DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on October 02, 2007, 02:20:34 AM
-
But Enough about Iran, Let's Talk about Me!
By Mark Steyn
"I'm proud of my university today," Stina Reksten, a 28-year-old Columbia graduate student from Norway, told the New York Times. "I don't want to confuse the very dire human rights situation in Iran with the issue here, which is freedom of speech. This is about academic freedom."
Isn't it always? But enough about Iran, let's talk about me! The same university that shouted down an American anti-illegal-immigration activist and the same university culture that just deemed former Harvard honcho Larry Summers too misogynist to be permitted on a California campus is now congratulating itself over its commitment to "academic freedom." True, renowned Stanford psychology professor Philip Zimbardo is not happy. "They can have any fascist they want there," said Professor Zimbardo, "but this seems egregious." But, hey, don't worry: He was protesting not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presence at Columbia but Donald Rumsfeld's presence at the Hoover Institution.
At some point during this last week, it was decided that the relevant Ahmadinejad comparison was Krushchev. The Soviet leader toured America in 1960, was taken to a turkey farm, paid a visit to Frank Sinatra and co on the set of Can-Can and pronounced the movie "decadent." And yet the republic survived. As one of my most distinguished fellow columnists, Peggy Noonan, put it in the Wall Street Journal, Krushchev's visit reminded the world that "we are the confident nation." And, as several e-mailers observed, warming to Miss Noonan's theme, back then hysterical right-wing ninnies didn't get their panties in a twist just because a man dedicated to the destruction of our way of life was in town for a couple of days.
Whether or not this was a more "confident" nation in 1960, it's certainly a more post-modern nation now. I don't know whether Stina Reksten, as a 28-year old Norwegian, can be held up as an exemplar of American youth, but she certainly seems to have mastered the lingo: We've invited the president of Iran to speak but let's not confuse "the very dire human rights situation" or his nuclear program, or his Holocaust denial, or his role in the seizing of the embassy hostages, or his government's role in the deaths of American troops and Iraqi civilians, with the more important business of applauding ourselves for our celebration of "academic freedom".
So much of contemporary life is about opportunities for self-congratulation. Risk-free dissent is the default mode of our culture, and extremely seductive. If dissent means refusing to let the Bush administration bully you into wearing a flag lapel pin, why then Katie Couric (bravely speaking out on this issue just last week) is the new Mandela! If Rumsfeld is a "fascist," then anyone can fight fascism. It's no longer about the secret police kicking your door down and clubbing you to a pulp. Well, okay, it is if you're a Buddhist monk in Burma. But they're a long way away, and it?s all a bit complicated and foreign, and let's not "confuse the very dire human rights situation" in Hoogivsastan with an opportunity to celebrate our courage in defending "academic freedom" in America. Ahmadinejad must occasionally have felt he was appearing in a matinee of "A Chance To Hear [Insert Name Of Enemy Head Of State Here]." Could have been Chavez, could have been Mullah Omar, could have been Herr Reichsfuhrer Hitler himself, as Columbia's Dean John Coatsworth proudly boasted on television.
Lots of prime ministers and diplomats accepted invitations to meet with Hitler, and generally the meetings went very well, except for one occasion when Lord Halifax, the British Foreign Secretary, was greeted by the little chap with the mustache, mistook him for the butler, and handed him his coat. But even that faux pas is a testament to how normal thugs can appear in social situations. Civilized nations like chit-chatting, having tea, holding debates, talking talking talking. Tyrannies like terrorizing people, torturing people, murdering people, doing doing doing. It's easier for the doers to pass themselves off as talkers then for the talkers to rouse themselves to do anything.
As witness this last week. Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia, was evidently taken aback by the criticism he got for inviting Ahmadinejad and so found himself backed into what, for a conventional soft-leftie of academe, was a ferocious denunciation of his star guest, dwelling at length on Iran's persecution of minorities, murder of dissidents, sponsorship of terrorism, nuclear ambitions, genocidal threats toward Israel, etc. For a warm-up act, Bollinger pretty much frosted up the joint. The Iranian leader sat through the intro with a plastic smile, and then said: "I shall not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment." He offered many illuminating insights: There are, he declared, no homosexuals in Iran. Not one. Where are they? On a weekend visit to Kandahar to see the new production of Mame. Alas, there was no time for follow-ups.
And afterwards Mr. Bollinger got raves even from the right for "speaking truth to power". But so what? It?s like Noel Coward delivering a series of devastating put-downs to Hitler. The Fuhrer's mad as hell but at the end of the afternoon he goes back to killing and dear Noel goes back to singing "The Stately Homes Of England". Ahmadinejad goes back to persecuting, to murdering, to terrorizing, to nuclearizing, and Bollinger cuts out his press clippings and puts them on the fridge.
The other day National Review's Jay Nordlinger was musing about our habit of referring to some benighted part of the world's "humanitarian needs", and wondered when we'd stopped using the term "human needs", which is, after all, what food, water and shelter are. And his readers wrote in to state the obvious: That "humanitarian" prioritizes not the distant Third World victim but the generous western donor, the "humanitarian" relief effort, the "humanitarian" organizations, the NGOs, the western charities: it's about us, not them. Bill Clinton?s new bestseller on charity is called Giving, because it's better to give than to receive, and that's certainly true if the giver is busying himself with some ineffectual feel-good "Save Darfur" fundraiser while the recipient is on the receiving end of the Janjaweed's machetes. The Sudanese government appreciates that, as long as we're allowed to feel good about ourselves and to participate in "humanitarian relief," the killing can go on until there's no one left to kill. Likewise, Ahmadinejad knows that, as along as we're allowed to do what we do best. talk and talk and talk, whether at Columbia or in EU negotiations, his regime can quietly get on with its nuclear program.
These men understand the self-absorption of advanced democracies. The difference between Winston Churchill and Ward Churchill, another famous beneficiary of "academic freedom" who called the 9/11 dead "little Eichmanns," is that for Sir Winston talking was a call to action while for poseurs like Professor Churchill it's a substitute for it. The pen is not mightier than the sword if your enemy is confident you will never use anything other than your pen. Sometimes it's not about "freedom of speech," but about freedom.
Ask an Iranian homosexual. If you can find one.
Article (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGFiYmNiNzViNjg2YzBlYWY5ZmNlZmMxNzQzMmU3OWI=)
-
Thanks for posting this article...one can only hope that the 'talker's listen.
cro
-
I love how the right is trying to cast itself as the benevolent friend of the Iranian homosexual. Why can't they be the friend of the American homosexuals who just want to have equal rights under the law?
-
They can......it's called a Civil Union
-
<<I love how the right is trying to cast itself as the benevolent friend of the Iranian homosexual. Why can't they be the friend of the American homosexuals who just want to have equal rights under the law?>>
Hilarious, Brass. And dead on!
sirs: <<They can [have equal rights under the law] ......it's called a Civil Union>>
Funny, I can remember when equal rights under the law was called "separate but equal." But then this body of liberal do-gooders going under the name of the Supreme Court (as if! where was Clarence Thomas? Where was Antonin Scalia?) concluded that "separate" by its very nature could not be equal.
======================
Mark Steyn is cleverly exploiting the Marxist theory of contradictions to expose left hypocrisy on the free speech issue. A real Marxist-Leninist has no use for free speech. A real religious fanatic (Islamic, Jewish or Christian) has no use for free speech either. The old-school RCC maxim was, "Error has no rights." Steyn was clever enough to seize upon the contradictions between leftists who protested Lawrence Summers' invitation to address the Board of Regents of the University of California and those who took Ahmadinejad's invitation to speak at Harvard as a free-speech issue.
If you are going to defend freedom of speech, it has to be across the board: what applies to Ahmadinejad applies to Rumsfeld applies to David Duke applies to Adolf Hitler. IMHO, they all deserve a forum if invited, deserve to be listened to with respect by their audience, which in turn deserves a meaningful forum, through questions with adequate follow-up provisions, in which to challenge and test the speaker's ideas. However, everyone has a right to his own bias, that's for sure.
I think this one time, Steyn's right, mostly. I'd like to see a little more consistency in the defenders of free speech on campus. However unless the guy's a mind-reader (and I see no evidence that he is) I think it's absurd for him to impute self-congratulation as the real motive behind the defence of Ahmadinejad's right to be heard on campus. Freedom of speech is a worthy motive and perfectly capable of attracting the support of any sector of the public, particularly the highly-educated, super-smart sector that attends and/or works at Columbia University. Even Steyn himself should be able to appreciate it.
-
See, your problem here Tee is philosophical/ideological, not legal. Because the legal part of the criticism is taken care of with Civil Unions, which is what brass was referencing in equal rights. What you want is to force an entire mass of citizens to adopt the notion that Homosexuality is "equal" as being perfectly normal & reasonable even. That's a whole seperate tangent, requiring many of the religious faith to simply disregard what their faith teaches them, because Tee apparently knows better
Ain't gonna happen, but if you want equal rights under the law, that is indeed doable, right now
-
I think people who make snuff films ought to have equal rights to surgeons. If surgeons are allowed to cut people up for a living, why shouldn't people who make snuff films be?
-
<<I think people who make snuff films ought to have equal rights to surgeons. If surgeons are allowed to cut people up for a living, why shouldn't people who make snuff films be?>>
Probably because the snuff film makers are violating the civil rights of their victims and the surgeons aren't.
-
<<I think people who make snuff films ought to have equal rights to surgeons. If surgeons are allowed to cut people up for a living, why shouldn't people who make snuff films be?>>
Probably because the snuff film makers are violating the civil rights of their victims and the surgeons aren't.
What?! Are you saying little things like "intent" and "consequences" might actually have some bearing on whether these two situations are considered "equal"?!
Absurd!
-
I think people who make snuff films ought to have equal rights to surgeons. If surgeons are allowed to cut people up for a living, why shouldn't people who make snuff films be?
That is really stupid. Allowing someone you don't like to have freedom of speech is not equal to allowing people to make snuff films. If you don't know why, I'm not sure explaining it to you would do any good.
-
<<See, your problem here Tee is philosophical/ideological, not legal. Because the legal part of the criticism is taken care of with Civil Unions . . . >>
No, it's not. Because gays are not being allowed to marry. They are being allowed instead a separate or different kind of union, not matrimony but "civil union" which you assert is the equal in every respect of matrimony. Only it's not. That was the conclusion of Brown v. Topeka - - you can't have "separate but equal" because once you tell a whole class of individuals (blacks, gays, whatever) that LEGALLY they will be in a different LEGAL CATEGORY than other citizens, the fact that they are assigned a status other than that which is freely available to others is IN ITSELF an indication of second-class citizenship or state-sanctioned inferority.
<<What you want is to force an entire mass of citizens to adopt the notion that Homosexuality is "equal" as being perfectly normal & reasonable even. >>
Not really. Not at all. In fact, if the entire mass of citizens wishes to think that homosexuals are evil and will fry in hell, that is their right and their privilege, and allowing gay marriage will not in any way prevent the "entire mass of citizens" from "adopting the notion" that gays fry in hell. That is what you are missing. This (gay marriage) is not aimed at forcing anyone, much less an entire mass of citizens, to adopt any notion whatsoever. In fact, it should be obvious how futile such an aim would be, since regardless of whether or not gays marry, people will still thnk what they will of them.
<<That's a whole seperate tangent, requiring many of the religious faith to simply disregard what their faith teaches them, because Tee apparently knows better>>
Well of course I know better than they, otherwise I'd really be up shit's creek without a paddle, but that is not the issue here. I would certainly never ask the government to interfere with anything anybody believes in, no matter how stupid it is. I just don't see how people will stop believing whatever ludicrous crap they happpen to believe in simply because Adam and Steve can suddenly get a marriage licence. That's pure bullshit. Pass the law tomorrow and the morons will still be able to believe that the earth is six thousand years old, and it's nobody else's problem if they do.
-
<<What?! Are you saying little things like "intent" and "consequences" might actually have some bearing on whether these two situations are considered "equal"?!
<<Absurd!>>
Your sarcasm is being wasted on the wrong target. I've always said that the ends justify the means, subject to some qualification. There are some means that cannot be justified by any ends. Torture is one of them. Child molestation is another, IMHO. But in the political arena, I've always supported Castro's firing squads and control of the press because of the purity of Castro's aims, whereas I would condemn the American equivalents because of the corrupt and venal motives of the American ruling class.
But I think you miss the point completely in the snuff film/surgeon analogy. The surgeon doesn't operate without a signed consent from the patient. The snuff film maker has no consent, therefore is violating the civil rights of the victim. Even were anyone crazy enough to consent to being the star of the snuff film (starring as victim, anyway) it would be illegal, because the law does not recognize a consent to the infliction of serious bodily harm or death.
-
<<See, your problem here Tee is philosophical/ideological, not legal. Because the legal part of the criticism is taken care of with Civil Unions . . . >>
No, it's not. Because gays are not being allowed to marry.
Sure they are......it's called CIVIL UNIONS. They marry, they get an official license from the state, and under the law, would have the same exact rights as a married couple. Now, if we could just get the left to actually support it, we might get somewhere. But apparently, they're too hung up on trying to redefine marriage, instead of focusing on the concept of equal rights, under the law
I would certainly never ask the government to interfere with anything anybody believes in, no matter how stupid it is.
Yet not so surprisingly you're doing it as we speak.
<<That's a whole seperate tangent (legal rights vs being seen and accepted as normal & "equal"), requiring many of the religious faith to simply disregard what their faith teaches them, because Tee apparently knows better>>
Well of course I know better than they, otherwise I'd really be up shit's creek without a paddle, but that is not the issue here.
LOL....I rest my case
-
But I think you miss the point completely in the snuff film/surgeon analogy. The surgeon doesn't operate without a signed consent from the patient. The snuff film maker has no consent, therefore is violating the civil rights of the victim. Even were anyone crazy enough to consent to being the star of the snuff film (starring as victim, anyway) it would be illegal, because the law does not recognize a consent to the infliction of serious bodily harm or death.
I'm not missing any point. My point is that two situations with superficial similarities are not necessarily "equal" with respect to consequences.
You are stating that it is unjust for the public at large (and marriage, as it exists in all Western nations is indeed public law, not private contract) to withhold marriage rights from homosexuals because such treatment is "unequal".
Unfortunately, you don't seem to feel obliged to demonstrate why those situations should be construed as "equal".
Let me ask you this - if nobody formed a homosexual relationship for 20 years, what would be the public (and remember, we're talking about public law here) consequences?
Now, assume nobody formed a heterosexual relationship for 20 years - what would be the public consequences of that?
Would you say that the consequences of those two situations are "equal"?
-
>>Sure they are [allowed to marry] ......it's called CIVIL UNIONS. They marry, they get an official license from the state, and under the law, would have the same exact rights as a married couple. >>
I'll try again. Suppose a famous restaurant in the South did not want to integrate. Earl's Grill. But all these black people want to eat at Earl's Grill. So Earl says, OK, you're right, you people were kept down for a long time and it ain't right and I can understand that you wanna eat at Earl's Grill and you've got every right to eat at Earl's Grill. But I've got some customers might get mighty offended seein you folks eatin at Earl's Grill and we don't wanna offend nobody. So here's the deal. I'm gonna make an exact same copy of Earl's Grill right nex door to the original, same interior, same decor, same seating and even the same chef serving out of a common kitchen. Only we can't call it Earl's Grill cuz it AIN'T Earl's Grill. Earl's Grill is the original restaurant serving the original customers and everyone knows that. Earl's Grill ain't TWO buildings, it's ONE building, so how can the second place be called Earl's Grill? We'll call it Earl's Grille. Different name, same thing. Same everything.
Would you say that Earl was treating blacks and whites equally? Or is he stigmatizing the blacks by excluding them from the first place just on the grounds that they've never been in there before and the people who have been in there and are familiar with it don't want it to change any - - they want it just like it's always been, without any new folks taking advantage of the facilities?
-
Actually, it's more like "they can eat at Earl's Grill, but they have to call it Leroy's Grill when they get there."
-
<<Unfortunately, you don't seem to feel obliged to demonstrate why those situations should be construed as "equal".>>
Simply because they involve rights to a legal status ("married") that should be available to all citizens equally, otherwise you will have two classes of citizens created by law, one class which can claim a right to "married" status and one class which can't. And the only distinction between the classes would be based on a religious belief. There are many societies in which one's religious beliefs dictate one's civil status to a greater or lesser degree: most Islamic states, the State of Israel, even the United Kingdom (no Roman Catholic can be an heir to the throne.) But of all the nations on the face of the earth, the U.S. boasts that it is free of religious "tests" of civil status. All citizens are free and equal in theory. If Adam wants to marry Steve, there is no law that says, you cannot choose whom you will marry, it must be a female. Adam can marry Steve if they are both willing, because their religious beliefs, such as they are, do not stand in the way. And if their own religious beliefs do not stand in the way of their getting legally married, then why should sirs' or Religious Dick's relgious beliefs stand in their way?
<<Let me ask you this - if nobody formed a homosexual relationship for 20 years, what would be the public (and remember, we're talking about public law here) consequences?
<<Now, assume nobody formed a heterosexual relationship for 20 years - what would be the public consequences of that?>>
I don't get it - - are you talking about legal relationships, informal relationships, what? Far as I can see, if nobody had any relationships homo or hetero for the next 20 years the only new humans that would come into the world in that time would be laboratory clones or people born by mail-order artificial insemination. Given the present state of world overpopulation, it would probably be a wonderful benefit to everyone. But it ain't gonna happen. People will keep on fucking and making babies, with or without the legal institution of marriage. Always have, always will. And pretty soon, as cloning techniques advance, even gay people will be able to make babies, with or without partners. What was your point?
-
So yet again, Tee is reinforcing the point that it's not the "equal rights under the law" angle he wants to focus on, it's the stigma of not being accepted as perfectly normal reasonable sexual choices. And one of the best ways to deal with that is to make everyone else see it as normal, regardless of their religions beliefs, by obligating the term marriage be applied.
So for Tee, it's never been about legal rights, it's about telling others how they're to view something, in this case, homosexuality, as he sees fit.
Glad we got that cleared up
-
<<Unfortunately, you don't seem to feel obliged to demonstrate why those situations should be construed as "equal".>>
Simply because they involve rights to a legal status ("married") that should be available to all citizens equally, otherwise you will have two classes of citizens created by law, one class which can claim a right to "married" status and one class which can't. And the only distinction between the classes would be based on a religious belief. There are many societies in which one's religious beliefs dictate one's civil status to a greater or lesser degree: most Islamic states, the State of Israel, even the United Kingdom (no Roman Catholic can be an heir to the throne.) But of all the nations on the face of the earth, the U.S. boasts that it is free of religious "tests" of civil status. All citizens are free and equal in theory. If Adam wants to marry Steve, there is no law that says, you cannot choose whom you will marry, it must be a female. Adam can marry Steve if they are both willing, because their religious beliefs, such as they are, do not stand in the way. And if their own religious beliefs do not stand in the way of their getting legally married, then why should sirs' or Religious Dick's relgious beliefs stand in their way?
My (non-existent) religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. I'm asking a public policy question. Why should public law (as opposed to private contract) offer protection to relationships with no public benefit? Public law does not recognize bowling teams, garage bands, your relationship with your-best-friend-forever from high-school or for that matter, most other relationships that concern nobody else besides the participants. It does, OTOH, recognize relationships that have public impacts - corporations (provide goods and services, jobs, wealth creation), heterosexual marriages (propagation of the species, social infrastructure for raising children, etc.) and parental relationships.
The object of public law is protection of public interests. Not to ensure everyone gets a pony for Christmas.
<<Let me ask you this - if nobody formed a homosexual relationship for 20 years, what would be the public (and remember, we're talking about public law here) consequences?
<<Now, assume nobody formed a heterosexual relationship for 20 years - what would be the public consequences of that?>>
I don't get it - - are you talking about legal relationships, informal relationships, what? Far as I can see, if nobody had any relationships homo or hetero for the next 20 years the only new humans that would come into the world in that time would be laboratory clones or people born by mail-order artificial insemination.
Um, yeah. I'd say propagation is a relevant public interest of most societies, other than suicide cults.
Given the present state of world overpopulation, it would probably be a wonderful benefit to everyone.
Given that while the overpopulation may be a concern of China and India, but that most of the Western world (North America, Europe, Russia) is, in fact, not even reproducing at replacement rates, that is a ridiculous statement.
But it ain't gonna happen. People will keep on fucking and making babies, with or without the legal institution of marriage. Always have, always will.
Likewise, I'm sure societies will always organize themselves with or without governments, and groups of people will alway carry out commercial activities with or without legal incorporation. The object of governments, corporations and marriages is recognition that those activities are essential to human well-being, and to provide a legal and social infrastructure to encourage and facilitate them. Again, what is the essential public function of homosexual relationships?
And pretty soon, as cloning techniques advance, even gay people will be able to make babies, with or without partners. What was your point?
What's your horizon of "pretty soon"? So far, not a single human being has been cloned, and judging from the results of animal cloning it's not likely cloning is going to be an adequate reproductive strategy for mammals any time within the next century.
And again - my point is: what public benefits do homosexual relationships provide to anyone besides the participants such that they merit protection by public law?
-
<<So yet again, Tee is reinforcing the point that it's not the "equal rights under the law" angle he wants to focus on, it's the stigma of not being accepted as perfectly normal reasonable sexual choices. >>
Well, I guess what you're missing is this: when the stigma is applied by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell or by Fox News, it's no harm, no foul; when it's applied by the U.S. government, it is unconstitutional because they're not supposed to be making those kind of distinctions.
You are really making the same comment that could have been made of segregated schools if they were in fact identical to one another; but the Supreme Court dealt with that - - when the stigma is applied by the state, then it's unconstitutional. Even if the actual separate facilities provided had been exact clones of one another.
<<And one of the best ways to deal with that is to make everyone else see it as normal . . . >>
That's wrong, too. How can the government, merely by legalizing gay marriage, make a crazed bigot suddenly believe that homosexuality has become normal and wholesome? You are attributing far too much power to the U.S. government. The gay population doesn't even have the right to be regarded as normal in the general population; the general population will regard gays as it regards them and there is no law present or future that can alter that POV. But the gay population DOES have the right to be OFFICIALLY regarded as the exact same class of person as heteros by the state.
<< . . . regardless of their religions beliefs, by obligating the term marriage be applied.>>
That's wrong, too. Just because the state allows the marriage to proceed, this does not mean that any religious leader or group has to accept it. A gay married couple would still be denounced by the crazies from their pulpits, regardless of the fact that the government allows them to marry: Adam and Steve are livin' in sin. They's no way they could be married in the eyes of God. They goin straight to Hail. God says it. I believe it. That settles it!
<<So for Tee, it's never been about legal rights, it's about telling others how they're to view something, in this case, homosexuality, as he sees fit.>>
It's about the legal right to get married. It's for the abolition of any statute that defines marriage in a way that two gays can't get married to each other and acquire married status. Not civil union status but married status. OF COURSE that's abut legal rights. You have confused the benefits of legal rights with the legal rights themselves - - you say, IF they have civil union, it's the same for them as if married, the same matrimonial property rights, the same immunity from the testimony of a spouse, etc. So the benefits that flow from the matrimonial relationship can be obtained in equal measure from the civil union relationship. But Brad has the right to marry Angelina and Adam does NOT have the right to marry Steve. So you have UNEQUAL RIGHTS. One right for Brad, no such right for Steve. You happen to have it totally wrong: not only IS it about legal rights, it is ONLY about legal rights.
And of course it is not telling anyone how to view something - - anyone who wants to believe gay marriage in general or in particular is a sham, a fraud and a travesty is free to continue believing that. Only the government will not be making that distinction any longer. Same with the Civil Rights Act - - it permits equal rights for all, but it does not tell ANYBODY, Hey from now on think of the Negro as a human being, not as a sub-human animal. You can think of the black any way you like and the government can't do jack-shit about it, but the GOVERNMENT cannot officially assign them to COLORED drinking fountains only.
Glad we got that cleared up
-
you say, IF they have civil union, it's the same for them as if married, the same matrimonial property rights, the same immunity from the testimony of a spouse, etc. So the benefits that flow from the matrimonial relationship can be obtained in equal measure from the civil union relationship. But Brad has the right to marry Angelina and Adam does NOT have the right to marry Steve. So you have UNEQUAL RIGHTS. One right for Brad, no such right for Steve. You happen to have it totally wrong: not only IS it about legal rights, it is ONLY about legal rights.
So, it's the name that makes it different? If it's called a "civil union" it's inferior?
-
And you're making the same mistake that Homosexuality is akin to skin color. It isn't, and your say so isn't anywhere close to validating such. But when you get behind the drive to legitimize and normalize adultery, then we can actually start making appropriate comparisons
-
But when you get behind the drive to legitimize and normalize adultery
is that the whole point of swingers?
except even they got thier own definition of it and strangely happen to them also.
-
Yeoww.... I read this article and saw the big meaning and comeback afterwork and it becomes all about one gay sentence... I cannot believe how locked into your own little finger pointers. TALK...TALK...TALK
-
Yeoww.... I read this article and saw the big meaning and comeback afterwork and it becomes all about one gay sentence... I cannot believe how locked into your own little finger pointers. TALK...TALK...TALK
Well Cro, I think the article speaks for itself, don't you? ;)
But when you get behind the drive to legitimize and normalize adultery is that the whole point of swingers?
I don't know Kimba. You'd have to ask the swingers
-
<<So, it's the name that makes it different? If it's called a "civil union" it's inferior?>>
No, the name, like any name, is only a symbol. In this case it stands for a package of rights (civil union) just as marriage stands for another package of rights (matrimony) both of which packages will give the participants the same rights and benefits. Just like separate but equal water fountains could be constructed to give the same water, one under a label that says COLORED and one under a label that says WHITE. It is not the name that makes it inferior - - you could call the COLORED fountain GRADE A or RAINBOW or AMERICAN DREAM but in the end what you have is the LEGAL division of American citizens into two arbitrary classes, one of which has to drink from the COLORED or GRADE A or AMERICAN DREAM fountain and the other of which has to drink from the other fountain. And for the COLORED group, their own government has told them, you have no right to drink from the fountain everybody else drinks from. You've got your own fountain and it's the same water so even though you are separate, you are equal.
And the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. has said, the fact that they were not allowed to share in the same fountain as the others makes them inferior - - not the name on the fountain but the fact that they are LEGALLY forbidden to use the other group's fountain. The law has singled them out, the law says, Not in Billy Bob's eyes, not in Bubba Hailey's eyes, but in the eyes of your own government, and in the eyes of the law itself, you are not fit to drink from this here fountain.
What makes it inferior is (a) that it's separate and (b) that it's the law itself that makes it separate.
-
So, if all of the government references change from "marriage" to "civil union" and only religious institutions use the name "marriage" you'd be ok with it?
-
<<I'm asking a public policy question. Why should public law (as opposed to private contract) offer protection to relationships with no public benefit?
<<The object of public law is protection of public interests. Not to ensure everyone gets a pony for Christmas.>>
I''m sure that some public-interest benefits (reduction in AIDS and other STDs) could be found in gay marriages, but I think you've missed the crucial point: that if the government rightly or wrongly DOES decide to offer protection to certain relationships (as, for example, the matrimonial relationship,) then the protection that it offers must be available equally to all Americans. It's unconstitutionally discriminatory for the government to say, we are going to offer matrimonial status but it's only available to whites; or only available to heteros. If the government creates a legal status (and it doesn't have to, necessarily) then once it creates the status, it has to be available equally to all.
Now the government CAN discriminate on the basis of ability - - it can ask applicants for a driver's licence or a medical doctor's licence to demonstrate some degree of proficiency; but what it can't discriminate on is purely personal characteristics like race, religion or sexual orientation.
-
<<So, if all of the government references change from "marriage" to "civil union" and only religious institutions use the name "marriage" you'd be ok with it?>>
Yes, and in fact it's been proposed here in this forum and elsewhere. The usual rhetoric is, Let the government get out of the marriage business altogether.
Actually, that's akin to how it's done in France and the civil law jurisdictions, although it's not available yet to gays. But all that has to be done to make it work is to open the civil union to gays. Call it whatever you like, as long as it's open to all comers. The churches can then do whatever the fuck they like - - if one church won't marry Adam and Steve, they can look for another church that will.
The vice was in the LAW providing a class of relationship available to some citizens but not others.
The typical French marriage is a two-step affair - - once in the mairie and then again in a church, usually on the same day.
-
<<And you're making the same mistake that Homosexuality is akin to skin color. It isn't, and your say so isn't anywhere close to validating such.>>
Well, I guess that depends on whether you believe homosexuality is a choice or a condition. From what I read, most people who are experts on the subject believe it to be a condition, but personally I think with some folks it's innate and with others it was something they chose. But really WTF do I know? Or the experts either, for that matter?
But on the Constitutional issue, I think it's irrelevant, because the law basically ignores the state of homosexuality and just solves the problem by refusing to marry a man to a man. In theory you could have two heterosexual men who want to get married (let's say for the legal benefits that one or both would receive.) The law makes no distinction between marrying a gay man to a gay man or a straight man to a straight man. What the law prohibits officially is not gay marriages but male-to-male marriages (or woman-to-woman.)
<< But when you get behind the drive to legitimize and normalize adultery, then we can actually start making appropriate comparisons>>
I'm afraid I've lost your meaning, sirs. How can I or anyone else legitimize or normalize adultery? It happens a lot, some couples or spouses accept it, some don't. Nobody can normalize it any more than it's already normal or not normal. And surely it's up to each individual to legitimize it or not as he or she sees fit. It's a matter of personal conscience. As far as I can tell, the law recognizes it as such, since it is no longer penalized by law. (except in Islamic countries)
-
<<And you're making the same mistake that Homosexuality is akin to skin color. It isn't, and your say so isn't anywhere close to validating such.>>
Well, I guess that depends on whether you believe homosexuality is a choice or a condition. From what I read, most people who are experts on the subject believe it to be a condition, but personally I think with some folks it's innate and with others it was something they chose. But really WTF do I know? Or the experts either, for that matter?
What matters is the relevence of the comparison. Trying to take a KNOWN factor of race, one that the person has zip control over, and using the emotional rhetoric of the civil rights movement & segregation as some valid comparison to what many consider an immoral/sinful act, one that has no scientific basis what-so-ever of no control over such acts, is patently disengenuous at the least. Sure there are racists who'll condemn another simply because of their skin color (and it's not limited to whitey either, there are plenty of blacks who have no problem condemning others, simply because they're not black) Point being, minorities have no choice in the race they become. There is no scientific conclusion, in any way shape or form that can say the same about Homosexual behavior. There are hypotheses and "wishful thinking", but nothing more than that. As such, trying to use the emotional connections associated with racial discrimination back in the 50's & 60's as some form of leverage to push your skewed ideological bent on how you think others should view what so many others would consider a specific immoral act, one of their own chosing, is about as egregious as you can get.
But on the Constitutional issue, I think it's irrelevant, because the law basically ignores the state of homosexuality and just solves the problem by refusing to marry a man to a man. In theory you could have two heterosexual men who want to get married (let's say for the legal benefits that one or both would receive.) The law makes no distinction between marrying a gay man to a gay man or a straight man to a straight man. What the law prohibits officially is not gay marriages but male-to-male marriages (or woman-to-woman.)
YET, Civil Unions allow for precisely such, LEGAL, with EQUAL RIGHTS. The fact you don't support that, and are all hung up on the "marriage" angle, demonstrates your obvious disregard to the legal aspect
<< But when you get behind the drive to legitimize and normalize adultery, then we can actually start making appropriate comparisons>>
I'm afraid I've lost your meaning, sirs. How can I or anyone else legitimize or normalize adultery?
Well, considering how hard you're trying to pound the immoral act of Homosexuality as legitimate & normal, only you can really answer that question regarding the immoral act of adultery
-
<<Trying to take a KNOWN factor of race, one that the person has zip control over, and using the emotional rhetoric of the civil rights movement & segregation as some valid comparison to what many consider an immoral/sinful act, one that has no scientific basis what-so-ever of no control over such acts, is patently disengenuous at the least.>>
Factually I think you're out to lunch and at least 25 years out of date. Most of the informed comment that I've been reading about this subject seems to indicate that it's inborn and the individual has no choice in the matter. The people who say it's a matter of choice seem to be mostly ignorant red-necks of the born-again variety, the last people in the world whose opinion on scientific matters would be worth anything. The same kind of people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution is a myth. Fucking idiots, for want of a better term. Most of the life stories that I've read or seen recounted on TV seem to indicate the person struggled for years against his own sexual orientation before being forced to acknowledge his or her gayness. It's a lot more like race (in the sense of being a part of one's identity that one has no control over) than the ignorant would like to admit.
<<YET, Civil Unions allow for precisely such, LEGAL, with EQUAL RIGHTS. >>
Yes, LEGAL for sure. But as long as there's a dividing line between civil unions and marriage, even the fact that the rights are equal does not remove the fact that the law has discriminated against one class of citizens, the gay population, telling all the gay Adams, You do not have the right to marry Steve; Linda can marry Steve, but you can't. That is OBVIOUS discrimination. And discrimination based on nothing more than identity factors, who the person is. In that sense it is no different than the Nuremburg Laws, which (for example) barred Jews from teaching in the universities solely on the basis of one factor in their personal IDs. That was discriminatory, and the discrimination would not have been removed even if the Nazis had provided equal Jewish universities for the Jews to teach in. Separate is NOT equal. That's the lesson of Brown v. Topeka.
<< The fact you don't support that, and are all hung up on the "marriage" angle, demonstrates your obvious disregard to the legal aspect>>
Well naturally I would be all hung up on the marriage angle, since it is with respect to the right to marry that the gays are being denied their Constitutional right of equality. You don't remove the discrimination of being deprived of one right simply by creating a new right and saying, here, you can have this right (civil union) but not that one. What if a gay person WANTS to be married just like a hetero? What happened to HIS right of free choice? Why should he be strait-jacketed into a new right he doesn't want while he's still being denied the old right that he does want? I thought you right-wing fruit-bats were all in favour of individual choices unfettered by the evil state's interference.
<<Well, considering how hard you're trying to pound the immoral act of Homosexuality as legitimate & normal, only you can really answer that question regarding the immoral act of adultery>>
Huh? moi? where did I ever pound the immoral act of homosexuality as legitimate and normal? How can it be normal if most people are anything BUT homosexual? I never said homosexuality is normal and I never would. It's obviously not normal any more than 4 ft. 5 in. is normal height for an adult American male. Who gives a shit if it's normal or not anyway? WTF does normal have to do with anything? And as far as legitimate goes, what the fuck am I, the bedroom police? How can I or anyone else legitimize what is basically a personal choice? As long as an activity is permitted by law, it is legitimate enough for me. That doesn't mean I'd want to do it or I'd be happy if someone in my family did it, but it does mean that I respect the freedom of others to choose it if they wish. It's basically none of my God-damn business if others get into it.
Personally, you have every right to consider homosexuality to be an immoral act. But I don't think the laws should discriminate in any way against homosexuals, because that is taking one personal view of the morality of the homosexual act (yours) and elevating it from one man's opinion into every man's law. This ignores the opinion of the homosexual, who does NOT think it's immoral. I don't believe the law should take his side or your side - - it must remain neutral and respect everyone's POV. Otherwise the law would be discriminatory and unconstitutional.
-
Your flaws remain as exposed as when you 1st started down this path, Tee.
- Civil Unions give homosexual couples equal rights under the law, so that arguement is moot
- There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove Homosexuality is anything other than a sexual choice, so that arguement is largely moot
- Trying to compare the segregation practices on people who SCIENTIFICALLY/FACTUALLY had no choice in the pigment they were born with those who's faith teaches them that certain acts are to be considered immoral is transparently desperate & intellectually dishonest, in every way, shape, and form tried
Especially when you consider how it's all predicated on 1 term, that you just can not get off of ::)
-
Yeoww.... I read this article and saw the big meaning and comeback afterwork and it becomes all about one gay sentence... I cannot believe how locked into your own little finger pointers. TALK...TALK...TALK
Well Cro, I think the article speaks for itself, don't you? ;)
I do... and I also think that President Ahmadinejad knew how to get us "talk, talk, talkers" engaged. If we are going to 'talk talk' I am confused why we are not worried and talking about his nuclear plans.
-
Sure they are......it's called CIVIL UNIONS. They marry, they get an official license from the state, and under the law, would have the same exact rights as a married couple. Now, if we could just get the left to actually support it, we might get somewhere. But apparently, they're too hung up on trying to redefine marriage, instead of focusing on the concept of equal rights, under the law
No offense Sirs, that may pass in California with Republicans and even Conservative Democrats (do those exist in California?) but here in the South, to use the proper expression - that dog won't hunt.
Republicans and Democrats here might pay some sort of lip service to the whole "civil unions" notion, but the reality is that they would never vote for such a thing because to do so would be politicial suicide.
I'm not suggesting that you are insincere at all, in fact I think you are completely sincere with your view on civil unions. Yet, in the Suth and Midwest that line is used either as a way to escape debate or it is simply not used at all.
-
<<Your flaws remain as exposed as when you 1st started down this path, Tee.
<<- Civil Unions give homosexual couples equal rights under the law, so that arguement is moot>>
You just don't get it, do you? The very fact that a civil union WOULD (but doesn't in real life) give equal rights to gays does not remove the fact that they would be discriminated against in law by the fact of the separate legal category created for them. Therefore the rights they would have can not be equal. That is not just Tee talking - - that is your Supreme Court talking, ALL NINE OF THEM, in Brown v. Topeka. Separate can never be equal. The fact that they have to be separated out legally means someone thinks ill of them - - not someone like Jerry Falwell or the President of the U.S.A. or Billy Graham or Strom Thurmond, but someone like the law of the land. And the law of the land is not allowed or supposed to think ill of any citizen or discriminate against them even nominally unless they have committed a criminal act. Which being gay is not.
<<- There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove Homosexuality is anything other than a sexual choice, so that arguement is largely moot>>
Well, I'll leave this to others who know more, or maybe I'll google when I have more time, but you and I must have been reading different newspapers and magazines because everything I've ever read, unless it came from right-wing religious wingnuts like that James Dobbins of Focus on the Family, seemed to be of the opinion that homosexuality was NOT a matter of choice. Might be a choice for a gay guy to act on his gay feelings or not, but the gayness itself, as I understand it, was NOT something the guy just decided to be.
<< Trying to compare the segregation practices on people who SCIENTIFICALLY/FACTUALLY had no choice in the pigment they were born with those who's faith teaches them that certain acts are to be considered immoral is transparently desperate & intellectually dishonest, in every way, shape, and form tried>>
So what? Their faith also teaches them that the earth is 6,000 years old, so fuck 'em. They can believe whatever they like but the moment they try to get the law on their side so that what they believe becomes law for others who don't believe it, I say fuck them and everything they stand for. Since when does the right to make the laws belong to the most ignorant?
<<Especially when you consider how it's all predicated on 1 term, that you just can not get off of>>
That's a specious argument. When the discrimination takes the form of forbidding the right of marriage, naturally the argument focuses on the right to marry. When the discrimination focused on the right to go to school, the argument focused on schools. What the hell are we talking about now EXCEPT the right to marry? And taking it away while handing out a whole new right that the gays DON'T want, the right to their own segregated special little status for nobody else but them, a civil union? What insulting bullshit. They're as good as any straight man or woman (in the eyes of the law) and they want the same rights that any straight man or woman already has, not some hand-crafted special little right made just for people like them.
-
There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove Homosexuality is anything other than a sexual choice, so that arguement is largely moot
Not yet, but there is common sense.
I know that when I came of age (or however you wish to describe it) I didn't sit down and think about which gender I might prefer. I liked girls. There was no decision involved. When I saw Janet Jackson or Paula Abdul (laugh now, but they were hot then!) I didn't make a conscious decision to be attracted, I WAS attracted.
And there are psychological studies that show that homosexuals showed preferences and attractions towards the same gender at an earlier age.
I don't really see where "choice" has anything to do with it.
-
No offense Sirs, that may pass in California with Republicans and even Conservative Democrats (do those exist in California?) but here in the South, to use the proper expression - that dog won't hunt.
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Southerners can be quite pragmatic. Given a choice between civil unions and gay marriage they would choose civil unions.
-
No offense Sirs, that may pass in California with Republicans and even Conservative Democrats (do those exist in California?) but here in the South, to use the proper expression - that dog won't hunt.
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Southerners can be quite pragmatic. Given a choice between civil unions and gay marriage they would choose civil unions.
But do you think it is that choice?
I'm not impugning the South, Bt. You live here. Would Civil Unions really work?
Consider the following list of amendments to state constitutions and the wording, sometimes absolutely explicit, sometimes more implicit that forbades civil unions and not just same sex marriage.
Alabama's constitution forbids civil unions.
Ref.1 (g)
A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.
As does Arkansas, Amendment 83:
Section 2. Marital status. Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman.
Georgia, Article I Section IV
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.
Kentucky, Section 233A
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Louisiana Article XII, Section 15.
Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.
South Carolina XVII Section 15
A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This State and its political subdivisions shall not create a legal status, right, or claim respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. This State and its political subdivisions shall not recognize or give effect to a legal status, right, or claim created by another jurisdiction respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. Nothing in this section shall impair any right or benefit extended by the State or its political subdivisions other than a right or benefit arising from a domestic union that is not valid or recognized in this State. This section shall not prohibit or limit parties, other than the State or its political subdivisions, from entering into contracts or other legal instruments.
Virginia Article 1, Section 15-A
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
-
The amendments were defensive. Plain and simple. Same thing happened in a lot of fly over states.
Given a choice between civil unions and gay marriage i certainly believe the voters would opt for the more palatable term.
My guess is the urban core would vote for gay marriage.
My guess is the urban core and the transplant suburbs would go along with a civil union compromise, leaving the exurbs and rural areas to fend for themselves. Especially if it put the issue to rest.
-
"I've always supported Castro's firing squads and control of the press because of the purity of Castro's aims, whereas I would condemn the American equivalents because of the corrupt and venal motives of the American ruling class.
"
This must explain the dismay of Castro supporters at Forbes magazine nameing him amoung the world s richest persons.
-
The law cna discriminate between persons who want to marry.
Persons who want to marry three at a time may or may not be born with the gene for polyandry, but it matters not, it is forbidden properly because the people hold polyandry in horror and no other reason is needed.
-
<<This must explain the dismay of Castro supporters at Forbes magazine nameing him amoung the world s richest persons.>>
I'm not dismayed at all. I think Forbes is fulla shit.
-
<<The law can discriminate between persons who want to marry.
<< Persons who want to marry three at a time may or may not be born with the gene for polyandry, but it matters not, it is forbidden properly because the people hold polyandry in horror and no other reason is needed.>>
So what? That's wrong too. If I wanna marry two women or two men or two women AND two men, I think that oughtta be my choice. How does the law handle Muslims, who are allowed up to four wives? If I were a Muslim and I couldn't get married to No. 2 legally, I'd be plenty pissed off and just like the gay and lesbian lovers, I'd want to file a court challenge.
Lending strength to the idea I've seen before in this thread and elsewhere: this is a good time for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. It's more complex than it originally appeared back in the 1950s when Dick and Jane had a stay-at-home mummy and a work-at-the-office daddy and a dog named Spot.
-
kinda doubt it`s a choice
I`ve been to the folsom street faire
lets just say the choices are very limited
ernest borgnine is a the catagory and proof it`s not a choice
-
How does the law handle Muslims, who are allowed up to four wives? If I were a Muslim and I couldn't get married to No. 2 legally, I'd be plenty pissed off and just like the gay and lesbian lovers, I'd want to file a court challenge.
The same way it handles Mormons who want to marry more than one wife - they can't, it's illegal.
-
kinda doubt it`s a choice I`ve been to the folsom street faire
lets just say the choices are very limited ernest borgnine is a the catagory and proof it`s not a choice
Being I've witnessed many other irregular, unnatural, and completely bizarre choices of sexual behavior, are you advocating that the act having sex with animals is not a choice? The act of having sex with underage children is not a choice? The act of having sexual flings with someone else while married to Hillary is not a choice.....oh, I see your point
-
Being I've witnessed many other irregular, unnatural, and completely bizarre choices of sexual behavior
Witnessed?
What do you do again???
LOLOL :P
-
Being I've witnessed many other irregular, unnatural, and completely bizarre choices of sexual behavior
Witnessed? What do you do again???
LOLOL :P
Let's just say, a little bird showed me ;)
-
Let's just say, a little bird showed me ;)
So now a small avian creature was involved?
Where does it stop with you?
-
I thought I already referenced animals ;D
-
Being I've witnessed many other irregular, unnatural, and completely bizarre choices of sexual behavior
Witnessed? What do you do again???
LOLOL :P
Let's just say, a little bird showed me ;)
Isn't part of your business treatment of sprains?
Have you ever had to tell a client to stop telling you how he got his injury?
-
Isn't part of your business treatment of sprains? Have you ever had to tell a client to stop telling you how he got his injury?
On the contrary, the more infomation I have, the better & more comprehensive treatment plan that can be implimented. Though there is that occasional TMI moment that can occur
-
<<The same way it [the law] handles Mormons who want to marry more than one wife - they can't, it's illegal.>>
So who says unjust and unfair laws remain on the books for all time? When I was in university, the law said that Martin Luther King wasn't good enough to drink out of the same fountain Ted Bundy drank from. Laws can be changed.
-
Actually, there are more than a few polygamous Mormon families scattered about in small towns in Utah, Arizona and Idaho mostly. As a rule, they are not arrested unless a wife or daughter complains, as one girl did recently, and they sent a guy named Jeff off to jail as an accomplice to rape. He forced the girl to marry her first cousin and she complained.
There are quite a few polygamous Mormons in breakaway Mormon churches. Prosecution is rare. Some families are said to be quite happy. I am sure that the happiest polygamous families are much happier than the saddest monogamous ones.
I am not against them being prosecuted, but the fact is that it rarely happens
-
it's called CIVIL UNIONS. They marry, they get an official license from the state, and under the law, would have the same exact rights as a married couple. Now, if we could just get the left to actually support it, we might get somewhere. But apparently, they're too hung up on trying to redefine marriage, instead of focusing on the concept of equal rights, under the law
No offense Sirs, that may pass in California with Republicans and even Conservative Democrats but here in the South, to use the proper expression - that dog won't hunt. Republicans and Democrats here might pay some sort of lip service to the whole "civil unions" notion, but the reality is that they would never vote for such a thing because to do so would be politicial suicide.
Is that really what you think? Do you have some polling data that might help validate that hypothesis? Not saying it wouldn't be a harder sell in some areas, but as Bt already alluded to, given the option of marriage vs civil unious, it makes perfect sense how the latter could see legislative light
There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove Homosexuality is anything other than a sexual choice, so that arguement is largely moot
Not yet,
As I said, there's "wishful thinking", but until there's actualy scientific data, there is none, unlike that of race and gender
but there is common sense. I know that when I came of age (or however you wish to describe it) I didn't sit down and think about which gender I might prefer. I liked girls. There was no decision involved. When I saw Janet Jackson or Paula Abdul (laugh now, but they were hot then!) I didn't make a conscious decision to be attracted, I WAS attracted. And there are psychological studies that show that homosexuals showed preferences and attractions towards the same gender at an earlier age. I don't really see where "choice" has anything to do with it.
All nice, but as i said, all speculative. You CHOSE to be attracted to some hot ladies. Just as some chose to be attracted to other things, some things immoral, other things illegal. It's how you deal with that attraction and the emotions involved
-
<<Your flaws remain as exposed as when you 1st started down this path, Tee.
<<- Civil Unions give homosexual couples equal rights under the law, so that arguement is moot>>
You just don't get it, do you? The very fact that a civil union WOULD give equal rights to gays does not remove the fact that they would be discriminated against in law by the fact of the separate legal category created for them.
No, the person not getting it is THE ONE IGNORING the FACT that civil unions WOULD provide EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW. There's already laws that make it illegal to discrimnate against homosexuals. Cicil Unions simply apply it full circle to those who want to get married. Therefore the rights they'd be given would be EQUAL to that of a married couple, simply given another name, that isn't already defined as a marriage between a man & a woman. Your issue is the supposed emotionally attached stigma of civil union, as if that's some lesser scenario than marriage. What makes it lesser?....because you say so??
The fact that you continue to refuse that FACT (that you even conceded in your 1st paragrapgh), demonstrates for all to witness that this issue has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with imposing some moral superior view (which you've already acknowledged how you know better) upon those obviously delusional backward thinking hicks who refuse to accept how normal it is for men to love men.
<< Trying to compare the segregation practices on people who SCIENTIFICALLY/FACTUALLY had no choice in the pigment they were born with those who's faith teaches them that certain acts are to be considered immoral is transparently desperate & intellectually dishonest, in every way, shape, and form tried>>
So what? Their faith also teaches them that the earth is 6,000 years old, so fuck 'em.
Your view of religion, not withstanding, the FACT still remains that people can NOT chose their race or gender. There is NO FACT to vaildate some inability to chose one's sexual desires & preferences. And Civil Unions provide Homosexual couples equal rights under the law, as married couples. Simple as that
-
Is that really what you think? Do you have some polling data that might help validate that hypothesis? Not saying it wouldn't be a harder sell in some areas, but as Bt already alluded to, given the option of marriage vs civil unious, it makes perfect sense how the latter could see legislative light
Is that what I think? Yes. It the truth. I don't need polling data Sirs, I have raw votes. Look at those constitutional amendments that passed (all by wide margins). Those ban civil unions. Yes, they ban gay marriage, but civil unions as well. We're not talking about California anymore, Sirs. These Republicans and Democrats in the South are very conservative.
You and Bt are talking about a hypothetical scenario that does not exist. It is easy to pay lip service to civil unions when your state has banned them. The other states of the South have banned gay marriage, they just did not include language to ban civil unions. Again, I'm not suggesting that you, personally are simply paying the idea lip service. I'm saying that some in the GOP and Democratic parties are, because they can easily afford to.
As I said, there's "wishful thinking", but until there's actualy scientific data, there is none, unlike that of race and gender
Huh?
I just said there are psychological studies. And what does race and gender have to do with anything?
Are you saying that homosexuals make a conscious choice to be attracted to the same sex? (I'm asking to clarify, because I don't understand your position.)
All nice, but as i said, all speculative. You CHOSE to be attracted to some hot ladies. Just as some chose to be attracted to other things, some things immoral, other things illegal. It's how you deal with that attraction and the emotions involved
I "CHOSE to be attracted to some hot ladies?"
So, you are saying that when you were young you actually made a conscious effort to sit down and think about to whom you were attracted?
I'm not suggesting that everyone's attraction be legalised Sirs, clearly there is the issue of consenting adults, cruelty to animals (the beings have to be human, I think we can agree ::) ).
-
Ohio's amendment bans civil unions. People who voted for it don't want gays to be treated in any way like hetero couples. They don't care if it isn't called marriage.
This topic of "choice" is very interesting.
I can only think that it must be a long, hard slog every day.
-
It would make sense to make civil unions that would bestow all the features of marriage legal to same sex couples. I would support this.
It is a compromise, and a fair one. Those who could not abide not being officially married could get married in Canada or Massachusetts or wherever it is legal.
The thing is that the ratwing does not want this to be legal.
They don't have the power to legislate criminal penalties against sodomy or legal stonings as mentioned in the Bible, but many of the most vocal ones would do this in an instant if they could. But they can't.
-
It would make sense to make civil unions that would bestow all the features of marriage legal to same sex couples. I would support this.It is a compromise, and a fair one.
Bingo
-
civil union can possibly never happen
you see it`s not just for homosexuals
it can be used for people with children out of wedlock and still don`t want to marry each other.
it`s a way to get the legal benefits of marraige without being stuck with somebody you don`t care for.
church groups will never want civil unions to happens
but thier one folly is that they are so focused on the gay aspect that they may not be able to stop heterosexual civil unions.
-
One would think that if a civil union didn't work out the union would have to be dissolved just like a divorce with division of property and support issues. I don't see why a hetero would opt for a union if the were adverse to marriage.
-
They can......it's called a Civil Union
Oh yeah, that's right! What were those african-americans complaining about back in the '60's then? They had their own equal water fountains, entrances to establishments and seats on the buses!
They were called "Blacks Only" but they were equally full of water, their entrances allowed them access to the establishment and their seats allowed them to sit on the bus just like the seats in the front!
They were equal under the law!
What's with these complaining gays? They get to enter into a contract with a person and have the same rights to property, insurance, visitation and so forth as a man and woman who are married. What's the diff?
Right, sirs?
Are you a participant in a civil union?
-
They can......it's called a Civil Union
Oh yeah, that's right! What were those african-americans complaining about back in the '60's then?
Get back to me when you actually have a valid comparison. The nonsense of trying to compare the drive to redefine marriage as anyone marrying anything to the Civil Rights movement, and blacks unable to drink from the same fountain or sit anywhere on a bus, is beyond intellectually dishonest
-
<<Your issue is the supposed emotionally attached stigma of civil union, as if that's some lesser scenario than marriage. What makes it lesser?....because you say so?? >>
That is a good question but in fact I have already answered it. What gives it a lesser status is the fact that the law of the land creates the status and separates it from marriage. They are now LEGALLY SEPARATED from a status and a package of rights that all other citizens are able to enjoy. The Supreme Court of the U.S.A. in a UNANIMOUS decision found that separation by law in itself creates an inferior status, notwithstanding the intent of the law to give fully equal or equivalent rights to the group that is separated out. As I said in an earlier post, which really answered this question, it is not because I or Jerry Falwell or Dick Cheney or Bill Maher says that the status is inferior - - that is just personal opinion and every individual in the country will always have the right to pronounce a personal opinion. But when the law of the land says, Adam and Steve don't have the right to a legal status that Brad and Angelina can claim, then Adam and Steve can rightly claim that they are discriminated against. If the law then says, Oh but wait we have created this civil union status just for you and all the rights you can claim under civil union are the equivalent to what Brad and Angelina claim under marriage, , then Adam and Steve can justifiably ask, In that case, why not give us the married status and cut the bullshit? The only response to that question is, Because you are not entitled to marry. But Brad and Angelina are. Which of course is an obvious slap at Adam and Steve, not coming from Falwell, Cheney or anyone else (which they'd just have to live with) but from the laws of their own country which (a) violate the equal rights provisions of the Constitution and (b) which they don't have to live with.
<<The fact that you continue to refuse that FACT (that you even conceded in your 1st paragrapgh)>>
I think that was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. Probably would have been better to say equivalent rights rather than equal rights. What you so obstinately refuse to recognize is the decision of your own Supreme Court that when the law separates citizens into two classes and purports to assign equal rights to each class, the mere fact of separating them into two classes (white and colored, gay and straight) precludes the rights granted to the separated class from ever being equal. You have a HUGE problem - - your own Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY says that segregation by race inevitably creates a stigma such that the rights granted as equal can never actually overcome the stigma of the separation so that the rights really are equal.
<<demonstrates for all to witness that this issue has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with imposing some moral superior view (which you've already acknowledged how you know better) upon those obviously delusional backward thinking hicks who refuse to accept how normal it is for men to love men. >>
You are very confused. First because nobody is claiming it is normal for men to love men. I don't claim it and I don't know anybody else who claims it. I've already stated this in a preceding post in this thread, so I really don't know why you keep returning to this absurd allegation that I or anyone else thinks it's normal for men to love men. Secondly, and I've also made this clear in my other posts in this thread, while it is obvious that I and any normal, reasonably well-educated 12-year old know better than Bible-thumping hicks who think the earth is 6,000 years old, I have never expressed a desire to impose any kind of moral superiority on them. They have the inalienable right to believe whatever stupidity they choose, and to live their lives according to their moronic conception of good living. What they DON'T have is the right to impose their hillbilly ideas on others, specifically to deny a constitutional right to Adam and Steve which all heteros already enjoy.
<<Your view of religion, not withstanding, the FACT still remains that people can NOT chose their race or gender. There is NO FACT to vaildate some inability to chose one's sexual desires & preferences. >>
So every talk-show gay guy I've ever seen who claims he struggled for years against his impulses, got help, counselling, etc. is not telling me any facts, but just a pack of lies? And how do you know this? Every magazine article about that same struggle is also just a pack of lies? How do you know that? I'd say I've read plenty of facts that lead me to believe the guy can't help it, didn't want it and didn't choose it. Unless you were living in a cave for the past thirty years, you must have heard and read the same stuff. But being the right-wing freaker you are, you just can't face facts you don't like, so you have to deny everything these guys say. It's all a lie. There is NO FACT . . . Bullshit, there are tens of thousands of them, and you've been exposed to them yourself. You just choose to wash them away somewhere where they won't conflict with your cherished right-wing delusions.
<<And Civil Unions provide Homosexual couples equal rights under the law, as married couples. Simple as that>>
Obviously they don't, because they can't have equal rights and be stigmatized as unworthy of marriage rights at the same time. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would have decided Brown v. Topeka as follows: Give 'em equal rights. Spend whatever it takes for black schools to catch up to white schools and then after that spend equal amounts per pupil in both systems. But that didn't happen. Because the Court said, If it is separate, it cannot be equal. So don't bother arguing this with me, sirs - - argue it with the Supreme Court.
As a final example of the unreality in which the right wing operates, as others have pointed out in this thread, civil unions are a non-starter. THEY ARE OUTLAWED in numerous state constitutions and presumably with the approval of a majority of the population of the states concerned. (Unless you want to argue that the citizens of those states do NOT live in a democracy.) There is no way in hell that any states, particularly the racist, bigoted, gay-hating moron states of the American south, are going to approve of civil unions. This is just another deluded fantasy of the racists and fascists who hate gays, are determined to deny them equal rights, and nevertheless wish to appear as humane and enlightened. Wake up guys. Open your eyes to the REAL WORLD. There ARE NO CIVIL UNIONS. Get it? None. Zero. Zip.
-
<<Your issue is the supposed emotionally attached stigma of civil union, as if that's some lesser scenario than marriage. What makes it lesser?....because you say so?? >>
That is a good question but in fact I have already answered it. What gives it a lesser status is the fact that the law of the land creates the status and separates it from marriage.
Because Marriage is that between a man and a woman. That's why they're seperated, from a definition stand point, while the act of Civil Unions provides EQUAL RIGHTS under the law. 2 COMPLETELY SEPERATE ISSUES. OY ::) Doesn't make it lesser, simply makes it different than that of marriage, only "lesser" to folks like you. The fact that you want to redefine marriage, in order to perpeuate the ideological notion that homosexuality is perfectly normal, is as transparent as AlQeada's torture manual, and zip to do with actual rights involved
<<The fact that you continue to refuse that FACT (that you even conceded in your 1st paragrapgh)>>
I think that was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. Probably would have been better to say equivalent rights rather than equal rights. What you so obstinately refuse to recognize is the decision of your own Supreme Court that when the law separates citizens into two classes....
No one is seperating anyone into any class. that'd only be you...setting up false premise after false premise, then demonstrating how the premice is wrong, ignoring the fact the premise was never accurate to begin with. It's done all the time regarding Bush's imminent threat & mission accomplished diatribes. Since under the law, such couples would be given equal rights demonstrates the folly of your position again, and again, and again, and again
and purports to assign equal rights to each class, the mere fact of separating them into two classes (white and colored, gay and straight)
And stiill again with the false analogy. One that has NO choice (skin pigment), and the other who have complete choice (who they want to have sex with today), as far as I'm concerned, and until you actually have some FACTS to refute it, will remian precisely that
<<demonstrates for all to witness that this issue has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with imposing some moral superior view (which you've already acknowledged how you know better) upon those obviously delusional backward thinking hicks who refuse to accept how normal it is for men to love men. >>
You are very confused.
Not at all. EQUAL RIGHTS is the claim, when it's the redefinition of marriage as the primary goal, rights be damned. The latter then obligating the majority of the nation to disregard the teachings of their faith, because now the official definition of marriage is what Tee says its going to be. You know, it's funny this stigma you are really hanging your hat on, when trying to lay claim that such equal rights wouldn't be achieved with Civil Unions, when the logical repercussion is the stigma placed on the majority of religious folks, when confronted with others saying "look, the law says marriage can between anyone now, na na nana na", facilitating a stigma upon them as if they've been wrong all these centuries
<<Your view of religion, not withstanding, the FACT still remains that people can NOT chose their race or gender. There is NO FACT to vaildate some inability to chose one's sexual desires & preferences. >>
So every talk-show gay guy I've ever seen who claims he struggled for years against his impulses, got help, counselling, etc. is not telling me any facts, but just a pack of lies?
Probably not, just having difficulty with the sexual urges that most folks have issus wth. Most like the opposite sex, but some like the same sex, some like married women, some like children, some like animals, etc. Get back to me when you're ready normalize Adultery and Pedophilia, with some new redefinitions
-
<<Because Marriage is that between a man and a woman. That's why they're seperated, from a definition stand point, while the act of Civil Unions provides EQUAL RIGHTS under the law. >>
Perfect example of circular reasoning. Marriage is between man and woman because the law defines it as such. Caligula (a Roman Emperor) married his fucking horse. The law can make marriage anything it wants to make it, man-woman, man-horse or man-man and woman-woman. If the law previously made marriage man-woman, that's not to say that if it is unconstitutional it can't be changed by a new law or struck down by a court.
<<The fact that you want to redefine marriage, in order to perpeuate the ideological notion that homosexuality is perfectly normal, is [transparent] and zip to do with actual rights involved>>
Nobody claims homosexuality is normal. That's a straw man you keep using no matter how many times I will say flat out that homosexuality is NOT normal. Marriage would not be redefined, it would simply be broadened - - the same definition would now apply to more marriages than it previously took in.
<<No one is seperating anyone into any class. >>
Of course they are - - the class of gay Americans who can't marry but might one day (no time soon, for sure) be allowed to have civil unions, and the class of straight Americans whose marriages are recognized as marriages by the law of the land.
<<And stiill again with the false analogy. One that has NO choice (skin pigment), and the other who have complete choice (who they want to have sex with today), as far as I'm concerned, and until you actually have some FACTS to refute it, will remian precisely that>>
Even if you were correct in saying that gay people have chosen to be gay (and I see no evidence at all that they have) your reasoning makes no sense at all. What you are really saying is that no one who chooses an identity can be legally discriminated against, since he can always choose to enter or leave the identity he or she has chosen. So if my neighbour converts to Judaism and then a law is passed that all Christians who have converted to the Jewish religion must perform two years of community service, there is no discrimination against Christian converts to Judaism because just like the neighbour chose to be Jewish, she can choose herself right back into Christianity and escape the discrimination. I don't buy it.
If Adam CHOOSES to marry Steve, it's none of the state's fucking business and if he's forbidden a marriage licence, or the preacher is gonna be penalized at law for performing the ceremony, you argue that since Adam can always dump Steve and tale Marianne, that Adam's rights are not infringed? That is bullshit, he didn't get his first choice and had to settle for Marianne - - the evil state has dictated how Adam should live his personal life; he can't marry Steve.
<<EQUAL RIGHTS is the claim, when it's the redefinition of marriage as the primary goal, rights be damned. >>
YOU are the only one postulating this as the redefinition of marriage. Marriage would retain the exact same definition it always had, except that now more folks would be allowed to participate in it. The essence of marriage was union for life, not that it was male to female. It happened that the concept was formed when unions publicly acknowledged were heterosexual, due to the repression of homosexuality. Had homosexuality been publicly acceptable (at least to the point of not drawing an instant death sentence) whenmarriage was first developed, then marriage would have been formulated to embrace both gay and straight marriages. This is an opportunity to right an ancient injustice to gays, by broadening the definition of marriage to be more inclusive and less exclusive.
<<The latter then obligating the majority of the nation to disregard the teachings of their faith, because now the official definition of marriage is what Tee says its going to be. >>
That's absolute nonsense. Since when did the tenets of any religious faith depend on what the civil authorities thought or did? If the state today recognizes abortion as legal, what religious group disregards the teachings of their faith and says, Well abortion must be OK because the government says its OK. I think all religions teach their followers to be true to their church and their conscience, not to follow whatever path their government says is OK.
<<You know, it's funny this stigma you are really hanging your hat on, when trying to lay claim that such equal rights wouldn't be achieved with Civil Unions, when the logical repercussion is the stigma placed on the majority of religious folks, when confronted with others saying "look, the law says marriage can between anyone now, na na nana na", facilitating a stigma upon them as if they've been wrong all these centuries>>
More unadulterated craziness. The stigma results from a discrimination made by the law of the land, not from the taunts of individual crazies like Falwell and others. Obviously THAT stigma (Falwell's opinions) will remain regardless of what the law says or does. The stigma you are referring to (the taunts of victorious gay-lib activists) is no more of a stigma than the denunciations of the Falwells, Popes and other crazies. No law in the world can stop crazies or partisans from taunting their opponents. That is not stigmatizing anyone, it is merely the expression of personal opinion. When the LAW stigmatizes gays by disallowing their attempts to marry, it is in effect taking the side of one of two opposing groups in the society (the Falwells versus the gay-libbers) and thus giving their negative opinion the force of law. Stigmatizing and unacceptable in the extreme.
<<Get back to me when you're ready normalize Adultery and Pedophilia, with some new redefinitions>>
The law recognizes already to get out of the adultery business - - it does not recognize it as anything other than grounds for divorce, and then it carries no penalties, which is to say no legal stigma. It is basically nothing more or less than a breach of the marital contract. Pedophelia is a criminal offence and is really a consent issue. Gay marriage is banned not because it violates any contract, marital or otherwise and not for lack of consent of one of the partners. It's clearly a case of discrimination against gays and lesbians.
-
While all of this scientific experimentation and conclusion seems evidentiary, sociobehaviorists are not convinced. This opposing point-of-view proposes that homosexuality is the result of environmental factors, not biological ones. Most social theorists see childhood elements as the largest contributing factors to homosexuality.
More at: http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html (http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html)
-
Thanks for the link, Ami. Personally, I'm going to go with the physical scientists here. The twin studies, the neuroanatomy and the so-called gay gene studies, were reasonably persuasive. The behaviourists were kinda fuzzy on their facts. They also didn't seem to even consider that homosexuality might be a matter of environmental factors superimposed on genetic predisposition. Plus which I did not even have a clue what Foucault was talking about. But the bottom line to me is that there is plenty of hard physical evidence to support a theory of no choice at all.
Besides which, the issue of choice is clearly a phony issue - - a guy who chooses to be gay is no more a legitimate target of persecution than someone who chooses to be Catholic or Jewish.
-
<<Because Marriage is that between a man and a woman. That's why they're seperated, from a definition stand point, while the act of Civil Unions provides EQUAL RIGHTS under the law. >>
Marriage is between man and woman because the law defines it as such.
WOW, you're catching on. And Civil Unions could be the law defining the joining of same sex weddings
Marriage would not be redefined, it would simply be broadened
in other words, REDEFINED
<<And stiill again with the false analogy. One that has NO choice (skin pigment), and the other who have complete choice (who they want to have sex with today), as far as I'm concerned, and until you actually have some FACTS to refute it, will remain precisely that>>
Even if....
LOL....ahh, here we go.... "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right, because...."
..you were correct in saying that gay people have chosen to be gay your reasoning makes no sense at all.
That's because you wilfully refuse to make sense of it
What you are really saying is that no one who chooses an identity can be legally discriminated against, since he can always choose to enter or leave the identity he or she has chosen.
WHAT? No, that's what YOU'RE saying, not I. I've actually kept it pretty simple. Following YOUR words, guys who chose to marry many women can also apparently be legally discrimnated against. So can those who chose to have sex with children
So if my neighbour converts to Judaism and then a law is passed that all Christians who have converted to the Jewish religion must perform two years of community service, there is no discrimination against Christian converts to Judaism because just like the neighbour chose to be Jewish, she can choose herself right back into Christianity and escape the discrimination. I don't buy it.
That's because I never even implied it. Kinda that false premise tactic again
<<EQUAL RIGHTS is the claim, when it's the redefinition of marriage as the primary goal, rights be damned. >>
YOU are the only one postulating this as the redefinition of marriage. Marriage would retain the exact same definition it always had, except
....except that it WOULDN'T ::)
The essence of marriage was union for life
...between a male and a female,
This is an opportunity to right an ancient injustice to gays, by broadening the definition of marriage to be more inclusive and less exclusive.
Well, at least you're finally coming out of the woodwork and fessing up to the acual agenda I exposed way back in the beginning, not of equal rights, but in "even if I'm wrong, I'm right, because, it's righting an ancient injustice" that you have concluded has happened. Sorry, but one's choices in life don't get rewarded, in my book, when they're of the immoral realm. Unless they're on Jerry Springer
-
Here's a question for you:
1. Adam chooses to marry Steve. The law says You can't marry, but here's another right you can have that's just as good.
2. Leroy does not choose his skin colour. The law says You can't drink out of the WHITE fountain but here's another fountain you can drink from that's just as good.
3. Siobhan chooses to convert from Christianity to Judaism. The law (admittedly hypothetical) says You (converts) can't sit on these Aryan park benches, but here's another park bench you can sit on that's just as good.
Presumably, you would agree with the law in situation No. 1, but not in the other two.
So how come 2 is discriminatory but 3 is not? Seems obvious to me that even if the guy DID choose an identity and remains free to un-choose it, a law that discriminates against an identity he chose can be just as discriminatory as a law that discriminates against an identity that was not chosen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you so hung up on how marriage is DEFINED by law? Definitions can be made by law and they can be changed by law. If a definition was made during a time when one group was so historically repressed that it remained completely underground, so no thought at all was ever given as to whether or not that group could be included in the definition - - then once that group comes out of the closet and gains equal civil rights to everyone else, isn't it time to change the definition to include the formerly repressed group? This is what happened to definitions like "citizen" and "voter," why not "spouse?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can continue to regard gays as immoral. As long as you concede their right to vote, you would have to concede that they have also a right to marry. If the only thing standing between their exercise of that right is that a WORD must be re-defined, then so be it. How does the definition of a word (which is a mere academic concern) trump the importance of the exercise of a right? Especially when the law has the power to re-define any term defining status and rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Sirs, you keep bringing up adultery with the likes of pedophillia.
You do realize that adultery, unlike pedophillia, is perfectly legal? (Before you look it up Ami :P, there are laws against it in some states, but they are almost all Blue Laws)
What exactly is your point in comparing homosexuality to adultery? I do not see a parallel.
-
actually adultery is a funny situation
it effects more lives negatively anything else
homosexuality doesn`t do this
all the wierd sex practices doesn`t do this
and still people focus on attacking anything but adultry
not protectying it ,but think it`s a low priority
it`s a safe bet alot if not all here know of a family broken by adultry
but very few here know of homosexuality doing the same
but still the focus is more on homosexuality.
hell we got a whole legal system (family law) devoted to cleaning up the mess of adultry
but nothing to really stop it
adultry can severely cost huge amount of money if caught and still it happens
the swingers society allow people to have sex with people they are not married to and the rule is don`t have sex without your spouses knowledge.
and still it happens.
I actually know of a swinging couple who did this.
and it doesn`t even make sense
did you know you actually get more dates if you wear a wedding ring.
I know guys who do this to increase thier game
-
Sirs, you keep bringing up adultery with the likes of pedophillia....What exactly is your point in comparing homosexuality to adultery? I do not see a parallel.
Because it's of the same "questionable choice" realm. We get a plethora of rationalization efforts along the lines of "Homosexuality can't be a choice, who would chose such a life of apparent public degradation and ridicule?" As if such an illogical choice translates into it can't be a choice. I can make the same reference to Adultery & Pedophilia. Why would anyone chose such outlandish & immoral behavior? If you're to remain consistent, you must conclude that they have no choice. Is that what you're concluding, married people who have sex with someone else, has no choice??
You do realize that adultery, unlike pedophillia, is perfectly legal?
Yes, and my point had nothing to do with legality, but with choices made from the sexual urges one can have
-
<<actually adultery is a funny situation
it effects more lives negatively anything else>>
When you compare the number of adulterous Presidents and candidates with the number of homosexual Presidents and candidates, you'll soon see which "sin" the public takes more seriously.
And yet the essence of adultery is betrayal. The essence of homosexuality is finding one's own sex more attractive than the opposite sex. Like BFD, eh?
-
And the essesce of Pedophilia is finding sex with children more attractive than with adults. And the essence of beastiality is finding sex with animals more attractive than humans. No choice in their behaviors either, right? ::)
-
And the essesce of Pedophilia is finding sex with children more attractive than with adults. And the essence of beastiality is finding sex with animals more attractive than humans. No choice in their behaviors either, right? ::)
The issue there is that another being gets severely damaged, and no there is no choice for the child or the animal - that is exactly why it is a problem and a criminal issue.
Who gets harmed when two adult women decide to have a relationship and wish to be married into a legally binding monogamous contract?
As for adultery, that can take place within any framework of sexuality, ask Senator Craig's wife or Governor McGreevey's wife. Adultery is a completely different issue.
-
actually on matter of pedophilia
it`s also partly a society matter
the age of consent was much lower is the past
remember the grampa stories of doing great stupid things at the age of 8 to support the families
what people rarely mention is alot of perverted old men married really young girls then also
and it was accepted.
brook shields made a living on these guys in the 80`s
I think consent should be 21
I don`t think any teenager should have sex
I`ve never recall any teen mom glad they had sex in their teen years
-
And the essesce of Pedophilia is finding sex with children more attractive than with adults. And the essence of beastiality is finding sex with animals more attractive than humans. No choice in their behaviors either, right? ::)
The issue there is that another being gets severely damaged
And you know this because....? Wouldn't children enjoy a good fling? Especially if it's done in a very gentle, pleasant manner? And animals appear to be humping all the time. You see comedies with dogs in them being used for precisely that purpose. And the point remains that of the person initiating the effort, the CHOICE they're making in doing sex X to recipient(s) Y. Do fellas have an inibaility to refrain from having multiple wives.....you advocating a genetic disposition towards polygamy?? No one "got damaged" there or didn't have a choice
Adultery is a completely different issue.
NOT at all. BOTH require an active choice of the person acting out the sex act, be it sex with the person of the same sex, or sex with anyone else, while married. And until you can demonstrate some hard scientific facts, vs Psych studies on why one feels the way they do, my point remains completely valid
-
And you know this because....? Wouldn't children enjoy a good fling? Especially if it's done in a very gentle, pleasant manner?
Well, we could begin with any number of psychological studies on children who have been sexually abused. I'm sure there is plenty of anecdotal evidence as well.
And animals appear to be humping all the time. You see comedies with dogs in them being used for precisely that purpose.
Comedies are movies, not reality. Animals "hump" of their own volition and biological instinct.
And the point remains that of the person initiating the effort, the CHOICE they're making in doing sex X to recipient(s) Y. Do fellas have an inibaility to refrain from having multiple wives.....you advocating a genetic disposition towards polygamy?? No one "got damaged" there or didn't have a choice
Having multiple partners is not illegal either, just having multiple marriage contracts (bigamy).
"Doing sex to recipients" - And therein lies the difference Sirs. What you describe is rape.
Two adult women having a relationship of their own volition is not harming anyone. Do you think those women sat down and decided that they were attracted to other women? That they wanted to come home to another woman?
Or are you suggesting that their attraction is so unnatural to you that you are demanding they live a life of celibacy for your tastes?
Adultery is a completely different issue.
NOT at all. BOTH require an active choice of the person acting out the sex act, be it sex with the person of the same sex, or sex with anyone else, while married. And until you can demonstrate some hard scientific facts, vs Psych studies on why one feels the way they do, my point remains completely valid
[/quote]
-
And you know this because....? Wouldn't children enjoy a good fling? Especially if it's done in a very gentle, pleasant manner?
Well, we could begin with any number of psychological studies on children who have been sexually abused.
You must have missed the part where I clearly stated if done in a gentle and pleasant manner. I'm not referring to the animals that sexually abuse children. Of course, following your logic, they couldn't help themselves either though, right?
And animals appear to be humping all the time. You see comedies with dogs in them being used for precisely that purpose.
Comedies are movies, not reality. Animals "hump" of their own volition and biological instinct.
The reference to comedies was in reinforcing what even you conceded, something they just do, and probably enjoy
And the point remains that of the person initiating the effort, the CHOICE they're making in doing sex X to recipient(s) Y. Do fellas have an inibaility to refrain from having multiple wives.....you advocating a genetic disposition towards polygamy?? No one "got damaged" there or didn't have a choice
Having multiple partners is not illegal either, just having multiple marriage contracts (bigamy).
And once again, I've NEVER focused on if something is illegal or not, so I'd appreciate if you'd stop interjecting it in, as if it is. So, do those folks have a genetic disposition that obligates them to have multiple wives?? That's the logic of yours, we're following. Or are you going to rationalize how wanting sex with multiple wives that is indeed choice, but wanting sex with the same gender isn't?
"Doing sex to recipients" - And therein lies the difference Sirs. What you describe is rape.
Not if the child is willing, not if multiple wives are willing, not of the married husband is willing, not if the animals are initiating the humping
are you suggesting that their attraction is so unnatural to you that you are demanding they live a life of celibacy for your tastes?
Apparently Js has gone over to the dark side. I bet you'll not find ONE quote from me that declares how I'm demanding anyone be celibate for "my tastes". The only "demanding" going on around here is (and without ANY scientific data) that I change MY religious beliefs, that I change my definition of marriage, and that I accept the act of Homosexuality as perfectly acceptable. That ain't gonna happen, simple as that. What anyone wants to do with another consenting adult, be they hetero or homo, is their CHOICES alone. Just don't expect me to respect it or even consider it normal. It's immoral, right up there with Adultery
-
You must have missed the part where I clearly stated if done in a gentle and pleasant manner. I'm not referring to the animals that sexually abuse children. Of course, following your logic, they couldn't help themselves either though, right?
I don't think that "gentle and pleasant" make it any less abusive when a child is involved.
-
<<And the essesce of Pedophilia is finding sex with children more attractive than with adults. And the essence of beastiality is finding sex with animals more attractive than humans. No choice in their behaviors either, right? >>
The thread originally focused on consenting adults of the same sex who want to get married. Of whom I happen to know two couples, who seem reasonably law-abiding as far as I can tell. One is a Crown Attorney in fact, which is the Canadian equivalent of the District Attorney or D.A. For some reason I'd prefer not to explore in depth, sirs is compulsively trying to drag perversions such as pedophilia and bestiality into the discussion, which is getting a little too weird for me.
When you want to bring this discussion back to real-world levels, sirs, please let me know.
-
You must have missed the part where I clearly stated if done in a gentle and pleasant manner. I'm not referring to the animals that sexually abuse children. Of course, following your logic, they couldn't help themselves either though, right?
I'm starting to find your responses a little bizarre. If you've known anyone who has suffered through sexual abuse as a child Sirs, you'll know that it is absolutely devastating. The "manner" in which it is done is irrelevant. I think you might ought to learn a little more about the psychology of this topic, you're reply seems to be extremely naive (at least I'm hoping that's what it is).
So, do those folks have a genetic disposition that obligates them to have multiple wives?? That's the logic of yours, we're following. Or are you going to rationalize how wanting sex with multiple wives that is indeed choice, but wanting sex with the same gender isn't?
Wanting sex with multiple women? Oh I think that's a common heterosexual male line of thought. I'd be a little worried if a man hasn't thought about that at some point in his life, especially in his most formative years. But yeah, that is a choice on whether one acts on those issues once he is in the confines of a marital contract, sure. Genetics does not predispose someone one way or another towards contract law, Sirs.
On the other hand, basic physical attraction is an issue of genetic predisposition. The fact that a man is attracted to women is the subject of genetics, at least partially genetics and probably psychology as well.
Apparently Js has gone over to the dark side.
Spare me the self-sacrificing crap.
If a gay person came out to you, what would you tell her? Obviously you believe her attraction to women is a sin. Now what? She needs to choose to be attracted to men?
"Doing sex to recipients" - And therein lies the difference Sirs. What you describe is rape.
Not if the child is willing, not if multiple wives are willing, not of the married husband is willing, not if the animals are initiating the humping
are you suggesting that their attraction is so unnatural to you that you are demanding they live a life of celibacy for your tastes?
Apparently Js has gone over to the dark side. I bet you'll not find ONE quote from me that declares how I'm demanding anyone be celibate for "my tastes". The only "demanding" going on around here is (and without ANY scientific data) that I change MY religious beliefs, that I change my definition of marriage, and that I accept the act of Homosexuality as perfectly acceptable. That ain't gonna happen, simple as that. What anyone wants to do with another consenting adult, be they hetero or homo, is their CHOICES alone. Just don't expect me to respect it or even consider it normal. It's immoral, right up there with Adultery
[/quote]
-
actually if homosexuality is lumped with all the others (pedophilia,bestiality)
you dimish your arguement
these are very difrerent subject which I have never even once heard of overlapping
if your just to say you don`t care for it for religious reason than you have merit
-
It seems to me that the bizarre lengths and fantastical comparisons that sirs is grasping at is probably the best possible indicator that there is absolutely nothing wrong (in the real world) with finally permitting same-sex marriages, and that the primary obstacle to them is primarily being determined by the inner demons of the religious right. There is just no logic, no rhyme nor reason in his contorted arguments, least of all that he is required to give up HIS religious beliefs in order for gay marriage to happen. How is he possibly prevented from believing what he wants to about gay people or homosexuality just because the state decides to legalize gay marriage?
-
How is he possibly prevented from believing what he wants to about gay people or homosexuality just because the state decides to legalize gay marriage?
Good point. My religious convictions are very much opposed to the death penalty, yet my state and many others find it perfectly acceptable.
That has not prevented me from practicing my religion whatsoever, not that I don't wish to see the death penalty abolished (along with abortion).
That argument has no merit at all.
-
You must have missed the part where I clearly stated if done in a gentle and pleasant manner. I'm not referring to the animals that sexually abuse children. Of course, following your logic, they couldn't help themselves either though, right?
I'm starting to find your responses a little bizarre. If you've known anyone who has suffered through sexual abuse as a child Sirs, you'll know that it is absolutely devastating.
Absolutely, to many. My point remains that if said animal actually wanted to be kind, gentle, and in no way "abused" the child, the child may likely enjoy it, even if confused as to what they actually were enjoying. You're still trying to make this arguement that of criminal activity, while I've always been referencing the choices one makes to follow-thru on their urges
So, do those folks have a genetic disposition that obligates them to have multiple wives?? That's the logic of yours, we're following. Or are you going to rationalize how wanting sex with multiple wives that is indeed choice, but wanting sex with the same gender isn't?
Wanting sex with multiple women? Oh I think that's a common heterosexual male line of thought. I'd be a little worried if a man hasn't thought about that at some point in his life, especially in his most formative years.
Thank you for helping validate my point......thought about it, but did the ACT upon it....meaning is it hardwired, where they have no choice but to covet, have sex, and marry multiple women at the same time?? I know I never did. I guess I'm an anomoly?
But yeah, that is a choice on whether one acts on those issues once he is in the confines of a marital contract, sure. Genetics does not predispose someone one way or another towards contract law, Sirs.
I never said it did (again trying to make this a legal matter). STOP, ok. DISREGARD ALL LEGAL ASPECTS & interjections to this entire discussion, if you don't mind. Now, is it one's genetic predispositon to have sex and marry (shack up, if you want) multiple women? to have sex with children? to have sex with animals?
Apparently Js has gone over to the dark side.
Spare me the self-sacrificing crap. If a gay person came out to you, what would you tell her? Obviously you believe her attraction to women is a sin. Now what? She needs to choose to be attracted to men?
No, she needs to to try and not convince me that it's perfectly ok. Get the diff?? ::)
-
Thank you for helping validate my point......thought about it, but did the ACT upon it....meaning is it hardwired, where they have no choice but to covet, have sex, and marry multiple women at the same time?? I know I never did. I guess I'm an anomoly?
So a woman attracted to other women should do what, in your opinion? You still have yet to answer the question.
She should try and force herself to live with a man?
She should live a celibate life?
What would you advise her to do?
-
I`m not so sure the church approves of people living a celibate life
it would mean no children
a small amount of people maybe but I kinda doubt it`s encouraged.
-
Thank you for helping validate my point......thought about it, but did the ACT upon it....meaning is it hardwired, where they have no choice but to covet, have sex, and marry multiple women at the same time?? I know I never did. I guess I'm an anomoly?
So a woman attracted to other women should do what, in your opinion?
Have a great time. You expecting me to stone them?
-
Thank you for helping validate my point......thought about it, but did the ACT upon it....meaning is it hardwired, where they have no choice but to covet, have sex, and marry multiple women at the same time?? I know I never did. I guess I'm an anomoly?
So a woman attracted to other women should do what, in your opinion?
Have a great time. You expecting me to stone them?
No, as usualy you think I have some agenda.
I'm asking you a sincere question. Per your beliefs as you've given us right here in this thread. What would you advise a woman who is attracted to other women? Clearly you can't advise her to have sex with another woman any more than you'd advise an individual to have adultery or have sex with a sheep.
So what should she do? What life would you want her to lead?
I really want to know. I'm not going to berate your answer.
-
If she ASKS my opinion/advice, I'd recommend that she pray
-
If she ASKS my opinion/advice, I'd recommend that she pray
And if she is still attracted to women?
-
Then I pray for her. Not sure where you're trying to go with this, Js
-
"A central characteristic of any abuse is the dominant position of an adult that allows him or her to force or coerce a child into sexual activity."
from "Understanding Child Sexual Abuse"
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/
-
......and?
-
Sirs: <<....and?>>
Use of children by adults for sexual gratification, no matter how "gentle,"
is abuse, and is a crime. I'm very surprised that you bring it up at all in this context. You seem to be making excuses for child predators.
Children are not able to consent to sex. They are below the age of consent.
<<You must have missed the part where I clearly stated if done in a gentle and pleasant manner. >>
Would you clarify this, please? Does this mean you think it's OK?
-
Sirs: <<....and?>>
Use of children by adults for sexual gratification, no matter how "gentle," is abuse, and is a crime. I'm very surprised that you bring it up at all in this context. You seem to be making excuses for child predators. Children are not able to consent to sex. They are below the age of consent.
Lanya, as was Js, missing the point yet again, trying to make this about a legal issue. The issue is CHOICE, the issue what is the behind the sexual URGE of the pedophile. I keep hearing about how people just "know", that they don't have to think about what gender they're attracted to and want to have sex with, and that somehow validates how it's not a choice, because they just know. Why isn't the pedophile given the same latitude? Why can't they just know they need to have sex with children??
<<You must have missed the part where I clearly stated if done in a gentle and pleasant manner. >>
Would you clarify this, please? Does this mean you think it's OK?
Apparently Lanya also missed the part where I consistently referred to them (pedophiles) as animals. Hardly a term of endearment and support ::)
-
Sirs:<<Apparently Lanya also missed the part where I consistently referred to them (pedophiles) as animals. Hardly a term of endearment and support>>
Hardly consistent. I didn't miss this, where you drew a distinction:
Sirs:<<You must have missed the part where I clearly stated if done in a gentle and pleasant manner. I'm not referring to the animals that sexually abuse children. >>
So. You think child sexual abuse is wrong, and you don't consider it abuse if it's gentle and pleasant to the child?
Asking for clarification here.
-
"A central characteristic of any abuse is the dominant position of an adult that allows him or her to force or coerce a child into sexual activity."
from "Understanding Child Sexual Abuse"
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/
Thankfully, this runaway train is beginning to slow. At least in the middle schools and high, just under the calendar line where you are either to spend life in the penitentiary, or a day later, to be lauded for your score.
I am beginning to see media coverage of these events where the rhetoric is less inflamed, where some shrift is given to the hysteria factor, and where kids are proving to have been once again pampered and primed for the pinch by people who should have no vincinity to the execution of prosecution in such matters.
There is a local case wherein a child wandered in next door, came silently into a room where her neighbor was watching porno on his computer. He was charged with sexual child abuse for letting her watch it, even though he had not heard her come in. He faces a minimum of five to ten. The local asst prose attorney is one koo koo clinched whitebread bitch who wears a cross smugly in court. Last I heard from my buddies who are watching the courts, this existential mite is expected to go down hard for his noncrime.
And there was yet another case--a repeated scenario--wherein again a homeless man pissing in the bushes was arrested for sexual child abuse; during the court process, the judge asked the da why he was not charged with exposure instead of the sexual abuse on a child charge: the da did not miss a beat, but stated that this was exemplarily egregious because the homeless man had a long schlong, and kept swinging it to free the drips. Realizing her legally framed joke bore no real metaphorical punchline, the da quickly added that he didn't have to swing it "that long." (The bailiffs, at least, got the pun.) The judge in this case, inspiring to all who worry at the trend of the courts, dismissed the charges and simply regarded the asst da with a kind of hopelss despair. These kind of things make sense to people who surround this issue, their nonblinking eyes glazed with the frenzy of mobs, their lurid mania imbibing more their own cooked hormonal cocktail than the wine of righteous witness.
The kids, who all across the country are beginning to realize the immense power that comes with such solicited victimhood, are getting hip; numbers have beome demure and coy when class clowning, taunting teachers with tongue in cheek; this too backfires because, when everybody has to stop smirking, and unless the unhinged parents demand it, these middle schoolers are loath to miming the pretext for the public, and would rather continue the winking they have already often demonstrated as their own response to the horror of the effect.
I reiterate my theory that this is a fascist construct--igniting a frenzy 24/7 over the tube, labelling a certain group of people to be below the legal radar, where legal process and logic give way to flaming, retributive justice. Facist regimes always come up with this kind of special victim, hoping to prove the law to be inadequate, so just trust justice to the badge. In Nazi Germany, the Jew was oft depicted as a child molester and a child murderer. The pedophiles have become the new Jews, it seems. This constant plying against the normally rational resolve of the public is worked in coordination with Muslims in general, wherein because of the terrorism of it all, they too are not worth a trial but only a hanging. It helps the machinations of the methods of those new neocon instituttions like Gitmo, and renditions conducted in wide world.
A brilliant plan. Pedophiles, in spite of repeated misrepresentations to the contrary, can be helped. Psychologists willing to say they cannot are simply those four-year test takers who pay for and finally get the diploma, their license to pretense, and have no clue as to how to address the issue therapeutically, as soon as they get out or thirty years later. They remain therapeutically useless to all but the most naive blissninnies who learn they must have "only positive feelings today." But they are available to those who foment with blood lust a demand of subscription to condemn absolutely. Whatever the battlefield, the churlish slugs turn out in plentitude to be bought.
Just another way in which the neocon fascists are undermining the legal system, trashing the constitution, and using the law to mold the populace into contractual control.
Wait! This is about kids. Never mind. Hang everybody within a ten mile radius, especially when the witness says the guy walking by made her feel "creepy."
Meanwhile, let Chris Hansen, who could replace Ralph Fiennes in portraying the concentration camp colonel, continue to lure innocents in off the net, and prosecute people who have committed no crime, but were ensnared by the lurid promise of a spicy slice of sweet sixteen chicken. I got news for Hansen. Continue on and expect your audience to diminish as the usual suspects list will grow exponentially. This will end when the only mutt left to lure is Hansen himself, who, in a moment of overwhelming tumescence, will break down and beg the completely nonexistent teen skank to give it to him, too. It is all just virtual, after all.
This particular show, which in Roman times would have opened the matinee at the Arena, is ghastly in its own right. It is reprehensible and it serves a fascist cause. Fascists think like Hansen does--arrest them before they commit the crime. They are, and there is no other more apt title, the Thought Police. It all churns on having a place to hang your unspecified hate. It is right up there with those who believe torturing for information reveals significant results. It is sick. Camus and Sartre would see it as yet another proof of the absurd.
Meanwhile, the little lad who scored so immortally by getting goldenshowered by that breathtakingly beautiful minx middle school teacher is now having a lot of anger issues, shame issues, etc., and is having a hard time in the presence of more that three people. None of this because of the sexual escapade--all of it due to the carnival of the exposure.
Guess who he is most angry at?
That's right--righteous mom, who crucified her son publicly in order to burn the witch for the puritan urgers.
The witch walked, by the way. Both the judge and her attorney were simply reduced to the same simple puddle each man is when just such a rare minx wanders in. Had she been less comely, she would under the prison forever, linked to Herbert's "pain amplifier, for eternity." Her attorney had actually already stated his whole case, which in the end did win, when he coined the motto of the whole spectacle--like "tossing raw meat to the lions." That line still retains the most mileage among the local legal community. It has become the du jour cosmic plea among joking lawyers--to use when doubt is beyond question--it cannot be done! guilt be damned! it would be like "tossing meat to the lions . . ." You know the legal system is awry when the most reprehensible transgression if forgiven but by the grace of vanity and our new communal narcissism.
The mother is already weary of being the hero of the zealots; she tries to smile gamely when her call-to-witness chain is jerked, but regret is starting to hang in little corners of her knawing doubt. She may have irretrievably lost her son to the cost he now bears, forever and everywhere, world wide. He will never live it down. He could have.
The son is wounded by his mother well beyond that proffered by the maddening blond's incindiary intro into van sex.
The mother should have done what mothers have been doing for years--talk to the boy, talk to the teacher, talk about appropriate, keep the dragons in the cage.
Oh the fools that have been pulled into folly by the puritans' zesty persistence.
Only a puritan would use a child in such a manner. Only puritans have, historically.
-
Sirs:<<Apparently Lanya also missed the part where I consistently referred to them (pedophiles) as animals. Hardly a term of endearment and support>>
Hardly consistent. I didn't miss this, where you drew a distinction:
Sirs:<<You must have missed the part where I clearly stated if done in a gentle and pleasant manner. I'm not referring to the animals that sexually abuse children. >>
So. You think child sexual abuse is wrong, and you don't consider it abuse if it's gentle and pleasant to the child? Asking for clarification here.
The clarification was already provided. Subtract the legal definitions and legal references, since as I told Js, this point has nothing to do with legality. YES, pedophila is an abomination, AND WRONG REGARDLESS OF HOW IT'S DONE.
But the point is all about the "urge" of the person wanting to have sex with the child. I realize the reason for this deflection effort, because it doesn't help your cause in portraying how the urges of homosexuals is hardwired but the urges of anything else sexual isn't, since then you'd have to accept Pedophiles as having no choice in dealing with their urges. So following yours & Js' logic, basically you'd be in support of more dialog & understanding of Pedophiles. Perhaps they just need some counseling. Oh wait, they don't have a choice, so we really need to respect their genetic disposition of who they want to have sex with. Perhaps introduce new legislation to lower the age that one can have sex with, since again, Pedophiles have no choice. Right?
-
Well, at leat we can now assume that the lack of a response indicates Lanya finally understood the point being made, vs trying to make this about the legal definitions of Pedophilia and my supposed condoning of it, as long as it was "gentle"