Harm in Homosexuality?

Well this thread has surely gotten lost somewhere. The question is why would homosexuality be considered morally wrong.And of course because we are discussing sex everyone has rushed to use a recent contagious disease as some sort of tool to define the morality of personal acts.To be honest Gen Naz started it, and this last comment of his ought to end it. SEX DOES NOT CAUSE AIDs. Let me repeat that for everyone: SEX DOES NOT CAUSE AIDs.As soon as people start trying to go this route with any sort of argument it ought to be stamped into the ground thoroughly.If sex was the cause then we wouldn't even be able to trace vectors and pretty much the whole world would be screwed... literally and figuratively.AIDs is the result of HIV infection, which is the passage of a specific viral agent from an infected person to a noninfected person. This is the same as passing on mono or a cold or chicken pox. In the case of HIV, transmission is possible through contact with blood or sexual secretions. Go figure that a person infected with a contagious viral agent, has bodily fluids capable of spreading the virus.Humans are lucky that transmission is limited to direct contact with contaminated fluids, meaning those fluids have to come through breaks in our own skin and bodily defenses to be transmitted. Things like Ebola and meningitis do not and they kill you a lot faster.The next thing that everyone seems to agree on is that PROMISCUITY is a culprit in HIV infection. Oh how nice it is to shift the moral onus to someone else.Unfortunately promiscuity is as bogus a moral and epidemiological "cause" as homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sex in general.You can be as promiscuous sexually as you want and never get HIV.The only relevant questions to whether one is capable of contracting HIV are: what sexual acts do you engage in, what protections do you take if you are engaging in risky sexual acts (where fluids might get in contact with breaks in the skin), and what is the infection status of your partner.Remove the possibility of HIV transmission from any of those factors and you can be as promiscuous as you want.Indeed you can jerk off everyone who has every contracted HIV and as long as you don't wear through the skin of your hand in the process, you won't catch a damn thing. And if you are worried you have cuts on your hand, you can wear a rubber glove. My guess is that still counts as promiscuous.In any case, knowing the infection status reduces everything to nil. If you have a group of swingers that are tested and of known negative status, you can engage in totally unprotected sex within that group. My guess is that is still considered promiscuous.And for all of Nazort's claims, it turns out that in africa there are a group of people that turn out to be immune to HIV infection... they are prostitutes who engage in promiscuous sex all the time.Please everyone, from now on when someone tries to bring in a pathogen as some sort of test of morality, just stomp them into the ground with the facts about how germs and viruses actually work.If we are to use pathogens as indicators of correct moral behavior then what does Ebola teach us? What does the West Nile Virus teach us? How about mono? How about Meningitis?Well maybe there is a moral lesson here... ignorance is bad. Ignorance of the natural world, how it functions, and how to interact with it to stay safe can lead one into harm. And in the case of all contagious diseases, ignorance of our health and the health of those we interact with is our biggest problem.More than anything else we need rapid and reliable tests and we need them available to everyone.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-14-2004 06:20 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ah yes, the old gays are better than pedophiles argument. Very convincing.Now here's the problem, the above argument can be and has been made about homosexuals. Remember up until the 1960's or 70's homosexuality was on the same detrimental list as pedophilia. Just take your argument and replace pedophile with "homosexual" and children with "gays".Now how would you refute that as a gay? I guess you'd bring up evidence of cultures where homosexuality existed and there was no objective physical and mental harm. I guess you'd bring up studies which show they are not objectively harmed by such activity.Well, are you really going to assert there are no, or have been no, cultures where pedophilia existed and kids turned out just fine? I mean what is a child by your definition? We have states where you can marry and have sex as low as 13, in the world as low as 9. Do you have studies which show there is objective physical and mental harm done to children (and again please give ages) when they are subjected to genital stimulation?And as an extension it is well known that children stimulate themselves and others without coercion. It is a natural part of their exploration. Granted the others are usually of the same age, though that is obviously bound by who they normally associate with and the social norms around such contact. Are you suggesting this is harmful? How?I realize there are people that kidnap and murder children. There are also people that force or trick kids to do things they don't want to do. The first group are obviously causing physical harm and are criminal. The second group can cause physical or emotional harm and are also criminal.But you have stated that "consensual" sexual activity causes harm and so that makes pedophilic acts of any kind harmful and should be criminal.Why? As far as I can tell you have as much support for this as antihomosexual activists have for their claims. In reality it is a purely social issue. That means any harm results from social sanctions against the child for having consented to such activity. Indeed there are today, many gays who have emotional and mental problems resulting from the social sanctions imposed upon them.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heheheh... It looks like I may be the only one understanding what you were arguing. I understand you are not equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Of course that doesn't make your argument correct. This is a fallacious argument. You are equating children's lack of being able to consent with inherent harm. Neither are necessarily the case.1) Ability to give consent. What is necessary for consent? Isn't this an agreement that an action is okay with you? Children can certainly do this. Indeed many children initiate sexual acts with others, and almost 100% do with themselves.I think what you are trying to get at is that they are not capable of fully informed consent. That is they are not experienced enough to know what repercussions their actions might have down the road. For example a 3 year old will not have a clue what and STD is, and a 14 year old may not realize that 20 years from now they might regret their decision to have sex because a potential partner finds that they had such an experience disgusting.But the problem is that this is true for anything one does as a child. Fully informed consent requirements make sense for binding legal issues, which would undoubtedly entangle the parents as well, but sex is not like contracts. Or perhaps I should put this in the form of a question.How does consenting to sex (sexual physical pleasure) differ from consenting to swimming, boxing, going to a picnic, or to a church at that age with someone else (presumably older) such that being fully informed is a logical legally required step?And remember you argument was about harm, which brings us to...2) How does lack of consent necessitate harm being done? This has no logical connection whatsoever. You said pedophilic acts (and let us be clear this means any sexual activity that a child experiences) are inherently harmful. Now the definition has become because lack of ability to fully informed consent=harm.All this leads to is a potential for harm, but in the same way any activity a child engages in could. A child could consent to go swimming with friends or an adult and end up drowning. A child could consent to go to a picnic with a friend and get food poisoning. A child could consent to go to an adult neighbor's church and start getting taught moral lessons the parent does not agree with, perhaps even frightening antisexual statements which scar the child for life.Obviously if harm was done the harmer would/should be held accountable just as in any situation. You will need to argue why sex must be an exception to all other human activities we allow children to experience without fully informed consent.3) I find all of this interesting as one of the main arguments coming up as a sign that homosexuality is genetic in some fashion is that people feel this from a very early age. They 'know' their orientation. Well it is also pretty well known that kids play around sexually when they are young and have sexual desires when they are young.How does the sexual attraction kids feel for each other when they are young differ from what an adult feels towards kids, if we are to accept that a child's sexual feelings for same sex individuals is the same as when they grow up? There is no indication that children exposed to sexual acts inherently suffer any harm besides those that society inflicts on them... just like gays.Or are you prepared to show some beyond assertion? How many times will this be asserted before there is any evidence brought forth? I could start quoting psychology and criminology texts pre 1960 which have "evidence" for harm from homosexuality, and it turns out it is the same kind of harm we are talking about with pedophilia.The maximum difference you will find is that in one case a partner (and indeed it could be both) are incapable of fully informed consent, though they are clearly able to consent in reality... the same way they could consent to box with each other, or go swimming. The actual inherent objective harm is the same.I think this is where many gays are simply not getting it. Just like pedophilia the point is that homosexuality is considered "wrong" sexual behavior, period. The harm is intangible and stems, circularly from it's wrongness.For example Rrhain mentioned that children's brains are not fully formed to know what right and wrong means. That appears to imply that when grown they will naturally know it is wrong.Is it?How many kids felt homosexual feelings while young and then grew out of them? This usually occurs during experimentation. Yet some do not. Those that do grow out of them sometimes feel, and are socially enforced to believe those initial feelings were wrong.How does this differ from kids that were interested in sexual activity with grown ups and/or other kids, and during experimentation some grow out of feelings for kids and some do not? Consent does not cut it as a difference here. The feelings and actions are the same.The only way people can advance the above "children don't know what's wrong" argument is with the assumption that sex when young can be right or wrong completely seperate from harm. Indeed the harm comes from it being "wrong" whether or not there are any other objective physical measures of harm, and in spite of massive evidence to the contrary.There were cultures and still are where children engage in sexual acts and do not show any harm for this. And of course I will note that everyone punking on pedophilia as "harmful" have yet to explain what the definition of a child is. Even within the US pedophilia is perfectly legal, and not harmful, depending on how one defines child.In the end the concept of pedophilia as something bad, like homosexuality, is a social and legal construct based on moral decisions not tied to actual objective measurements of "harm".And this is why anti homosexual people will continue to use this argument, just like bestiality and any other immoral sex act comparisons. It is wrong for the same reason anti-pedophilia gays label pedophilia wrong, because it just is to them.NOTE: I realize this is all going to make it sound like I think there are no reasons for laws regarding sex and children. This is not so. I think there are compelling reasons, but they are based on social realities regarding parenting/socialization, and not on counterfactual claims that children are inherently harmed by sexual activity.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't understand why you are admonishing my post. The main poster brought up pedophilia to show the difference between a sexual practice that causes harm as opposed to homosexuality which he claims does not (and is the focus of this thread).Other posters have replied to his arguing about how you can compare the two, getting upset with the op.My post was specifically addressing his example. My argument is that his distinction was invalid as neither cause any objective harm, and so the only harm which exists (and he is asking about) is assumed due to its inherent wrongness.In other words it isn't wrong because it causes harm, it is harmful because it is wrong. That is the common criteria both anti positions share.I have not only addressed the OP's main point, but an argument the original poster brought up.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Okay, but I guess I am now wanting a clarification.The thread is on what harm is seen in homosexuality. Pedophilia was brought up as a comparison point. That is while all seem to agree that there is no harm... so they ask, where is the harm in it? They turn around and say pedophilia is obviously different and inherently harmful, though differ on whether it should even be mentioned in conjunction with homosexuality. Some are saying it shouldn't be because it is so obviously different.The point I have been trying to make... and so I don't see it as topic drift... is that it is all of their misunderstanding on what makes pedophilia like homosexuality which is how and why they are linked, and where the harm is seen in homosexuality.Is this truly topic drift then? I will stay away from it if you say it is, but it looks wholly on topic to me. People don't understand where the harm is, but it is in its inherent wrongness... not that I agree with that position, just what the answer to the op question is.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Now I am totally pissed off. The above claim is completely untrue. I answered your post regarding pedophilia, not the other way around. My first and only post was related to HIV infection. Check it out.And what's more, AdminNosy comes in to stop discussion of pedophilia only when I start explaining that there is a connection between it and homosexuality, ESPECIALLY to those who do NOT LIKE homosexuality, which happens to be the question in this thread, right????Then AdminNosy allows pedophilia to continue being discussed as long as people reassert that it can't have any possible similarity to homosexuality?Oh yeah, this is just "obvious". Or is it? Wasn't that my whole point? The distinction is not "obvious" at all, except for the people who want to see it as obvious. And frankly if we are to uphold "obviousness" as set the standard for discussion, then there should be no analogies or suggestion of similarity between homosexuality and heterosexuality as they are patently "obviously" different as well.Maybe not to you? Well it obviously is to those who are against homosexuality now isn't it? And that is who you are asking right? You want to know from those who are against homosexuality why it is they view it as harmful, and it begins with the fact that they do view it as different. Right?You want to know why? Is it distinguishable based on its ability to cause harm? This is what people seem to be trying to assert they must do...Such a discussion will naturally lead to criteria of how to distinguish harm from sexual acts in general. This is why you DD said you brought up pedophilia and why (IMO) you were correct in doing so. You could have just as easily brought up some other sexual minority and you'd have been correct (IMO) and gotten my equal reply.This is to say if you want an honest discussion on what is the harm of homosexuality in some objective sense, then you are going to have to define harm (what constitutes harm to an individual) in general and then ask where this can be seen inherent in any sexual act.In an objective sense all sex is the same (health wise) until some criteria of harm is defined which can separate them. What we have now done is allowed this type of discussion to be shut down.If you want a subjective discussion, so that you can claim homo is the same as hetero, but please no discussing any other kind of sex which is considered harmful so as to gauge what is meant by harm, then you already have your answer. It is obviously different and it is obviously wrong, and since it is wrong doing it causes harm by furthering wrong.Yet everyone is now acting like what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and trying to shut down debate along those remaining lines available for discussion.Zachariah is right, you ask the question but absolutely none of you are willing to listen to the answer because the actual implications disturb you. This is not to say that you have to end up accepting other sexual minorities you may hate, but rather realize and accept that the underlying bigotry against almost all of them stems from your initial contempt for them.So let me repeat this... the answer has been given. The harm of homosexuality is that it is considered wrong. Whether from God or just plain people that feel that it is wrong, that is the source. Homosexuality is obviously different from heterosexuality in that it is same sex coupling versus opposite sex coupling and one is felt right while the other is felt wrong.That [i]is[/] the same reason for just about every sexual minority there is, including pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc etc. They are different based on some physical difference that can be identified and it is felt wrong, and thus must be harmful.I guess if we want an honest debate on objective harm, we have to start a different thread.And just so's you know it is not my personal feeling that homosexuality is wrong or harmful, I was just trying to explain what it will boil down to for those against homosexuality.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Maybe this post will make more sense as it won't involve any icky feelings for you guys.The problem is that you are not listening to what these people are saying, and so have constucted a question doomed to failure. This can be seen in the original question... So what this is saying is that you want to know why but are unable to accept any other answer than something you are willing to accept. Yeah that will go far.You either want to know why and try to get to the root of why God would forbid such a thing, or you want to know why it is harmful. It is very possible that the two have nothing to do with each other.Indeed if one looks at the laws where homosexuality is first condemned (for those that believe that that is what is being said) there are a lot of other laws. Why are you not looking at them to find your answer?It is readily evident that many of these laws have nothing to do with whether they intrinsically cause harm... outside of stirring God's wrath. Choose this for sacrifice and not that? Problems with mixing fibers? Concepts of "cleanliness" relating to time of day.Heck God comes right out and admits that he simply doesn't want to see crippled people at his alter.If God does not always proscribe based on objective criteria of harm, and one believes there is no objective harm in homosexual acts, then its pretty obvious he did so for other reasons.I have read theories regarding God wanting to have the world fit his own tastes, or his vision of what he wanted when designing things, as well as his simply trying to help define "his people" from those around them. That is he was deliberately creating a subculture that was visible in act and dress, and he could best judge who was commited to him or not based on the subborning personal desire to his direction.You could almost envision the latter as God's enacting some sort of military code of dress and discipline.As anyone can tell you there are a lot of things that are proscribed in the military (and government in general) for no real reason. Hell, in a government office I often had to visit it was actually illegal for me to walk through a certain door because of the nature of the people behind it, despite the fact that there was no issue with me talking to them and indeed I had to. But to make things legal I had to walk into a separate hallway to get to another door to the exact same room. When I addressed this to management they shrugged it off as admittedly not doing anything... but important none the less.I think it is pretty clear God wanted men to be with women. He seems pretty hot for that coupling and coupling to produce children. So maybe that is the source for his taste. Or perhaps it makes sense out of necessity. If he's going to proscribe any sexual activity (even if just to make his people distinct) it better be same sex or his people won't be around much longer.And so it is bad because as a Jew or Xian he said not to (note: I realize the proscription itself is contended but that is another topic). It is wrong for this reason. And it is harmful because he does not like it and says he will leave you if he does not like you.Kind of like okay you wanna have sex with another person of the same sex, then go ahead and do so... see where it gets you because I am out of here. That would be a pretty solid reason why you wouldn't want to engage in such an act and view its spread as somehow harmful.This of course addresses your other point... It sure would be bad if you believe God is going to leave you because all the people around you are having homosexual sex. Such events (God walking out on all people because he doesn't like most of them) have plenty of biblical precedent. This is because people that believe in God and scripture have a different view of what is natural. The Bible does state homosexuality is unnatural. That pretty well seals the deal.Scientific natural is does it occur in nature. Religious natural can be should it, or was it intended to be in nature. And that can very well mean god makes something unnatural be definitional proscription. For YOU (as a part of my people) it is no longer natural. Morality is a subjective construct (or lets say subjective acceptance) and so can be based on scientific naturalism, or religious naturalism. Or it might have nothing to do with nature at all.If you base moral "wrong" on whether something must do harm, then in a way you certainly are basing your judgement on nature. You don't proscribe based on whether something does not happen, but rather if in nature we see it causing harm.Well that's if you use and objective standard of harm, but then we circle right back into personal religious standards or personal taste.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-15-2004 06:54 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I know you weren't accusing me of anything. And I do agree with the logical problems you laid out that come down the pike when trying to put mosaic law into US law books. Indeed, we issue business licenses to palm readers and Red Lobster? And what about all those mixed fiber clothing stores (curious that God di not have the foresight to ban polyester as well). But this is all another topic.For a follower of mosaic law, the laws don't have to be explained. Though we can certainly see what purpose they may have had.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I would say it is not only an assertion, but quite right. Yep, good to have you aboard on this.Now you understand why I was pissed off. The second fallacy was used (whether they understood it or not) by many people trying to criticize a sexual minority, while stating that they were actually using some sort of rational approach to reach their conclusion. When I went to argue that that fallacy was being made and there was no rational approach (ironically the same thing that anti-gays were being accused of) I got the first fallacy thrown at me to cut off all discussion.In any case, my position is that almost all moral positions on sex boil down to personal taste. This is to say there is not an objective harm considered and then a moral position taken. First a moral position is taken and from that point harm presumed.For people taking such a position and using their numbers to quash argument, you have pinpointed the logical problem of this. In any case it is subjective,Without question this is what Xian positions against homosexuality are based on. Moral first, harm after. And you have identified that it carries a bit more logical weight. The above is what I outlined more clearly in the next post after the one you replied to. I am glad you got the gist of of what was being said. Actually you can attack both 1 and 2. There are some credible arguments that the laws did not refer to all homosexuality, but just male prostitution. That is another topic however.I am not going to defend the religious argument against homosexuality as true, as it is not my position. I think it is wrong and would attack both 1 and 2. However that does not mean that I cannot acknowledge that this is what my opponent's position is and explain it to those asking what their position is.Unfortunately it appears that just being the messenger can get you shot around here.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-15-2004 05:07 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heheheh... you realize you just said exactly what I said you were saying. Yeah, you have your criteria and that is what everyone else must match or they are wrong.Of course if they said such a thing too, that would be ridiculous, right? Actually I did a pretty good job, I have yet to see a refutation. I already said why he might. And I loved your post on good, bad, and arbitrary laws. It was good for a laugh as it totally showed (once again) the problem you are having with this subject.Let's start by accepting for sake of argument your three categories of laws. Now we don't logically have to as a God defines good/bad and it may not be based on doing harm at all. For example a God might need sacrifices to stay alive (what do we know about souls) and so harm is a part of being good. Or a God might be utilitarian as far as good is concerned and so allow a lot of harm to be done as long as benefits to a majority are maximized.But like I said, for sake of argument (for now) we'll accept your categories. Good laws are ones that benefit those ruled. Arbitrary laws are made for distinction but could be changed. Bad laws are those which cause needles suffering. Even accepting this...MAYBE IT IS A GOOD LAW?...1) How do you know these laws do not promote longterm benefits or prevent harms we as humans are unable to understand given our limited nature? That is kind of part an parcel for what separates Gods from humans. Its interesting that you never did have anyone ask why in the Bible and receive an answer, but maybe that was lost and not combined in the final collection which is the Bible?2) How do you know that some laws do not help or prevent hurt to a God itself? Maybe not in a physical way where it would die, but that it would be offended or sickened as you might be if you were being served rotten meat every meal by those that might worship you. The Xian God clearly does have tastes and reacts to even bad sacrifices (he's pretty particular).3) How do you know that some laws do not prevent others from accidentally giving power, or being seduced, by other deities. There is no statement that there are no other Gods, just that his own people should not worship them. Many laws seem to be related to preventing his people from giving power to them. Male prostitution was heavily tied to a major competing religion at the time. It may be (and this has been stated in the past) that homosexual proscriptions avoided any possibility that his people might inadvertently (or claim to not know that they were) giving power to that other God.THE NATURE OF ARBITRARY LAWS...4) This one is what gave me the biggest laugh. You argue that arbitrary laws are ones which can be used to create an identity (which could be argued as a positive), but could be changed with no effect. For example switching yamulkas with wearing red. You then suggest it could be an arbitrary law. This appeared to imply that it meant that we could change them. That denies the very concept of what having a God means. Yes it might be arbitrary, but then you have to stick with it until the God decides to change it... not us.YOU WOULD NEVER ACCEPT A BAD LAW...5) According to you harm is the rule for deciding if something is good or not. That is not true at all. Of course we can't provide evidence for this in this thread. This appears to be a thread for punking on people who have laws against gays from an asserted lofty moral position, without anyone pointing out the hypocrisy or inconsistency of that asserted position. If you mean does it offend me, then I would say yeah it seems pretty stupid. But the question is how does it effect God, or what does God see as the effects of such an act that he might not want it?Again, you are consistently imposing your values on another group of people and insisting that is some objective criteria.If I honestly believed there was a God, and therefore he knew more than me or had different needs, and a certain text contained the rules he set out, then your good/bad/arbitrary law categories would look as stupid as their rules do to you. How can you claim to judge what causes the most harm or not, especially when it includes what a God might need? Oh by all means you are safe to claim this in this thread, while punking on others. In fact you have already shown as complete a disregard for estimating harm as a condition for right/wrong as the antigay crowd. We just can't talk about it.But we can even put that aside. Ethics remain a matter of personal taste. Things are wrong if they hurt others and right if they benefit or stop harm to others? How do you choose in conditions where it will hurt some but benefit others? For example one could lie to or steal from a millionaire in order to get money that will make you happy but not harm them at all. Does that make lying or stealing right? Give me that objective logical criteria you use...(added in: I forgot to mention that I also outlined how religious concepts of natural may differ from scientific standards. I notice in another post you raised that issue again. Natural from a religious standard can mean intended purpose, particularly purpose from God. I'm not claiming that is superior, just that that is what they are using.)This message has been edited by holmes, 11-16-2004 07:25 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I take it you did not read my rip on this point earlier?Let me take a different tack on this subject. Why is HIV being linked to homosexual activity? Because gays get sick?People that have blood transfusions or share needles get HIV just as easy. Does that mean Xian scientists are correct that transfusions and other medical procedures are immoral?Many say no, maybe you do too, claiming that HIV first appeared in gays and everyone else is just an innocent victim.But in that case we are ignoring the deeper truth. HIV has been tracked to its origins and it has little to do with homosexual sex, or sex at all. It appears that HIV began as a simian virus which transferred to hunters who slaughtered monkeys for bush meat. As far as anyone knows they were perfectly heterosexual and it spread that way until hitting the homosexual population through a bisexual encounter, or perhaps a shared needle?In this case if we are to discount the idea that transfusions were not the target, we can consistently discount the idea that gay sex was the target. Perhaps in the end God was just punishing people for not sticking to kosher standards of food. Those were just as important as other rules.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Let's examine this position.There are people that suffer from many different dietary disorders. In order to accomodate them, even the obese, we have as a nation created a variety of laws which mandate proper labelling of contents. This is not just ingredients but nutritional value.Lately peanuts have become such a common factor in causing problems in others... apparently just proximity to peanut related products (and thus smelling) can result in pain... that some schools and businesses are trying to ban such products from being brought in for lunch. That would have really screwed me at school as I love peanut butter.Thus the concept of creating laws and regulations around physical dietary issues is an acceptable practice. I assume you have no problem with this, and see a benefit? Maybe not in going so far as banning something, but labelling and separating it for accuracy?But such regulations do not end at physical dietary issues. You can see labelling and separation of food items based on moral or emotional issues... well lets be honest here, they are about karma of some kind.There are biological or organic sections and labels to clearly identify how meat or vegetables have been handled so that people can avoid putting money into factory farming. Brutality does not change the food, but you might care anyway.There are vegetarian sections and labels to allow vegetarians and vegans know that there was no animal products used in the manufacture of the food. This includes oils used to cook the food.There are also labels for irradiated and genetically modified foods. Even cases where they pretty obviously will not affect your life, they can be stickered just so you can "feel" safer.For longer than this there have been labels of Kosher and Helal. These are religious specific designations for foods prepared according to scripture. They only exist to make sure that if you are eating, you are not damning your soul for eternity.And let me tell you some people take that really seriously. I saw a guy almost beat the tar, perhaps he would have even killed, the manager of a food service because he was given nonhelal food and told it was helal (by people that didn't care less). The guy was certain he was going to hell.I assume that you do not feel violated or put down when you are going through a store and stumble upon the veggie, or kosher section? Do you worry that your food products are unnecessarily being singled out as evil? Indeed they are, but does it really bother you?I'm going to assume it doesn't. If it does your next trip to the store might be interesting to watch.In any case, we have a clear precedent of regulating, or more specifically labelling and separating things for both physical and moral protections as the population desires.Now let's look at gay rights. I'm not going to get into the constitutional amendment thing as that is ridiculous for different reasons... we don't need one to label food. What I want to address is the initiatives protecting "marriage", whether at the law or state constitutional level.Up till now (and for at least a 1000 years) there has really been no such thing as gay marriage. There didn't really need to be as children could not be an issue, and marriage was principly about that. And it has been getting used principly along a specific Xian line of thinking on marriage, thus restrictions on polygamy, incest.Within the last 50 years or so gays have increasingly wanted to share the same rights with their loved ones as Heteros have been enjoying for a long time. This really makes sense with the increased legalistic nature regarding property rights with partners, and the ability for gay couples to have children. Not to mention a bizarre (IMO) desire for gays to share "traditional values" with others.What you can clearly see is that the majority of the US is behind giving gays the same rights as hetero couples. The problem is with the use of the term "marriage". In the end, even Bush's constitutional amendment appears aimed at just the use of the name. As silly as this may seem, it has some basis in precedent with foods.Imagine we had been a Jewish nation, with a solid Jewish history and all food up till now was forced to go through the criteria for getting a kosher label. This means all foods got a "kosher" stuck on it or it simply was not allowed to be sold. Of course no one really cared, as the majority was Jewish or enjoyed kosher tenets of food production.Then Xians moved in, or jews converted, and realized they could manufacture, sell, and eat nonkosher meals just the same. There was no real nutritional difference, simply a moral one. Yet given the regulations set in place by a majority jewish population... that had no need for nonkosher foods in their history... the kosher regulations barred them from putting nonkosher foods into the market.So the nonKoshers protest and say that there is no logical reason for this, it is not physical health concerns, and they should be able to make their foods.Fine says the government and agrees to create a new class of accepted foods, which are safe to eat but not labelled kosher (which makes sense since it did not go through the traditional process).Does it make sense for the nonKosher desiring population to say that that isn't fair and force the government to label all foods Kosher, just to allow them to get their foods out in the market? Would it be so bad to get their foods out into the market even if it means essentially being labelled nonkosher?That is a pretty solid analogy. We are down to debates over the use of a name, and to be honest those who feel it carries a previous connotation (which allowing another group to share would seem odd) have a point.This brings up issues of whether secular gov'ts should use such loaded terms at all. But that is a different topic.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-16-2004 08:59 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I want you to think about this very carefully and honestly. Marriage as had been practiced in this nation and for centuries was exclusively man and woman.You are correct there was a religious component which was before which God, and a legal component sealing the union before society, but there was never any concept of marriage that it is a union between two "people".This is something that began to pop up last century. That is why almost all marriage laws clearly specify man and women and in their contracts use male/female terminology. That is why people really do have a case that marriage means just man and woman. That is the tradition, and the US government has practiced defending traditions as long it does not hinder someone else. Clearly keeping marriage with its original meaning and creating a new union with a different name defends the tradition without actually hindering anyone.Now frankly I think there are many questions raised, such as can't people start new traditions? But this goes on to another topic.Honestly marriage as it is written in almost all law books is in no way applicable to gays, and it certainly never was in practice. I do agree that in states that use gender neutral terms for their laws, there is no legal standing to deny gays getting married. Just remember the analogy. Food would have been always called kosher in a jewish run state and set with those codes. Thus the religious and legal "class" used the term "kosher", the legal borrowing from the traditional term.Do you feel that people who wanted to sell nonkosher (in the traditional sense) food should be able to demand the legal title "kosher" just to get okayed into the market, when they could just as easily be classified as nonkosher-safe-for-consumption?Would they really be getting classified legally as nonkosher for no apparent reason? It seems to me that there is a reason, a cultural reason and the people could say it is a misuse of their term.That is of course when people can say maybe the gov't should get out of the "term" business, if they have connotations beyond the legal. Heheheh... to be honest "marriage" is not just used for Xian marriages, but other religions which have, or accept the same criteria as Xian marriages. This both hurts and helps the gay marriage cause.It hurts because pretty much worldwide, in just about every religious tradition, there is no such thing as gay marriage. Certainly none have been trying to get into the US law books. This supports those claiming it is not just Xian bigotry but an actual suggestive fact that marriage is traditionally defined as between a man and a woman.It helps because people can point out that not everyone is getting married in a set Xian tradition. Obviously many nonXians are getting "married" despite being atheist or worshipping other deities. Isn't that an affront to Xian values? Doesn't that mean we should invent other unions for different religions?That argument is not as strong as the one that hurts progay arguments. But all of this is another topic.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well the reality is that the majority are in support of totally equal rights, just not with the name.I am aware of the case, as I believe you have mentioned it before. What this reveals is that there are some willing to take advantage of the situation to create problems for gays. That is simply a reality that needs to be dealt with.It appears that you are saying because of such incidents you must now antagonize those that might support what you are willing to accept in order to beat those against gay rights? I don't think that is the right solution.Indeed, perhaps gay activists are playing right into the hands of those that want to destroy them, just as Bush played right into the antagonism game Islamic militants played. It is quite clear that gay marriage initiatives created to protest the opposition ended up polarizing citizens and riled many up to take a stance against more gay initiatives.That is the reality and not theory. Perhaps gay activists should be reaching out to the majority and undercut the radical right by working to get civil unions that are appropriate into law.Of course we are now wayyyyy off the subject of this thread.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It was stated that there is no worth in comparing them in this thread. But I agree. Other than this assertion, which is just as good as saying harmful or not depends on if it leads to procreation, please explain why. Well actually...1) What is meant by "informed consent"? That is what information must one be capable of, or actually have, in order to be said to be delivering informed consent with regard to sex? I assume this is somewhere between mere consciousness, and the ability to understand what legal responsibilities mean in a contract.1) How does lack of "informed consent" inherently create harm in a sexual act? And I want the mechanics of this.2) Why would this be true regarding sexual acts when it is not considered capable of inherently creating harm in any nonsexual act... let's say a nonsexual massage, or minors level wrestling.3) Since you are claiming this applies to "paedosexuality", does this refer to minors engaging in sexual acts with each other, themselves, or is it confined to an adult (who has the capability for informed consent) engaging in sexual acts with a minor (who does not)?4) Given the above what is the resulting definition of minor? That is what is the age at which the conditions you set out in answer #1 can be attained and so "informed consent" available?It's interesting that you write off pedophilia as inherently not including informed consent so you don't have to explanation why, then try to detail how bestiality and necrophilia straddle some line on consent. Of course you never do mention how lack of consent would inherently harm an animal or corpse.Is it not just that it offends our sensibilities?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)