Law: How is gay different than (_blank_)?

[InfiniteNow]

Gays do need to be aware that their flashy or demonstrative behavior can insight a reactionary counter behavior from a homophobe preditor. If I walk around mad, people will react to me with a number of reactions from fear to anger. I would not blame them for reacting to me that way, since I incited the reaction by my huffy behavior.

For me, this line of reasoning is a bit too close to "She wanted to get raped. Didn't you see the short skirt she was wearing?" :beer:

[HydrogenBond]

For me, this line of reasoning is a bit too close to "She wanted to get raped. Didn't you see the short skirt she was wearing?"

 

One person's behavior does affect another. Culture tries to remove the affect, but ignors the cause. If the affect is out of proportion to the cause thats not right either. In a 1-D world of cause without affect, or affect with cause this might make sense. Humans are suppose to live in a 2-D world of cause and affect.

 

There is no logical progression because an animal is not capable of giving consent.

 

I am not sure about that. If you know a watch dog he may let you in the yard because he knows you well enough to give you his consent. He has a duty but is still capable of making a security judgement.

 

.

[InfiniteNow]

One person's behavior does affect another.

Has influence, yes, but it's still up to the perceiver to decide if they will be effected or not.

 

Culture tries to remove the affect, but ignors the cause.

What is your support for the above statement? Cultrure tries to do things? How is that? Is this opinion? Either way, can you please clarify?

 

In a 1-D world of cause without affect, or affect with cause this might make sense. Humans are suppose to live in a 2-D world of cause and affect.

Again, can you please clarify? This language may be appropriate to your current understanding, but if I don't know where you're coming from it sounds a bit odd... And... uhhh... I don't know where you're coming from. :shrug:

 

 

Anyway, could you also please relate your response to the question posed?

 

How is being homosexual any different [than gender, ethnicity, and religion], and should laws be allowed to discriminate against this group, but not others?

[TheFaithfulStone]

I am not sure about that. If you know a watch dog he may let you in the yard because he knows you well enough to give you his consent. He has a duty but is still capable of making a security judgement.

 

Not the same thing. A dog cannot tell you it's okay if you beat him, or that you have power of attorney over him, or that if gets both back legs broken he wants you to put him down. He can't "consent" to a relationship.

 

And in ANY CASE, children and animals can't give legal consent.

 

TFS

[Kriminal99]

1. If to be gay is not a biologically driven choice, then there is no reason not to discriminate against them. (but I think it probably is somewhat having met some and noticing similar physical features)

 

2. Personally I do not see the value of refusing to acknowledge diversity. Current laws tend to force people to treat people of different races exactly the same. I think that diversity is valuable, but not if you refuse to let anyone acknowledge it! I think things like having affirmative action and quotas of a certain race that have to work for a certain company are wrong.

 

If you apply this to the thread topic it is obvious why homosexuals should be treated differently than various races. Just because its not the same. By this same argument gender should be treated differently than race and so should age.

 

But to give a specific example, if it was objectively determined that being raised by 2 members of the same sex is less healthy than being raised by a mother and father, and the purpose of the government recognizing marriage is to financially encourage better raising of children through tax breaks, then yeah the government should be able to refuse to recognize same sex marriages. They can still get married all day long, the government just won't give tax breaks for it.

 

I think current thinking on discrimination is just outright wrong, and I think it would become obvious if a whole other intelligent species appeared. If an intellegent offshoot race of apes or orangutangs was found but they were extremely volatile and did not respond well to feedback or criticism and they integrated into our society and we tried to refuse to acknowledge their differences it would be a disaster. Now whos to say that an offshoot of humans cannot have enough differences that it would cause just as many problems to ignore them.

[Cedars]

Many of our laws were changed during the 20th century to eliminate discrimination by gender, ethnicity, and religion. How is being homosexual any different, and should laws be allowed to discriminate against this group, but not others?

 

Homosexuality isnt any different. Laws should not be allowed that discriminate against this group. It is two people who want to make a life commitment to each other and receive equal treatment/rights as other people who make a life commitment to each other, such as medical decision making, property rights, etc. There are rights bestowed upon those who can wave that "we're married" card that others do not have. You can argue that homosexual persons can go thru other legal methods to give power of attorney, etc, but the fact is each of those methods are more easily disturbed by other portions of family than the marriage certificate. A marriage certificate is a stronger legal document, as I understand the way it is applied.

 

Anti-homosexual opinion seems to have it roots in religious doctrine and I would think that the churches would still have a right to not perform marriages between same sex couples, so it would not infringe upon their religious practices.

http://www.bidstrup.com/phobiahistory.htm

 

Yes there will be elements who will then argue for child love or beastiality. They argue for that now. To deny homosexuals rights because of the potential for others argue for pedophilia is fallicious, and was used during the fights against allowing inter-racial marriage. As TFS pointed out, age of consent/ability to consent negate the argument on its own.

 

The current efforts to define marriage on both the state and federal level alarm me, primarily because I do not want to see constitutional ammendments used to deny some people rights.

[HydrogenBond]

One needs to make a distinction between "natural gays" and socially created gays. The acceptance of the first leads to the second. The first may or may not be biological but the second is definitately psychological, with their normal psychology abberrated by the social acceptance.

 

This example is only meant to demonstrate the affect. In Nazi Germany it was socially acceptable to be cruel and mean to any group who was not part of the "superior race". Before this cutural acceptance, there were a much smaller fraction of violent criminals, just like in any culture. Most people were just average Joes trying to get by. Once violent criminal behavior against other cultures became socially acceptable the number of violent criminals (in absolute sense), increased by an order of magnitude.

 

I am not saying that gays are criminals. What I am saying is that there are natural gays by nature and unnatural gays by culture. Total social acceptance of the first will lead to the creation of the second. If there was a way to distinquish between the two this would be great and I could accept full rights for the naturals. But science can't make that distinction yet. The net result of blind cart blanche social creation and acceptance is a whole new range of syndromes. This is short sighted thinking.

 

If those who support this position would make themselves exclusively financially and criminally responisible for all the long term problems, I would go along with it. But that is not whats going to happen. The burden will fall on everyone including those trying to divert the future problems. Maybe it is time for people to put their money where their mouth is.

[InfiniteNow]

One needs to make a distinction between "natural gays" and socially created gays. ...What I am saying is that there are natural gays by nature and unnatural gays by culture. Total social acceptance of the first will lead to the creation of the second. If there was a way to distinquish between the two this would be great and I could accept full rights for the naturals. ...This is short sighted thinking. ...I would go along with it. But that is not whats going to happen. The burden will fall on everyone including those trying to divert the future problems.

I was going to only quote the first statement and ask two pretty easy questions... Why and How?

 

Then, I read the rest, and I decided that might open some further tangents. My new question... what are you talking about?

 

It's like you're asking us to distinguish between someone who is born homosapien and someone who doesn't know this until they've learned some biology...

[Cedars]

One needs to make a distinction between "natural gays" and socially created gays. The acceptance of the first leads to the second. The first may or may not be biological but the second is definitately psychological, with their normal psychology abberrated by the social acceptance.

 

I am not saying that gays are criminals. What I am saying is that there are natural gays by nature and unnatural gays by culture. Total social acceptance of the first will lead to the creation of the second. If there was a way to distinquish between the two this would be great and I could accept full rights for the naturals. But science can't make that distinction yet. The net result of blind cart blanche social creation and acceptance is a whole new range of syndromes. This is short sighted thinking.

 

As soon as science can make the distinction between 'real' love and lust.... sorry but freedom and equality is not based on what science proves or where would religion be. It does not matter that some will participate in homosexual encounters because of social acceptance, just as it does not matter that some participated in inter-racial free love during the 60s. As long as it is consentual.

 

 

If those who support this position would make themselves exclusively financially and criminally responisible for all the long term problems, I would go along with it. But that is not whats going to happen. The burden will fall on everyone including those trying to divert the future problems. Maybe it is time for people to put their money where their mouth is.

 

Criminally responsible for the long term problems? Can you explain what you mean?

[Guest jamongo]

I wonder, but not very often, if there are not many many more homosexuals males than we are aware of.

Listening to some English expressions has caused me great concern.

How many times have you heard one man say to another:

"Kiss my a$$!-- Definitely a homosexual act!

"Up Yours!" -- Absolutely!

"F..k you!" -- What else but?

"Suck my d----!" Top of the list!

I think if you have ever used such expressions, you might want to take a deep look into your psychological depths before you answer the thread question.

[Michaelangelica]

A wild, and gay, kingdom

 

Oct. 24, 2006

Courtesy The Research Council of Norway

and World Science staff

 

For eons, nature has been prancing, fluttering and altogether teeming with gay animals, proclaim the organiz*ers of the first museum exhibition on animal homoseuality.

all.[/

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061024_gay-animals.htm

[infamous]

There should be no laws that discriminate against anyone's personal liberty.

Absolutely C1ay, and along with an individuals sexual preference, one should also include religious expression.........Infy

[Michaelangelica]

Absolutely C1ay, and along with an individuals sexual preference, one should also include religious expression.........Infy

The Cof E here is selling some of its property to pay for their minister's "religious expression" in out-of-court settlements.:confused:

[HydrogenBond]

Gay is different from other forms of discrimination because it enters the realm of instinctive discrimination more than social discrimination. For example, obesity is connected to unnatural eating behavior that is out of line with a more natural form of eating behavior that would promote health. One should not discriminate against obese people, since it is sort of an illlness with both biological and psychological factors. But culture, in an attempt to be inclusive, should not encougage and celebrate unnatural eating behavior because it sends the wrong message.

 

With respect to gays, one should not discriminate against them because it has both biological and psychological foundations. But at the same time, it should not celebrate this to where it encourages socially created gays who have no biological connection. This line in the sand thins the herd down to a smaller natural set of gay people.

 

Consider the social consequences of celebrating beastial behavior. There are those who like animals. This is currently a small group and one can argue biological/psychology connections for this behavior. If we try not to discriminate, while celebrating this behavior, the number of socially created beastials will rise. If we keep the natural instinctive pressure on, without discriminating their lifestyle, the numbers will remain within the realm of biological parameters. In other words, some people can not help it, while those with only psychological vulnerablity, shouldn't be it be sucked in by a socially encouraged fad.

[Michaelangelica]

For example, obesity is connected to unnatural eating behavior that is out of line with a more natural form of eating behavior that would promote health. One should not discriminate against obese people, since it is sort of an illlness with both biological and psychological factors. But culture, in an attempt to be inclusive, should not encougage and celebrate unnatural eating behavior because it sends the wrong message.

If you read the facts this may be as much a prejudice as your homophobia.

See "Obesity why are we getting fat?" thread, especially the quoted NY Times article on this.

 

What is unnatural?

What is "beastial behavior" (sic)

Who decides; you?

 

Unthinking prejudice to homosexual and obese people is very hurtful, cruel and destructive. Gays often have a very tough time in a heterosexual world. Read Nigel Hawthorn's autobiography for example.

[HydrogenBond]

I was not making a value judgement. What I was trying to say is that a balance needs to be drawn between non-discrimination and carte blanche acceptance that can lead to encouraging behavior in those who are not sure of who they are. Fads tend to cause the herd to migrate in directions even to its own demise.

 

Let me give an example, if one takes any culture there are those who like to kill; a very small percentage of the population. During times of war when killing is socially acceptable (eq. Nazi Germany), the number of people willing to kill will rise drastically because it is acceptable to do so. Most of these socially created killers, because it is unnatural for them to kill, in sane times, often have to overcompensate and become worse than the those who are natural or genetic based killers.

 

We should run a social experiment to prove what I am saying. Let us come up with a fake study that says that being fat is good for you. Lets us also get Madison Avenue to glorify fat, with the best Paris fashions catering only to larger sizes. The obesity rate will increase because more healthy people will want to run with the herd.

[InfiniteNow]

So HydrogenBond, you're proposing that it's okay to have bigotous and discriminatory laws as long as the population discriminated against by those laws are acting outside the parameters of your narrow-minded definition of natural?