And Zix, homosexuals do NOT have to prove their right to exist to you or anybody else. They only have to prove that they are citizens of their country and have a right to equal treatment under the law.
I have to agree with Trefor, as his argument makes sense.
Here's why:
America was NOT founded on any principle even remotely related to any argument for the furtherance of "society".
America WAS founded on the fundamental concept of the sovereignty of the individual citizen. Now, what we face in this debate on gay marriage probably would like much like debates in the 1700s and 1800s regarding slavery and women's rights.
You see, blacks were denied the freedoms (why should they have special treatment, after all) by denying them the dignity to be considered citizens.
I'm not sure how they worded or justified denial of voting rights to women, other than the original notion that a citizen was a white property owner... but the fact is that the commonly understood applicability of the rights of citizenship as spelled out in the founding documents is where the limits were made.
So, any application of limitations of freedoms today (which is the real issue) must be put in terms of clarifying that gays apparently are not worth being considered citizens in our society.
And that seems downright silly.
Arguments about basing current societal rules on the issue based on "what's 'good' for society" or whether this would be to grant "special" rights to a "special interest group" quietly but most definitely deny the fundamental sovereignty of the individual citizen, and deny the validity of America's founding philosophy.
Datway: I know you were joking, but the question is dead serious. No one has yet given me any reason at all to protect, respect, or advocate the recognition of homosexuality by the state.
It's entirely a question of behavioral choice. While it's frequently purported that homosexuality is not a choice, the engaging in homosexual behavior certainly is a choice. Roman Catholic priests and nuns are (usually) completely capable of performing heterosexual acts, yet deliberately choose not to, despite what their biological make-up might be. One might argue that they were "born" to feel that way about their religion; to be able to commit enough to make the conscious decision to remain celibate. Since there's no true physical handicap or disability preventing homosexual men from engaging in intercourse with heterosexual women, they are in no way prohibited from being joined in marriage NOW. They have the same right to marry a woman as any other man. In that light, gay marriage is very much a special privilege, and not an inequity to resolve via legislation.
For those who think it's all just about some religious edict against homosexual acts, consider this: Why can't two STRAIGHT men, (friends, roommates, whatever) get "married" in order to get tax breaks, insurance breaks, group health insurance, etc., etc., WITHOUT engaging in any mutual sexual activity? If the law were truly discriminatory against sodomy alone, then two heterosexuals could "marry" for the benefits, and "divorce" when no longer mutually beneficial.
As I said above, I actually do think that each person should be able to designate a sole beneficiary with power of attorney. But that's hardly all there is to marriage. Perhaps the whole thing could be resolved rationally if there were no particular governmental benefit (or penalty) for marriage, rather than claiming injustice when there really is none.
If the law were truly discriminatory against sodomy alone, then two heterosexuals could "marry" for the benefits, and "divorce" when no longer mutually beneficial.
Tell me, what is preventing this from happening now? How do we know it is NOT happening now?
Trefor: With respect, that's the same dodge you used the last time I asked this question. I know you must keep seeing it as snide or accusatory because of the indignance of your replies, but I'm being totally serious--give me a REASON why I should fight as hard to protect homosexuality as I would to protect any other concept.
As I outlined above, homosexuals already have the right to marry in this country, according to the definition of marriage that has persisted for the past three thousand years.
If government were a restaurant, the fact that certain people don't particularly like what's on the menu does not obligate the chef to cook something special for them, nor does it give them any right to sue for redress.
Rocky: I should have been more clear. The context was two heterosexuals of the same gender entering into a marriage of convenience. Currently, they are prohibited under the same restrictions as homosexuals from doing so.
Rocky: No, that's insufficient reason for opening marriage to any two individuals. The reason why I say that is that the same argument can be used for polygamy and consensual incest, all of whose downsides to society outweigh any personal upside.
ok. you're probably correct on that. if I recall correctly, that was Scalia's point in his dissent on the big ruling last year.
However, at this point, incest can be outlawed (still or again) on the citizenship argument because we are generally talking about at least one of the participants being a child. Children do not have ALL of the rights or responsibilities of citizenship, and therefore are not capable of granting legal consent. (which takes us back to Jonny's concern, I know).
And on polygamy, it may be true that such a thing would be difficult or impossible to keep outlawed, but there are plenty of other problems associated with the closed subcultures currently practicing polygamy in the US, and those include (but may not be limited to...) forced compliance (which is not valid consent), child sexual abuse, and welfare fraud.
Those items are being used to prosecute polygamists now, but it is still difficult.
quote: Society has a duty to self-perpetuate, sometimes at the cost of certain individual freedoms. The same arguments made for gay "marriage" can be extended to polygamy, incest, and pedophilia as well, but at best there is no net gain to society by allowing any of them. Society cannot self-perpetuate without placing women and children ahead of other marital variations. Incest and pedophilia are directly damaging to children, and polygamy oppresses women, relegating most to nothing more than baby-factories, or worse, objects of gratification.
Here's a litmus test. Please fill in the blank in the following sentence to make it true:
"Society would lose ___________ if everyone were heterosexual, so homosexuality does serve a vital function."
You brought up these points before, and they are still either irrelevant, have no real effect on society, and clearly needs no government intervention. Here's why.
1) Society does indeed have a duty to self-perpetuate. And that duty is more than covered by humanity's natural urges to have sex. And that is in no danger of seriously waning (to the point of having a negative drop in the population) anytime soon. As a matter of fact, it has been often said that this society, if anything, is *over*sexed. Yet Another Indicator that there is no danger of society 'not perpetuating'. That alone puts a serious damper in your argument.
2) Despite your argument of society's duty to self-perpetuate, there is nowhere in our governing documents that specifically gives government the means to see that the duty is carried out by society. Again, see point one as to why this is (and should be) a non-issue to the powers that be.
3) The question on whether society would lose anything if there were no homosexuals is the irrelevant part, and really, a question that civilized people have no place in seriously asking. It is very similar to asking whether society would lose anything if there weren't any retarded/handicapped people. I don't know what it does for you, but the mindset behind such questions, particularly if the asker was very serious about those questions, gives me the willies. Need I say more?
Besides, isn't society fluid and flexible enough to take care and work around whatever 'irregularities' that 'non-normal' sexual practices between adults just might bring up? Hell, society has been propagating itself for thousands of years, and homosexuality has been practiced right along with it. ... I mean, when you have over *6 billion people* on this globe, self-perpetuation isn't exactly the foremost problem here, y'think? Maybe the over-crowding problem might be a little more relevant?
Just something to think about.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Not a homosexual but rather a pedophile? Ok, how 'bout this? He was a homosexual pedophile. And, he had a wig! Uggh, what a friggin creep he was...
The guy was a queer pedophile who simply wanted some young c**k. He deceived me into thinking that he could get me a job on the offshore oil rig that he worked on, and since it was his two week off period, I could come to his place for dinner. And so I did. He deceived me into thinking that he wanted to help me out and be his friend, and I was gullible and stupid at first. He didn't get any farther than trying to rub my back and ask me for sex at the same time because at that point I kicked his a$$ and then walked out.
The question was asked what would be lost in our society if there were no homosexuals, and my answer was that that tiny chapter in the history of our society would not have happened.
And, I am aware of the fact that seductions/molestations are not unique to homosexuals. But that attempt would not have happened if he had not had a "penchant for penis", that's all..
JL: And if you were a teenage girl instead, you'd have probably still kicked his heterosexual a$$, right? :)--> That's why I said that the bad acts of individuals are as irrelevant as the good acts of individuals.
Other than the "what good is it" line, which I wouldn't pursue, I pretty much agree with Zixar, at least for now. I'm all for people being able to designate whoever they want as beneficiaries, medical decision makers, etc. I'm not in favor of people being able to demand that whoever they want be covered under their health insurance policies.
Regardless of childless marriages, marriages of convenience, marriages that amount to little more than legalized pedophilia, forced marriages, and relatively temporary marriages, the institution of marriage is intended to encourage and support families, particularly children, who are the future of any society. It is not a peculiarly religious institution.
Homosexual unions are legal. Polygamous relationships are also, in a sense. Polygamy, as such, is illegal, but there is no law preventing the same sort of arrangement, as long as it is not called marriage.
For now, I think that the legitimate (from my point of view) concerns of homosexual couples can be met without changing marriage laws. There will probably come a time when that won't be the case.
I expect that, within my lifetime, two women will conceive a child together, without any involvement of a man. I expect that sometime in the more distant future, it will be possible for two men to do the same thing. All it would take is a little advancement in the same sorts of techniques currently used for cloning, plus an artificial "womb." I don't doubt that either will happen. When they do, society will have to adapt and laws will have to change.
quote:Originally posted by Rocky:However, at this point, incest can be outlawed (still or again) on the citizenship argument because we are generally talking about at least one of the participants being a child.
Incest definition and laws have nothing to do with the age of the participants.
Edited by Guest
[...]I'm not in favor of people being able to demand that whoever they want be covered under their health insurance policies.
LG: You're right. I had forgotten to cover that point. The marriage benefit on auto insurance is a good example, too. Statistics show that men become safer drivers after they're married. If two single guys got the insurance break for marrying, then drag-raced their Mustangs home...well, auto insurance would soon be unaffordable by anyone, married or not.
Garth: You're blurring the issue. I'm not saying anything about the sodomy laws. What I am saying is that there is nothing so particularly special about homosexuality that it demands any sort of special consideration whatsoever from the remainder of society.
Garth: You're blurring the issue. I'm not saying anything about the sodomy laws. What I am saying is that there is nothing so particularly special about homosexuality that it demands any sort of special consideration whatsoever from the remainder of society.
I mentioned nothing about sodomy laws either. My focus was your points as regarding society's duty to perpetuate, what would be missed if there was no homosexuals, and why that is largely irrelevant as relating to government involvement, (which has a more vested interest, Constitutionally-wise, as to the protection of our personal and private freedoms).
And since when was equal regard as to full rights within the marriage context 'special consideration'? (Is it because homosexuality is specifically mentioned in these cases? Is that what makes it 'a special right'?) Or any other right that the homosexual community requested for themselves.
No difference than the rights enjoyed by anyone else. Correct me specifically if I'm wrong as to this point.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Zix - any sexual behaviour is a matter of choice or circumstance. But choice is made according to nature - to imply that hetero people would deliberately choose to be anything but hetero is as illogical as saying that gay people can choose to be hetero. If your nature found sex with women to be repugnant to you, then you would not do it just as you do not because the idea of sex with another man is repugnant to you. What you approve or disapprove of in your own personal sexual life is not pertinent to the right of others to choose to follow their natures. When you would force people to get married to someone they are not attracted to just because it is permitted, you are creating tragedies for later - the person would be living a lie and a deception - it is not fair to their spouse or to any children that might result from the marriage. Gay sex goes on already, with or without marriage and it has co-existed with hetrosexual sex for millenia and your Supreme Court has now ruled that the state has no legitimate interest about what occurs in private.
A restaurant is a business offering a service - there are always alternative restaurants that will meet the requirements of the customer. A nation state is a monopoly and this is too often reflected in the "take it or leave it" attitude. When one is born into a nation, unless one moves to another country that will not only be more to one's taste, but will accept one as a citizen then it is a monopoly. Why should that citizen be expected to pay their taxes and even fight and die for that country and yet not, in return, be given the credit and respect which they are due?
You try to divorce homosexuality from the individual and make it some kind of impersonal, amorphous concept. You forget that society is the sum of its individuals, that part of that society is made up of individuals who are homosexual. Even if you don't think that homosexuality per se is worthy of any kind of consideration (and I challenge that it is special consideration), the fact remains that the homosexuals in that society are worthy of consideration and again that is equal, not special consideration.
The Massachussetts judges observed that the constitution of the Commonwealth did not discriminate as written. They effectively therefore said that gay marriage must be allowed, unless and until discrimination was written into that constitution - ie what is not specifically disallowed but be allowed unless amended. This is a great embarassment to Mitt Romney the Mass Governor because he is a promininent adherent of the Mormon Church who are going especially ballistic over the gay marriage issue. So his eye is less on the people and more upon his Prophet. The people whipping up the most noise are people from out of state and the big religious battalions.
As the USA wishes to lead the world it should also be telling other, more progressive countries, what they think about arrangements they have made regarding same sex marriage but they won't. Bush won't say a dickiebird to Blair about the gay partnership arrangements his government is bringing in.
We are so fortunate over here not be in the thrall of religious domination. We have learnt the lessons of the centuries about what that does and the edicts of the Pope are cheerfully ignored in even the most Catholic of european countries. Religion has the freedom to make its own decisions, but is not allowed to impose them upon others.
People fled europe in past centuries to find freedom on US soil. The irony is now that gay people may find themselves forced to be pilgrims in the opposite direction, not feeling wanted or accepted in their own country.
The US would be in danger of becoming a heterosexual dictatorship which stamps on the rights of minorities. The founding fathers might well have problems recognising the country they founded.
Your country doesn't have gay marriages, and only recently legally recognized homosexual civil relationships, so it seems to me you have little grounds to criticize the U.S.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Zixar
JL: I'm sorry that happened to you, but assault is not unique to homosexuals. In this matter, the crimes of an individual are as irrelevant as the contributions of an individual. That's why I said I wasn't talking about eliminating individual homosexuals. There's no guarantee that your assaulter wouldn't have assaulted a teenage girl instead, were he heterosexual, just like there's no guarantee Elton John or Oscar Wilde would have been any less successful had they NOT been homosexual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Jonny,
Are you sure that he was a homosexual and not a pedophile? there is a distinction.
And I am very sorry you had to experience it...
No homosexuality is not so say no pedophilla...they are two different things.
And as a side note, many cultures still consider a 14 year old the right age for marriage....as these cultures blend in with our society, it is harder to enforce our laws...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Most of the anti arguments have been rehearsed before and they are still invalid as arguments, reflecting prejudice far more than they do cogent thought.
America was founded on the right to have life, liberty and to pursue happiness. It was founded to prevent religious oppression and domination, for individuals to have the right to be different and to be respected.
When you deny people rights to have their relationships accepted and protected, whether or not you agree with them, you demean the founding principles and create a class of second class citizens.
Even heterosexual couple are allowed to be married whether or not they intend to undertake a breeding programme - they are given protections, recognition and responsibilities which are denied to other citizens.
The religious reich think that their interpretation of morality is the only correct one and throw a hissy fit when they cannot get their own way. Politicians desperate for votes climb upon the bandwagon of reaction.
In many parts of the world this unfairness has been recognised, it is happening in Canada too.
Religions may define marriage how they will but they have no right to dictate in a civil or secular sense about how marriage should be defined by others.
Courts are there to interpret the law and one such court has broken ranks and set off a panic reaction. From my understanding of the legal situation, this ruling is only applicable in the Commonwealth of Massachussetts and, thanks to DOMA, is not binding upon any other state of the union. Most states have already passed legislation to exclude same sex marriages in their own state in any case.
Bush talking about a constitutional amendment is NOT to protect his beliefs about marriage but to enforce them upon the entire nation. It seeks to deny the right of a state, which DOMA actually supported, to make its own definition, if it cared to, to define marriage being one man and one woman or otherwise.
Believe it or not, this is NOT a sexual issue - it is not legitimising what people do in their bedrooms, but it is everything to do with legitimising relationships of citizens who are supposedly equal under the law and who have expectations of equality under the law.
So throw up all the old red herrings - NAMBLA, paedophiles, the family, reproduction or whatever. Bring up all the religious objections you can think of, but that still does not detract from the CIVIL and SECULAR issue at hand.
In the early 20th century, there was another group of people who thought their way was best for the nation - forcing through a constitutional amendment called PROHIBITION. Look what good that did for the nation.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DATWAY
Just a joke, lighten up ehh? Zix I agree that there should not be any "special circumstances" or laws or rules for homosexuals. Being straight does not give us any advantages, why should it apply in their case? I just think it is thought about WAY too much.
And just because many homosexuals in the past contributed greatly to society it was NOT because they were gay, it was because they contributed, imo
WAYWho?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Datway - nobody is claiming special rules etc for homosexuals, only equal ones otherise logic dictates that heterosexuals get special treatment.
And Zix, homosexuals do NOT have to prove their right to exist to you or anybody else. They only have to prove that they are citizens of their country and have a right to equal treatment under the law.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I have to agree with Trefor, as his argument makes sense.
Here's why:
America was NOT founded on any principle even remotely related to any argument for the furtherance of "society".
America WAS founded on the fundamental concept of the sovereignty of the individual citizen. Now, what we face in this debate on gay marriage probably would like much like debates in the 1700s and 1800s regarding slavery and women's rights.
You see, blacks were denied the freedoms (why should they have special treatment, after all) by denying them the dignity to be considered citizens.
I'm not sure how they worded or justified denial of voting rights to women, other than the original notion that a citizen was a white property owner... but the fact is that the commonly understood applicability of the rights of citizenship as spelled out in the founding documents is where the limits were made.
So, any application of limitations of freedoms today (which is the real issue) must be put in terms of clarifying that gays apparently are not worth being considered citizens in our society.
And that seems downright silly.
Arguments about basing current societal rules on the issue based on "what's 'good' for society" or whether this would be to grant "special" rights to a "special interest group" quietly but most definitely deny the fundamental sovereignty of the individual citizen, and deny the validity of America's founding philosophy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Datway: I know you were joking, but the question is dead serious. No one has yet given me any reason at all to protect, respect, or advocate the recognition of homosexuality by the state.
It's entirely a question of behavioral choice. While it's frequently purported that homosexuality is not a choice, the engaging in homosexual behavior certainly is a choice. Roman Catholic priests and nuns are (usually) completely capable of performing heterosexual acts, yet deliberately choose not to, despite what their biological make-up might be. One might argue that they were "born" to feel that way about their religion; to be able to commit enough to make the conscious decision to remain celibate. Since there's no true physical handicap or disability preventing homosexual men from engaging in intercourse with heterosexual women, they are in no way prohibited from being joined in marriage NOW. They have the same right to marry a woman as any other man. In that light, gay marriage is very much a special privilege, and not an inequity to resolve via legislation.
For those who think it's all just about some religious edict against homosexual acts, consider this: Why can't two STRAIGHT men, (friends, roommates, whatever) get "married" in order to get tax breaks, insurance breaks, group health insurance, etc., etc., WITHOUT engaging in any mutual sexual activity? If the law were truly discriminatory against sodomy alone, then two heterosexuals could "marry" for the benefits, and "divorce" when no longer mutually beneficial.
As I said above, I actually do think that each person should be able to designate a sole beneficiary with power of attorney. But that's hardly all there is to marriage. Perhaps the whole thing could be resolved rationally if there were no particular governmental benefit (or penalty) for marriage, rather than claiming injustice when there really is none.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Tell me, what is preventing this from happening now? How do we know it is NOT happening now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
(resolving a cross-post)
Trefor: With respect, that's the same dodge you used the last time I asked this question. I know you must keep seeing it as snide or accusatory because of the indignance of your replies, but I'm being totally serious--give me a REASON why I should fight as hard to protect homosexuality as I would to protect any other concept.
As I outlined above, homosexuals already have the right to marry in this country, according to the definition of marriage that has persisted for the past three thousand years.
If government were a restaurant, the fact that certain people don't particularly like what's on the menu does not obligate the chef to cook something special for them, nor does it give them any right to sue for redress.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rocky: I should have been more clear. The context was two heterosexuals of the same gender entering into a marriage of convenience. Currently, they are prohibited under the same restrictions as homosexuals from doing so.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
zix,
thanks for clarifying. however, the reason two same-sex heteros can't is because the sex is "assumed".
And as to your challenge to Trefor, I gave you the reason when I explained about the sovereignty of the individual in the founding documents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rocky: No, that's insufficient reason for opening marriage to any two individuals. The reason why I say that is that the same argument can be used for polygamy and consensual incest, all of whose downsides to society outweigh any personal upside.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
ok. you're probably correct on that. if I recall correctly, that was Scalia's point in his dissent on the big ruling last year.
However, at this point, incest can be outlawed (still or again) on the citizenship argument because we are generally talking about at least one of the participants being a child. Children do not have ALL of the rights or responsibilities of citizenship, and therefore are not capable of granting legal consent. (which takes us back to Jonny's concern, I know).
And on polygamy, it may be true that such a thing would be difficult or impossible to keep outlawed, but there are plenty of other problems associated with the closed subcultures currently practicing polygamy in the US, and those include (but may not be limited to...) forced compliance (which is not valid consent), child sexual abuse, and welfare fraud.
Those items are being used to prosecute polygamists now, but it is still difficult.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Zix,
You brought up these points before, and they are still either irrelevant, have no real effect on society, and clearly needs no government intervention. Here's why.
1) Society does indeed have a duty to self-perpetuate. And that duty is more than covered by humanity's natural urges to have sex. And that is in no danger of seriously waning (to the point of having a negative drop in the population) anytime soon. As a matter of fact, it has been often said that this society, if anything, is *over*sexed. Yet Another Indicator that there is no danger of society 'not perpetuating'. That alone puts a serious damper in your argument.
2) Despite your argument of society's duty to self-perpetuate, there is nowhere in our governing documents that specifically gives government the means to see that the duty is carried out by society. Again, see point one as to why this is (and should be) a non-issue to the powers that be.
3) The question on whether society would lose anything if there were no homosexuals is the irrelevant part, and really, a question that civilized people have no place in seriously asking. It is very similar to asking whether society would lose anything if there weren't any retarded/handicapped people. I don't know what it does for you, but the mindset behind such questions, particularly if the asker was very serious about those questions, gives me the willies.
Need I say more?
Besides, isn't society fluid and flexible enough to take care and work around whatever 'irregularities' that 'non-normal' sexual practices between adults just might bring up? Hell, society has been propagating itself for thousands of years, and homosexuality has been practiced right along with it. ... I mean, when you have over *6 billion people* on this globe, self-perpetuation isn't exactly the foremost problem here, y'think? Maybe the over-crowding problem might be a little more relevant?
Just something to think about.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Not a homosexual but rather a pedophile? Ok, how 'bout this? He was a homosexual pedophile. And, he had a wig! Uggh, what a friggin creep he was...
The guy was a queer pedophile who simply wanted some young c**k. He deceived me into thinking that he could get me a job on the offshore oil rig that he worked on, and since it was his two week off period, I could come to his place for dinner. And so I did. He deceived me into thinking that he wanted to help me out and be his friend, and I was gullible and stupid at first. He didn't get any farther than trying to rub my back and ask me for sex at the same time because at that point I kicked his a$$ and then walked out.
The question was asked what would be lost in our society if there were no homosexuals, and my answer was that that tiny chapter in the history of our society would not have happened.
And, I am aware of the fact that seductions/molestations are not unique to homosexuals. But that attempt would not have happened if he had not had a "penchant for penis", that's all..
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
JL: And if you were a teenage girl instead, you'd have probably still kicked his heterosexual a$$, right?
:)--> That's why I said that the bad acts of individuals are as irrelevant as the good acts of individuals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Other than the "what good is it" line, which I wouldn't pursue, I pretty much agree with Zixar, at least for now. I'm all for people being able to designate whoever they want as beneficiaries, medical decision makers, etc. I'm not in favor of people being able to demand that whoever they want be covered under their health insurance policies.
Regardless of childless marriages, marriages of convenience, marriages that amount to little more than legalized pedophilia, forced marriages, and relatively temporary marriages, the institution of marriage is intended to encourage and support families, particularly children, who are the future of any society. It is not a peculiarly religious institution.
Homosexual unions are legal. Polygamous relationships are also, in a sense. Polygamy, as such, is illegal, but there is no law preventing the same sort of arrangement, as long as it is not called marriage.
For now, I think that the legitimate (from my point of view) concerns of homosexual couples can be met without changing marriage laws. There will probably come a time when that won't be the case.
I expect that, within my lifetime, two women will conceive a child together, without any involvement of a man. I expect that sometime in the more distant future, it will be possible for two men to do the same thing. All it would take is a little advancement in the same sorts of techniques currently used for cloning, plus an artificial "womb." I don't doubt that either will happen. When they do, society will have to adapt and laws will have to change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Garth: You're blurring the issue. I'm not saying anything about the sodomy laws. What I am saying is that there is nothing so particularly special about homosexuality that it demands any sort of special consideration whatsoever from the remainder of society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rocky: "Consensual incest" means engaging in a sexual act with one's own sibling, first cousin, or similar adult relative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I mentioned nothing about sodomy laws either. My focus was your points as regarding society's duty to perpetuate, what would be missed if there was no homosexuals, and why that is largely irrelevant as relating to government involvement, (which has a more vested interest, Constitutionally-wise, as to the protection of our personal and private freedoms).
And since when was equal regard as to full rights within the marriage context 'special consideration'? (Is it because homosexuality is specifically mentioned in these cases? Is that what makes it 'a special right'?) Or any other right that the homosexual community requested for themselves.
No difference than the rights enjoyed by anyone else. Correct me specifically if I'm wrong as to this point.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Zix - any sexual behaviour is a matter of choice or circumstance. But choice is made according to nature - to imply that hetero people would deliberately choose to be anything but hetero is as illogical as saying that gay people can choose to be hetero. If your nature found sex with women to be repugnant to you, then you would not do it just as you do not because the idea of sex with another man is repugnant to you. What you approve or disapprove of in your own personal sexual life is not pertinent to the right of others to choose to follow their natures. When you would force people to get married to someone they are not attracted to just because it is permitted, you are creating tragedies for later - the person would be living a lie and a deception - it is not fair to their spouse or to any children that might result from the marriage. Gay sex goes on already, with or without marriage and it has co-existed with hetrosexual sex for millenia and your Supreme Court has now ruled that the state has no legitimate interest about what occurs in private.
A restaurant is a business offering a service - there are always alternative restaurants that will meet the requirements of the customer. A nation state is a monopoly and this is too often reflected in the "take it or leave it" attitude. When one is born into a nation, unless one moves to another country that will not only be more to one's taste, but will accept one as a citizen then it is a monopoly. Why should that citizen be expected to pay their taxes and even fight and die for that country and yet not, in return, be given the credit and respect which they are due?
You try to divorce homosexuality from the individual and make it some kind of impersonal, amorphous concept. You forget that society is the sum of its individuals, that part of that society is made up of individuals who are homosexual. Even if you don't think that homosexuality per se is worthy of any kind of consideration (and I challenge that it is special consideration), the fact remains that the homosexuals in that society are worthy of consideration and again that is equal, not special consideration.
The Massachussetts judges observed that the constitution of the Commonwealth did not discriminate as written. They effectively therefore said that gay marriage must be allowed, unless and until discrimination was written into that constitution - ie what is not specifically disallowed but be allowed unless amended. This is a great embarassment to Mitt Romney the Mass Governor because he is a promininent adherent of the Mormon Church who are going especially ballistic over the gay marriage issue. So his eye is less on the people and more upon his Prophet. The people whipping up the most noise are people from out of state and the big religious battalions.
As the USA wishes to lead the world it should also be telling other, more progressive countries, what they think about arrangements they have made regarding same sex marriage but they won't. Bush won't say a dickiebird to Blair about the gay partnership arrangements his government is bringing in.
We are so fortunate over here not be in the thrall of religious domination. We have learnt the lessons of the centuries about what that does and the edicts of the Pope are cheerfully ignored in even the most Catholic of european countries. Religion has the freedom to make its own decisions, but is not allowed to impose them upon others.
People fled europe in past centuries to find freedom on US soil. The irony is now that gay people may find themselves forced to be pilgrims in the opposite direction, not feeling wanted or accepted in their own country.
The US would be in danger of becoming a heterosexual dictatorship which stamps on the rights of minorities. The founding fathers might well have problems recognising the country they founded.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Trefor,
Your country doesn't have gay marriages, and only recently legally recognized homosexual civil relationships, so it seems to me you have little grounds to criticize the U.S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.