Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,836 Year: 3,093/9,624 Month: 938/1,588 Week: 121/223 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Gay Marriage Immoral?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5821 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 91 of 134 (335920)
07-28-2006 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Modulous
07-27-2006 8:00 AM


Re: Constitution
To avoid the potential constitutional issue, a non-religious reason should be advanced for the ban.
At first I was about to agree wholeheartedly, but then while writing I realized there were a few quibbles. I do agree that those who are passing sexual laws in this country are making morals laws, generally based on Biblical morality or modern sentiments derived directly from Biblical morality. Thus I do not think such laws are worthy, regardles of being constitutional.
However I cannot agree that it is establishing a religion. Many cultures, to be honest all cultures, have defined marriage as between a man and a woman, even those that agreed with homosexuality. The only minor exceptions have been those which defined some men as women and so able to be married by men, and a fragmentary "brotherhood" ceremony which in some sense reflected marriage ceremonies which existed for only a very brief amount of time in a local region and has little evidence it was commonly used.
Homosexual practices have certainly been tolerated and even extolled over long periods of times throughout different cultures, but have been banned even outside monotheistic cultures.
Thus we can see that culture as much as religion can play a role in such laws. If one wants to find similar justifications, ask someone who supports gay rights why other sexual minorities should be oppressed including the inability to be married. They usually don't suggest the Bible as their source, but it comes solely from cultural/moral centers.
It is certainly an establishment of a philosophical standpoint on sex, but it could involve many different philosophies and religions rather than a singular overarching one. I agreed with the Supreme Court's decision that laws against homosexuality itself were not justified based on equal treatment protections, rather than whether those motivated to ban it were choosing any specific religion to promote.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 07-27-2006 8:00 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2006 5:18 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5821 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 92 of 134 (335923)
07-28-2006 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by kongstad
07-27-2006 8:13 AM


Re: bigotry
I've cleaned many a toilet with the pads plastered to the wall, and when the blood has dried, it can take some scrubbing to get of the wall!
Shudder... the horror, the horror. Yeah I'll let your example stand. I've yet to meet a person who has cleaned both men's and women's rooms who have not noted the difference and had significant gross-out stories to tell.
But the one thing that puzzled me is how many women go to the bathroom at the same time as other women, usually in packs of friends. It made me wonder how all of these things were done with others around, especially friends?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by kongstad, posted 07-27-2006 8:13 AM kongstad has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5821 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 93 of 134 (335939)
07-28-2006 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by AlienInvader
07-27-2006 11:02 AM


Re: bigotry
Bottlenecks suggest creating a bigger bathroom facility and does not has nothing to do with whether there are just toilets or toilets and urinals. Obviously if one is just peeing it doesn't matter if one uses a urinal or toilet... or does the presence of a toilet force one into other activities?
Also, what does desire for privacy mean for anything? Okay you put stalls on urinals then too. I've seen that in men's rooms and frankly I prefer that.
And as i said before, nobody enforces segregation of bathrooms based on sex. Women use the men's room all the time.
Right. As a guy I'll walk into women's rooms at whim and tell them you told me it's okay. Think that'll float? Think I won't get kicked out or arrested? Yeah some women can use men's rooms and it is tolerated, but it isn't always, and it almost never cuts the other way.
Blacks did get to use white's rooms in the same way... when someone white didn't care about the rules and allowed them to use it. And by the way I don't believe the restroom racial segregation was a law, so police would not have been enforcing it in and of themselves.
I maintain that sexual "segregation" is justified in a practical context with little regards to bigotry... we don't pee the same way, and practical constraints probably prohibit the "lots of toilets and lots of urinals" thing.
While you have asserted this position, you have provided no logical argument in support of it. There is still no reason why separate urinary openings would justify different restrooms.
Oh by the way, you may not be aware but there is a physical condition where men's urethras do not open at the tip and instead open under or back toward the shaft, forcing guys to use sit down methods of peeing. If they can use men's rooms, why couldn't women.
I mean really what is different between a women's toilet and a men's toilet that they require a separate room for usage?
Privacy and safety issues are EXACTLY the same issues which can be used across race as across sex. And they usually stem from the same place... paranoia.
Yeah they've got urethras and all that, but they can't really aim. We have actual developmental differences. Unless of course you're telling me, women can impregnate each other now.
Seeing all the pee next to urinals reminds me how little many guys can aim. In any case you may not be aware but the genitals of a woman are formed from the same parts that go to form a man's. Their urethra simply does not develop up the shaft, and as I pointed out some men share that problem. And some men actually have cocks so small they are practically large clits. So what?
And as far as impregnation, are you suggesting this comes from peeing and shitting in the same bathroom? If you mean rape, men can rape women in a woman's room as much as in a combined room. Indeed I might point out the irony that within your own argument you claim women use men's rooms all the time... so is it a danger or not? Is it necessary or not?
You're moving back and forth... hey just like an alien invader! Now I get it.
Edited by holmes, : less an "n"

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by AlienInvader, posted 07-27-2006 11:02 AM AlienInvader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by AlienInvader, posted 07-28-2006 11:18 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5821 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 94 of 134 (335943)
07-28-2006 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Nuggin
07-27-2006 10:55 AM


Re: bigotry
Wow! Long post. Won't try to address it all.
That's okay, my window for posting again may close today anyway. I'm time limited these days.
The problem is that the people using the Bible as a crutch (No crutch is a bad analogy, since people using crutches tend to have at least one other leg) are not adhereing to the same singular rule - what the Bible says, goes.
I did address this point specifically. That some may be inconsistent in their practice does not make any singular rule they are enforcing less logical. As I pointed out, even utilitarians do NOT usually stick to all the mandates such a moral position generates.
Also, in this case they are being confronted with a movement not of their own doing, and trying to overturn longheld laws. Thus their activity is reactive and not proactive. If gays were not challenging them they wouldn't be up in arms at all.
the argument - "Bible says it's okay" is not sufficient to make US Law.
That I do agree with. But given the ability of gov't to set moral standards... a practice I disagree with but liberals have been advancing for over a century... they can say it is an immoral practice worthy of criminal punishment, regardless of where that belief stems from.
People pointed out that denying an entire group of people their rights is immoral. Clearly, this is a mirror of that situation.
Well that's not quite true. Slavery classified a person as a nonperson, and so stripped them of all rights. That is different than classifying an action as illegal and something no one can engage in, and further to deny services that might encourage such acts.
Homosexuality is an act and not something like a race which has NO inherent activity associated with it. The fact that a minority population has compulsions to such activities, and even if considered "natural" to them, would not argue that they are some sort of race whose practices must be protected. After all kleptomaniacs and pyromaniacs may have just as ingrained desires but we would want to protect ourselves from them. Same goes for unfortunate cases like Typhoid Mary, nice lady that she might be, we don't want her cooking for others whether she really wants to or not.
One may then argue that homosexual acts are different than those other acts, and you may have a valid argument, but it is different than an argument that orientation is like race. And I might add such an argument has logical repercussions which most liberals are not going to swallow, and be just as irrational and inconsistent as the bible thumpers.
After all, why are we clammering for just gay rights as if that particular sexual orientation is different than all other sexual minorities? Why aren't we clammering for general sexual rights?
Of course when I say "we" I mean society at large.
I AM arguing for general sexual rights and for all I know you'd support general sexual rights as well. Unfortunately many in the gay community do not, and I know this because I mingle with them as part of my sexual minority (bisexual hedonist). You can even see it in posts by gay supporters at evc. Many just want their desire to be treated as "normal" while kicking the shit out of some other group based on their "weird" desires. Apparently other ingrained desires do not count as racial status to them.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Nuggin, posted 07-27-2006 10:55 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Nuggin, posted 07-28-2006 10:38 AM Silent H has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 95 of 134 (335948)
07-28-2006 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Silent H
07-28-2006 4:12 AM


Re: Constitution
Thus we can see that culture as much as religion can play a role in such laws.
Perhaps. However, such laws have very weak footing. It is the equivalent justification of 'dunno, its just the way it is'. It is rare, once questioned, for such a law to remain in place. It was cultural that women couldn't vote. Slaves became part of culture as well as a general racism.
Culture/tradition has never been a reason that has stood up to progression. Reformists will almost inevitably change such unanchored justifications through erosion.
That's why I ask for a reason, ie a thought out explanation which could justify no gay marriage. Maybe there is one, but if it is just 'because that's the way it is/has been', then the Right should prepare itself to lose a grip on things. Probably take a while, maybe even a couple of decades, but with no solid defense against rhetoric it can't stand forever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2006 4:12 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2006 6:58 AM Modulous has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5821 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 96 of 134 (335967)
07-28-2006 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by capeo
07-27-2006 10:07 AM


Re: bigotry
Just to let you know, my posting ability is very limited these days and I may not be able to respond to your next post (at least not for a while). My apologies, but the real world demands more of my attention.
They're are many cohesive and functional societies whose laws arise from agreed upon moral underpinnings that in no way afford individual rights to large segments of its population. In fact, individual rights need not exist in a functioning society per se.
You are absolutely correct on this point and I apologize if it seemed I was arguing against it. I do agree that fully functional societies may base their laws on morals.
My point is that the US gov't was NOT one of those gov'ts and its founders argued that a more coherent and longlasting gov't would be one which avoided such practices (given their experiences). Religious (which at that time meant moral) divisions were responsible for many problems and so the anabaptist position of separation of church and state was championed.
They specifically discussed the concept of rights as the basis for our govt, and stated that a gov't which tells a citizen how it is best to live is an offensive one.
doesn't arise from agreed upon group moral standards ("God given rights"?).
This was a philosophical position about the state of human life. They said given by nature as much as by God (or nature's God). Its only bible thumpers today who are trying to turn it into some moral commandment from God. The founding fathers specifically said that those are the rights we inherently have, meaning by our existence, but went on to state that it is only by OUR preservation of them that we can enjoy them. God's not going to give us anything.
Realistically, there is no difference betweens morals and personal law
You assert this but have not presented a satisfactory argument in support of it. I agree that personal law can be created based on morals, just that it doesn't have to be, and in the case of the US should not be.
The actual issue I was addressing is that societal morals (the basis that governing laws are established upon) must have a logical basis and taken to thier most logical end you, I believe, would arrive at the most rights for the individual by maintaning only the minimum of societal laws. A result I think we'd agree is ideal.
Morals never have a logical basis. They can have logical structure but always hinge on personal desires/tastes as their basis.
While I agree that a minimum of societal laws is preferable, it has NOTHING to do with any moral position. My personal moral system, which is developed from premonotheistic systems, does not involve moral pronouncements of good or bad at all. And yes that involves killing as well as whether people should be more "free".
If hardcore Xianity with full inquisition came into force would not be anymore right or wrong to me than a hardcore liberal ideology with its form of societal indoctrination or that a hardcore anarchism came into being with no laws at all.
My position on gov't comes from an agreement with those who studied the natures of gov'ts and noted that diversity has never harmed a society, and that enforced unicultural standards usually resulted in fragmentation and societal setbacks.
I do prefer periods of less violent conflict and loss of knowledge and so support gov'ts which involve a focus on individual liberty, rather than social protection.
I see them as the logical basis from which a person would make choices and act if not under the restriction of group (or sometimes called societal) morals. Under this definition institued law comprises group morals for a society. In most cases inserting the word law where I used group morals would probably yield a stance you'd find more agreeable.
I see what you are saying and it is a valid position, though I disagree and feel my position is equally valid... and perhaps preferable. Once laws are viewed as an extension of morals, then people have a right to be offended when their gov'ts laws reject or hinder their own morality.
If people view the gov'ts business as inherently outside morals, and instead focus only on a practical preservation of YOUR ability to enact YOUR morals on a personal level, then it isn't so offensive when the laws allow someone to do something you might find morally detrimental to society as a whole.
One doesn't have to say "you are bad" so as to punish a killer or thief. It is enough to say that they have violated the rights of another, which they have agreed not to do by social contract (remember our founding fathers were influenced by social contract theory). Gov't laws are the negotiated contractual obligations between citizens, which is why certain things are banned from use. A majority could always agree to a contractual obligation some minority would not... protected rights removes or at least hinders that possibility.
A society NEEDS such concepts most definitely to protect itself but most certainly to protect its youth as well. By setting such a limit this stops unscrupulous adults from taking advantage of youth via unfair labor practices, unfair marriage practices that take advantage impressionable minds, unfair military practices and much more thus preserving its youth as best as it can for education, which should be the foundation of any society.
Given that societies have functioned without such concepts sort of undercuts your blank assertion that they need them. All you did in the above is state your own moral position which is certainly the modern belief which traces its roots to the Progressive movement of the late 1800s.
What's sort of frightening to me is that you appear to view the role of children as cogs mandating the best educational environment so as to work for society, rather than as individuals that should be free to make decisions and learn from life including potential errors regardless of what is "best" for society. You think that is less exploitative? All you've done is trade forced matrimony and physical labor by one group, for monasticism and mental labor by another. You have not advanced the concept of freeing children to do what they want.
In a rational society the basis of making anything illegal must be that there is vast evidence that letting the act happen is so extremely detrimental to society that it warrants restricting freedom
That position is contradictory to what you just said about needing to have age based laws. Even during the worst periods of child labor abuse, society itself was not being harmed to an extent that could be classified as "extremely detrimental". Indeed much of society benefitted from such activity.
I would have thought my point was obvious here , that yes, one killing would not have a detrimental effect on society, but if killing was legal in any and all instances
You missed my point. I was trying to suggest that while your position appears to support laws against killing, in fact it supports laws requiring the killing of many individuals. If the focus of govt is what is best for society, rather than the individual, and moral considerations are worthy, there is no bar to the sanctioned elimination of whole groups of minorities.
Only by limiting the focus of gov't to individual rights, and not by societal engineering, can one avoid such purges and persecutions. Witness the War on Drugs if nothing else.
If people in government could not hold enlightened moral positions while the general populous couldn't then the US would have started as a theocracy and still be one today.
Read their writings. There were theocratic communities within the colonies. The founding fathers cut the gordian knot by removing moral position taking from gov't. Thus their moral positions could not effect their neighbor's behavior just as much as their neighbor could not effect their own. It was not an idea of "let's have the least morals imposed as possible, and those that are based on enlightenment principles, such that society is bettered and most people can live free."
I see nothing circular about my argument. In the end I'm a proponent of a minimal of moral standards based solely on logical precepts derived from the most information possible. Following this criteria you arrive at the most individual rights and you would certainly arrive at the conclusion that gay marriage is not immoral except in the most limited of moral standards ordained by religion.
You have not set out how logic and information ends in your conclusions.
In any case, if I agree with your position that people need to be protected from personal choice, in order to prevent possible abuse or help society become stronger, then I see no reason why people could not logically bar gay marriage on those same accounts.
In fact, that was the argument for antigay laws and regulations to begin with. It was seen as a potential weakening of one's intellectual and physical health, which I might add continues to be true if looked at from a purely statistical point of view as gays do suffer from greater levels of physical and psychological problems, and its encouragement could be viewed as just as detrimental. Why not? Your argument for age laws is based on the same thing... potential for problems based on some statistical correlations or personal moral repulsion to an activity (and thus it must be unhealthy).
Let's say all people were encouraged to focus their sexuality on procreation and so not using others just for sexual pleasure. Wouldn't that have a benefit for society and reduce the potential for exploitation all around? Or at least couldn't it be logically argued that way?
Certainly, individual morality, but philosophically (and realistically) law is group morality, it's an agreed up set of social rules that the vast majority of a social group will abide by even in deference to their individual morality.
I don't want to be killed or stolen from, thus my contract with other members of a society is that they should not do such to me nor me to them. That is it, regardless of whether I think killing or theft is moral or not... and let me point out there are cases where people feel both are morally justified yet agree the act is criminal.
Laws regarding taxes and driving are equally contractual agreements with no (or very few) possible moral grounds.
Sorry for the long post, but your response was well written and deemed a good response. Thanks for taking the time. We both agree that individual rights are key, by the way, I just think we differ philosophically as to how a society realistically arrives there.
I agree and return the compliment. I'm sorry if my time requirements prevent me from much further discussion. As I stated before, I think your view is valid, just not wholly correct regarding the intended form of the US gov't (there is a difference), and not preferable.
It is very easy to mix morals and laws, and I see the enlightenment and the formation of the US gov't as a part of the drive to remove the two from each other as explicitly as possible. Since it is possible to construct laws without moral underpinnings, and instead focus on what freedoms people take for themselves based on personal desire which is the concept of the social contract, morals are superfluous except for how one lives one's own life.
Again, thanks for the debate. Well written.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by capeo, posted 07-27-2006 10:07 AM capeo has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5821 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 97 of 134 (335974)
07-28-2006 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Modulous
07-28-2006 5:18 AM


Re: Constitution
Culture/tradition has never been a reason that has stood up to progression. Reformists will almost inevitably change such unanchored justifications through erosion.
Ironically progressive movements are usually just the inventors of new cultural traditions, equally devoid of a rational basis. In other words we stop kicking one group and start picking on another.
That's why I ask for a reason, ie a thought out explanation which could justify no gay marriage.
There is no justification for banning polygamous, incestuous, nor minor-involved marriages. There may be some ad hoc suggestions of "protecting" some group, but that has no real basis in fact. Homosexuals have shown statistically greater levels of mental and physical health issues and capable of predatory behavior. That is over and above things like those involved in polygamous, incestuous, or minor-involved sexual relationships. Whoops. And believe me that actually suprised me.
If those with statistically less problems can be banned for their protection, it makes no sense to not ban those with statistically more problems. And appeals to the fact that their problems stem from social sanctions is no help, as the same goes for those other groups.
Whoops. Yet where is the progressive movement asking for all sexual rights and rights for marriage?
Yeah, I think gays should be able to have sex and get married if they want. But so should lots of other people, and many gays and "progressives" keep telling me how those others shouldn't have a chance. It is the same as always. There is no logic, just changes in taste and so target groups.
Back to the topic, gay marriage can still be immoral to those who are religious and those who are not. As long as sexual ascetism is prefered, or hedonism denied, then any sex outside of procreation or supportive of procreation becomes less moral, and a potential detriment for society to indulge in and encourage. Remember that homosexual acts really are choosing sexual gratification over otherwise productive endeavours.
Blow jobs and anal sex between heterosexuals would not be as "damaging" as one can still have vaginal sex within that encounter (and so procreate), and in any case one is tying oneself in with a partner where vaginal sex will more often occur and so result in procreation.
If you suggest that means infertile people should not have sex, then you'd be right. That's what that position logically means. That people don't go after infertile couples does not reduce the logical validity that homosexuality is immoral. Again see the flipside of the pro gay movement inconsistently not supporting other minorities.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2006 5:18 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2006 7:18 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2006 7:55 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 98 of 134 (335976)
07-28-2006 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Silent H
07-28-2006 6:58 AM


Re: Constitution
There is no justification for banning polygamous, incestuous, nor minor-involved marriages.
polygamous marriage has been brought up here, I said that there is no direct moral reason for banning polygamous marriage, but there might be good tax related reasons. The other two involve illegal acts. If they were legal, I'd see no reason to ban marriages surrounding them.
Regardless of the justification for them being illegal, that sets them apart one step from homosexual and polygamaous marriage rights.
As long as sexual ascetism is prefered, or hedonism denied, then any sex outside of procreation or supportive of procreation becomes less moral, and a potential detriment for society to indulge in and encourage. Remember that homosexual acts really are choosing sexual gratification over otherwise productive endeavours.
Which is all fine, but what we are looking for is some reason for denying hedonism or why marriage should be 'productive' (I assume you mean 'baring children'. Naturally, those same groups should be seeking a ban on infertile couple marriages - yet they do not. So clearly that is not really an issue.
That people don't go after infertile couples does not reduce the logical validity that homosexuality is immoral.
Of course not. However, when asked if infertile couples should be able to marry they say 'yes'. For this group of people the ability for a marriage to produce children is not their justification, so another reason is sought. If there was a group of people that stated that infertile couples should not marry then we'd at least have a genuine answer as to why a marriage should be between man and woman.
For the majority of the other groups we still seek an answer.
Tradition and culture are not reasons in themselves to keep a law or enact a law.
Child production isn't an issue to those against gay marriage.
So what's the real reason?
That's when terms like 'unnatural' and 'disgusting' often get thrown around, which are clearly not reasons. I'm happy to learn a good reason for gay marriage ban, I've just yet to see one in this thread or anywhere else. Answers on a postcard to...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2006 6:58 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 07-29-2006 6:21 AM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 99 of 134 (335979)
07-28-2006 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Silent H
07-28-2006 6:58 AM


production
Remember that homosexual acts really are choosing sexual gratification over otherwise productive endeavours.
So is choosing {protected} sex, so at least there is some 'consistency' for those that want to ban all conception blocking methods and abortificants.
But even with {unprotected} sex the intent is very often sexual gratification intentionally without production -- hence the "rhythm method" promoted by the catholic church.
Assuming the average newly married couple has sex once a day (low, imh(ysa)o) and they can only have one (two if twins) child, AND it usually takes 2 to 3 months to get pregnant when it IS intended, this means a ratio of 1/75 of sex (SPOOYA - just to get a number out there) is really "productive" even with intent to be productive. And this doesn't include sex after {pregnant} has been achieved.
The question for fundamentalists is why {sexual gratification} exists.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2006 6:58 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2494 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 100 of 134 (336021)
07-28-2006 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Silent H
07-28-2006 5:00 AM


Re: bigotry
If gays were not challenging them they wouldn't be up in arms at all.
And if the coloreds didn't get all uppity, we'd never have had a problem there either.
Also, in this case they are being confronted with a movement not of their own doing, and trying to overturn longheld laws. Thus their activity is reactive and not proactive.
I disagree with this on two fronts. Firstly, gay marriage was present in the past. Not just the distant past, either. There are a couple post on this thread about the topic. Secondly, "reactive" would mean that they were trying to prevent laws from passing. Instead they are actively passing laws / attempting to ammend the constitution specicially to deny people the right to enter into a legal contract
After all kleptomaniacs and pyromaniacs may have just as ingrained desires but we would want to protect ourselves from them.
Firstly, kleptomaniacs ARE allowed to get married. Secondly, compairing homosexuality to a mental illness is a mistake. Thirdly, kleptomaniacs are violating other people when they steal, consentual sex between adults is obviously of a different catagory all together.
why are we clammering for just gay rights as if that particular sexual orientation is different than all other sexual minorities?
Here's a common mistake that people are making - it's not about the sex.
If two consenting adult males want to enter into a legal contract through the state, pay the $50 and fill out the paperwork. The state has a duty to supply them with a license.
If a necrophiliac and a kleptomaniac (both living) fill out the paperwork, etc. They deserve a licence too.
Sex has nothing to do with who gets a license. It's not a licence to have sex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2006 5:00 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 07-29-2006 7:06 AM Nuggin has replied

  
AlienInvader
Member (Idle past 4926 days)
Posts: 48
From: MD
Joined: 07-07-2006


Message 101 of 134 (336034)
07-28-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Silent H
07-28-2006 4:38 AM


Re: bigotry
quote:
You're moving back and forth... hey just like an alien invader! Now I get it.
oddly enough, i've never actually enjoyed that game
quote:
Bottlenecks suggest creating a bigger bathroom facility and does not has nothing to do with whether there are just toilets or toilets and urinals. Obviously if one is just peeing it doesn't matter if one uses a urinal or toilet... or does the presence of a toilet force one into other activities?
bottlenecking was regarding that segment that i quoted specifically.
and it involves, i guess turnover rate for men in hte toilet case. urinals take less time, oh and less water.
quote:
Right. As a guy I'll walk into women's rooms at whim and tell them you told me it's okay. Think that'll float? Think I won't get kicked out or arrested? Yeah some women can use men's rooms and it is tolerated, but it isn't always, and it almost never cuts the other way.
... if the men's room is broken, i don't think anyone would mind. It doesn't cut the other way because it's never necessary and never happens.
quote:
Oh by the way, you may not be aware but there is a physical condition where men's urethras do not open at the tip and instead open under or back toward the shaft, forcing guys to use sit down methods of peeing. If they can use men's rooms, why couldn't women.
i wasn't aware and i don't think it matters in as much as public norms.
quote:
Privacy and safety issues are EXACTLY the same issues which can be used across race as across sex. And they usually stem from the same place... paranoia.
not quite as easy to use privacy and safety across race. Sexual dimorphism is a little more... pronounced than racial... ??poly-morphism??
quote:
While you have asserted this position, you have provided no logical argument in support of it. There is still no reason why separate urinary openings would justify different restrooms.
... says you. seperate urinary openings justify different toilets. different toilets are facilitated by separate facilities. how they are facilitated? trafficking of people, safety, all that good stuff
quote:
Blacks did get to use white's rooms in the same way... when someone white didn't care about the rules and allowed them to use it. And by the way I don't believe the restroom racial segregation was a law, so police would not have been enforcing it in and of themselves.
some things were harsher than laws. society was wrong.
"Whites could physically beat Blacks with impunity. Blacks had little legal recourse against these assaults because the Jim Crow criminal justice system was all-White: police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and prison officials."
What was Jim Crow - Jim Crow Museum
quote:
Their urethra simply does not develop up the shaft
that's part of my frickin argument. for lack of a better word, the "shaft" makes all the difference.
quote:
And some men actually have cocks so small they are practically large clits. So what?
i may go back and forth, but at least i'm on target.
quote:
And as far as impregnation, are you suggesting this comes from peeing and shitting in the same bathroom?
i'm actually highlighting developmental differences, in that it is impossible for women to impregnate women, even if one of them did have sperm, for very obvious physical
that i can argue for it at all, whereas i cannot argue for racial segregation, indicates that there is a decent difference between the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 07-28-2006 4:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by happy_atheist, posted 07-28-2006 12:40 PM AlienInvader has not replied
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2006 8:33 PM AlienInvader has not replied
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 07-29-2006 8:13 AM AlienInvader has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 102 of 134 (336055)
07-28-2006 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by AlienInvader
07-28-2006 11:18 AM


Re: bigotry
AlienInvader writes:
seperate urinary openings justify different toilets. different toilets are facilitated by separate facilities.
I think the point Holmes was trying to make was, using different methods of urination does not necessarily justify housing the facilities in seperate rooms. In fact I'd be very surprised if that was the reason they were originally put in seperate rooms. There's nothing stopping urinals and regular toilets being in the same room (as in fact they always are anyway).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by AlienInvader, posted 07-28-2006 11:18 AM AlienInvader has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 134 (336198)
07-28-2006 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by AlienInvader
07-28-2006 11:18 AM


Re: bigotry
i'm actually highlighting developmental differences, in that it is impossible for women to impregnate women, even if one of them did have sperm, for very obvious physical
Ever watch bird sex? Reptile?
Bird Sex & Eggs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction in birds and reptiles
Male and female birds and reptiles both have cloacae, an opening through which eggs, sperm, and wastes pass. Intercourse is performed by pressing the lips of the cloacae together, during which time the male transfers his sperm to the female.
There are also cases where a female has become pregnant after having sex with another female that had just had sex with a male -- the sperm was passed from one female to the other in manner similar to the birds and reptiles.
So, no it is not a "physical" barrier.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by AlienInvader, posted 07-28-2006 11:18 AM AlienInvader has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5821 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 104 of 134 (336267)
07-29-2006 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Modulous
07-28-2006 7:18 AM


Re: Constitution
polygamous marriage has been brought up here, I said that there is no direct moral reason for banning polygamous marriage, but there might be good tax related reasons.
What? This makes no sense. A person could just as easily get married to someone else for tax purposes, rather than someone that is already married to someone else. And why couldn't two hetero guys get "married" for the same tax reasons, though not being gay at all? In any case, just as with marriage codes which inherently exclude gays, tax laws were written with the assumption of monogamous heterosexual marriage. That means you are going to use the circular argument that because we based tax credits for marriage on a system that excluded polygamists, should be a reason to identify polygamy as different and so excluded from marriage.
The other two involve illegal acts. If they were legal, I'd see no reason to ban marriages surrounding them.
I can't believe you said this. Hey, homosexuality WAS illegal. It was just made legal in the US within the last couple years. People were clamoring for gay marriage BEFORE THAT. And as I have noted before, in past threads, incestuous and minor related sexual relationships ARE allowed in varying degrees from state to state... though not the same for all states.
In any case your appeal to them being illegal is circular. The question begins if they should be illegal at all! If we are arguing for sexual rights, then it must be based on criteria besides whether it is currently illegal or not. The criteria that was used to free homsexuality from illegality is EQUALLY APPLICABLE to the other acts.
And again this is where cries that antigay activists are somehow inconsistent is hypocrisy. When homosexuality was being made legal the conservative justices pointed out quite correctly that the logic used NECESSARILY meant OTHER sexual minorities should gain the same rights.
The same is being noted by the conservatives against gay marriage. Yet the rallying cry by gay supporters is the same highly inconsistent and illogical argument that one has nothing to do with the others and so no one else can and should get such equal treatment.
If the conservatives are inconsistent for not going after everyone they deem immoral, then liberals are inconsistent for not defending everyone they should be deeming moral (given the cirteria stated for homosexuality).
Lets say the US had not overturned laws against homosexuality a few years back, would you maintain that homosexual marriage should not be pursued in the US?
Which is all fine, but what we are looking for is some reason for denying hedonism or why marriage should be 'productive' (I assume you mean 'baring children'.
Heheheh... I think you mean "bearing" children.
Anyway, denying hedonism can easily be argued as being a good for society as it creates a unified identity as well as focusing potentially negative impulses (sexual or selfish ones) into creative efforts that will build yourself and the nation. Its sort of like the idea that sports people should abstain while in training, or why monks and priests should not engage in sex... or people in the military while on duty (even if not directly fighting)... or why married people should NOT have sex with people besided their partners. This argument can also be seen in liberal "progressive" movements which criticize sexual entertainment, most specifically antiporn feminists.
People commonly accept sexual ascetic beliefs. So what's the logical difference if it is extended to greater lengths? None.
For this group of people the ability for a marriage to produce children is not their justification, so another reason is sought.
Okay, for that group you are right. But that still does not make it illogical for homosexuality to be felt immoral. And in defense of that other group (picking and choosing between gays and infertile couples) they can still argue that they fill the role of natural parents and should not be punished for an inability to conceive. And in any case they would act as role models for others that bonds should be hetero in nature which would increase the likelihood of productive sexuality.
As it is their inability to conceive would not be public knowledge right? So how would you know this other than from a complete hypothetical position. Gays are patently unable to have children.
Tradition and culture are not reasons in themselves to keep a law or enact a law.
While I agree with this sentiment, anyone arguing that laws should reflect morality cannot. Laws against polygamy, incest, and minor-related sexual activities (from now on I am calling them "other sexual minorities") are purely culture related. If they are not, please explain how they are not.
That's when terms like 'unnatural' and 'disgusting' often get thrown around, which are clearly not reasons.
That's the same reasons given for all other sexual minorities. Oh yeah, except the claims to "harm" sometimes brought in by liberals against others, despite the absence of any solid evidence for such claims (still have threads waiting for people to present the evidence). That's not to mention if statistical correlation from sexual pref or activity to mental and physical health is sought... and conservatives have shown this accurately... gays do not come off well. The only response from liberals is that these health issues are fueled by cultural and legal status of gays... which of course holds true for the other sexual minorities which liberals insist should NOT be viewed that way.
I'm happy to learn a good reason for gay marriage ban, I've just yet to see one in this thread or anywhere else. Answers on a postcard to...
Hey, I already gave you one. That you don't think its "good" just means you don't like it. Neither do I frankly, but that doesn't make it less logically sound. As long as tradition or culture (aka morality) is a basis for law then it has a "valid" if not "good" support.
In any case, as I am pointing out the perceived illogic and inconsistency in this matter rests on both sides. You yourself just appealed to tradition and culture to exclude the other sexual minorities legally, while suggesting it shouldn't be so for gays.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2006 7:18 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2006 8:48 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 108 by happy_atheist, posted 07-29-2006 9:00 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 110 by berberry, posted 07-29-2006 5:23 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5821 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 105 of 134 (336272)
07-29-2006 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Nuggin
07-28-2006 10:38 AM


Re: bigotry
And if the coloreds didn't get all uppity, we'd never have had a problem there either.
That is an incorrect analogy, and even if it was would not challenge my point. You are claiming inconsistency because they are focusing legal efforts against on one moral position rather than all moral positions they hold. I am pointing out that it only makes sense as people cannot address all possible issues at once and in this case that specific issue is being forced onto their plate. They had already dealt with it. New challenges by OTHERS are making it necessary for them to address it again.
On the flipside you are not addressing the moral inconsistency of the pro gay movement for not supporting the rights of all sexual minorities.
Firstly, gay marriage was present in the past. Not just the distant past, either. There are a couple post on this thread about the topic.
Not in the US, and that is all that matters with regard to what I am talking about. But let me address gay marriage historically.
I saw RAZD made a mistake in referencing Boswell's "research" into a singular gay marriage practice. Its been quite popularized as some argument that gay marriage was acceptable to the church. This was totally disputed a few years back at evc. My suggestion is that everyone take a close look at Boswell's claims and evidence instead of the hype surrounding it. The most you will find is that in a small geographic region, for a short period of time, there was a ceremony which was held extremely rarely (and some question at all) that involved binding two men together in a way that is similar to that of a wedding ceremony. It is not known how any of the people that might have taken part in such a ceremony lived beyond that ceremony, much less that it would be as spouses.
That is nothing like homosexual marriage being an accepted practice for western culture.
The only other homosexual marriage practices I know of... and they are NOT in the western culture... are those where certain men have been categorized as women and so allowed to marry. It is rare and demands a men be considered a women.
Instead they are actively passing laws / attempting to ammend the constitution specicially to deny people the right to enter into a legal contract
Okay, let's be honest here, they are reacting. Would they be doing any of this if there was not a political movement empowering gay rights? They are passing laws to cut off movements attempting to create new laws, and amending the constitution so that judges will have to base any decisions regarding new laws against that.
Firstly, kleptomaniacs ARE allowed to get married. Secondly, compairing homosexuality to a mental illness is a mistake.
I didn't say kleptos weren't. I was suggesting that laws which would encourage such behaviors would not be acceptable to most people. And why can't I consider homosexuality a mental illness? And I want a real reason here.
Both APAs considered it a mental illness until a political campaign got it changed during the 1960-70s. Indeed during the 1800s and early 1900s it was considered worse than we consider sex with children today. Even masturbation was once considered a form of mental illness.
In the 1990s sufficient evidence was produced to show that sex with minors was not inherently harmful and indeed the only major problem appeared to stem from homosexual activity (which led to gender confusion), or violence. This was exactly the same (and stronger) evidence as was used to get homosexuality pulled from the DSM list (as a mental illness). Yet a political movement led by the right and left forced the APAs to reject any concusions from the studies, and so pedophilia is left as a mental illness, and its activities inherently harmful despite NO scientific evidence for this conclusion.
Is the classification of mental illness with regard to sexual orientation and activity a scientific issu or a political one?... the evidence is pretty glaring. If you haven't seen it before check out my thread on the 1998 Rind study controversy for all the details.
Indeed I can still find some psychological organizations that label homosexuality a disorder despite its removal from the DSM.
consentual sex between adults is obviously of a different catagory all together.
If gays are mentally disturbed then they are not engaging in wholly consensual sex. And indeed there are many cases of gay men trying to seduce straight men who are emotionally or psychologically vulnerable.
If two consenting adult males want to enter into a legal contract through the state, pay the $50 and fill out the paperwork. The state has a duty to supply them with a license.
1) Not if its not a law allowing the state to do such a thing.
2) If its not about the sex, then why don't gays get such contracts with people they aren't going to have sex with (namely women)?
3) They can already enter legal contracts with each other, so why do they need to use marriage contracts which are historically defined as male-female?
If a necrophiliac and a kleptomaniac (both living) fill out the paperwork, etc. They deserve a licence too.
The necrophiliac won't get one, even if they have the next of kin's permission. Same goes for bestiality (owner's permission), incest (same person's permission), or with a minor (parent's permission). Oh yeah.. what about polygamists?
Sex has nothing to do with who gets a license. It's not a licence to have sex.
Actually it pretty much was. Sex outside of marriage was itself a crime up until last century. That sex outside of marriage was legaliazed does not change how the marriage laws were originally constructed.
And even in spite of sex outside of marriage being legal, sex with someone besides one's spouse can be illegal when one is married. So in a sense it remains a license, at least to one's partner's sexual behavior. That people choose to allow infidelity does not change the basic nature of the contract.
If sex had nothing to do with it then gays should have no problem with only being able to marry partners of the opposite sex. That they only want to marry someone they want to have sex with is highly indicative sex has quite a bit to do with it.
Again, I support gay rights and even marriage. I'm just pointing out that illogic and hypocrisy stands on both sides, and it is not impossible for a person to logically hold that homosexuality is immoral... even if many who do are not consistent on their moral code.
But let's be honest, this IS an effort to change the traditional understanding of marriage (and what's wrong with that?) to reflect a more modern concept, in essence creating a new tradition, and the people who do not like homosexuality or a changed meaning for marriage are reacting to these efforts.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Nuggin, posted 07-28-2006 10:38 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Nuggin, posted 07-29-2006 12:15 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024