Prince James said:
If someone claims a certain right that is not to be found, one does not "rush forward with chicken-little rhetoric to stop it"? That is, you simply let them get away with affirming a new right that has no legal foundation whatsoever? Are you suggesting the equivalent of sitting down and simply taking such abuses?
A lack of prohibition is, according to most, a legal foundation for allowing something. Why should it be different with homosexual love? What abuse is anyone expected to sit down and take? Apparently, homosexuals are expected to sit down and accept gender discrimination, which, I might add, is one of the less-pleasant things to have crammed down one's throat.
If someone claims a right you don't want to grant ...? That's another question, and reflects more on you than the claim.
There have also been other cases where the judiciary has gone outside her legal boundaries to over ride popular and legislative decisions, such as in the case of Massachusetts. This is a usurption of the proper role of the judiciary and an abuse which can circumvent the legal process of the law unless specifically targetted for citizen awareness so something can be done.
The judiciary's allegiance is to the constitution, not popular will. The will of the people does enter into it, such as conservatives decried when the Supreme Court upheld a conservative state court's refusal to execute a convict who was a minor at the time of his offense. But the whole "activist-court", chicken-little horsepucky about homosexuals taps at least the 1992 election, when Colorado voters wanted to pass a law that did not stand up to constitutional muster. The question that has never been answered by the alarmists who decry "activist judges" pertains to the reality of the constitution. Were it left purely to majorities, slavery may well have persisted in the U.S. into the twentieth century, and women would probably still be nothing more than pleasure- and baby-factories. Anti-miscegenation laws? Left to majorities, there are still places in the country where blacks and whites would not be allowed to marry. To call it a usurpation that a court should uphold the Supreme Law of the Land instead of the Supreme Whim of the Bigot is, well, rather silly.
There is no rational foundation for finding a specific behaviour immoral? Discussions as to the morality of homosexuality have a rich history in philosophy on both side of the fence. It is hardly irrational to view homosexuality in either a positive or negative light.
The simplicity of the discussion as insisted upon by the homophobes is exceptionally irrational.
To take a separate example: marijuana. When people talk about drug legalization, the response is often that there is such a criminal element associated with marijuana, that it serves as a "gateway" to hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. It seems disingenuous at least to cite one of the symptoms that would be alleviated as a reason to not go forward with the proposed action. Marijuana decrim would undercut the black market, break the association to other drugs. Likewise, homosexuality: often, homophobes cite STD's, promiscuity, &c. At the same time, statistics show that these issues are more strongly associated with "closeted" behavior. Yet traditionalists, conservatives, and bigots seem unable to comprehend this reality. Rather, they insist that the discussion should be as simplistic as possible, even to the point of idiocy.
In the meantime, it is hardly irrational to view heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage as positive or negative, either; at least according to the standard I perceive in your argument.
Also, I simply pointed out that you were using the term improperly. Nothing more. This was not meant as a counter-argument or a main thrust of any larger thesis.
It's a distraction. It's hair-splitting. Nothing more. "Homophobe" is the word that the culture uses; in the English language, there are many words that violate their etymologies. I don't see the point in even mentioning it, as such. I live in a culture that treats the word "transition" as a verb so that people can get by remembering fewer words. Life is. You can lasso with a lasso, but the day "lariat" becomes a verb, I expect some folks to wonder what the hell happened. "Faggophobe" just sounds comical, you know? And why be afraid of sticks?
Governments work on the foundation that they both permit and exclude various behaviours. We have excluded polygamy - a lifestyle choice, just as homosexuality ....
Lifestyle choice ... what an interesting phrase. Christianity is a lifestyle choice. It is constitutionally protected. Why is one lifestyle choice protected while another isn't? Besides, my religious outlook does not forbid homosexual conduct or marriage. Why is that lifestyle choice not protected? So we have the First Amendment on my side; and we also have the Fourteenth. My position is up 2-1 as I have it, or 2-0 since a Christian's choice is a Christian's choice, but what gives the Christian the right to decide for anyone else?
The very idea of polygamy seems to deviate from a contract exclusive to two people. I could be wrong. Then again, I personally hold that polygamy is symptomatic of mental illness, thereby calling into question the competency of the parties entering the contract. Unlike the homophobe, however, I do not assert that the law does or should respect my designation of mental illness. Rather, I draw my conclusion from observations of heterosexual, married couples. The greater portion of men have difficulty respecting and keeping up with their wives. Why they would want a second or third or fourteenth is, well, beyond me. Besides, if you can't tell the difference between two and three, that's your problem, and not mine. Oh, wait, it is my problem as long as you assert a cultural superiority that allows you to decide who gets what rights according to issues like gender and your personal sense of taste.
We have excluded polygamy - a lifestyle choice, just as homosexuality - from the permitted forms of marriage allowed in the United States. This is precedent that the government has at least a legal foundation for claiming that they can define whom and whom cannot get a marriage, specifically as a marriage is a license, which necessitates that one meets the prerequisites for said license.
What lacks in that precedent is that we've never voted on heterosexual marriage. If the people are willing to sanction heterosexual marriage despite its inherent problems and the costs paid by the rest of society, then the only reasons to not sanction homosexual marriage is bigotry, stupidity, and discrimination. Then again, I well understand. Everybody needs someone to discriminate against. And why the hell should the homophobes and traditionalists put any effort into it? Ignorance is as much a human right as the very breath that sustains us.
Pleasing God at least has historical foundation, as far back as polytheistic Eurasia, in that marriage was considered a norm amongst the Gods as well as amongst people.
Superstition does not a rational argument make.
Tax shelters, too, have some foundation in the organization of marriage as a legal institution recognized by a nation state, with antecedents in tribal/clan law, which established marriage for political and semi-political ends.
Antecedents in ownership?
It ought to be noted that homosexual marriage does not permit of child bearing (in a traditional sense and impossibly amongst homosexual men) which is the main reason why marriage takes and has taken place ....
I'm adopted. My familial mother is barren. She was granted a marriage license. Child-bearing is not a good argument, especially considering the number of children (over 100,000 a year in the U.S.) needing homes.
homosexual marriage has no historical foundations in any culture, least of all those which were more permissive about homosexuality. For even to the Greek, who may have had several male lovers in his life, never considered for a moment that he would marry this man, nor would he think that he'd not eventually marry a woman, if he hadn't all ready.
The Emancipation Proclamation had no historical foundation. Child-labor regulations had no historical foundation. Human beings are better off for these two innovations.
Of course, even the Greeks, those ancient, warring folks, had at least a human respect for homosexuality. Then again, the Greeks didn't waste their time driving gays into the closet and blaming them for the rise of society's enemies.
I would have you list any laws held by European countries in the 19th or 20th centuries that designated the wife the legal property of her husband?
To cite Stephanie Coontz in a
New York Times Op-Ed piece:
.... traditional marriage imposed a strict division of labor by gender and mandated unequal power relations between men and women. "Husband and wife are one," said the law in both England and America, from early medieval days until the late 19th century, "and that one is the husband." (
July 7, 2005)
It is this very notion that made "marital rape" acceptable in the eyes of the law well into the 20th century. "Coveture", as the notion is known, is biblically-derived. Again, from Coontz:
As late as the 1970's, many American states retained "head and master" laws, giving the husband final say over where the family lived and other household decisions. According to the legal definition of marriage, the man was required to support the family, while the woman was obligated to keep house, nurture children, and provide sex. Not until the 1980's did most states criminalize marital rape. Prevailing opinion held that when a bride said, "I do," she was legally committed to say, "I will" for the rest of her married life.
I was born in 1973, and I am well familiar with the idea that a woman forfeits her right to say "no" the day she says, "I do". This is the "noble" institution of marriage that the women's libbers helped wreck. But, of course, gender discrimination is not yet gone from the culture. We're still left with a bitter taste because some people think their own sense of aesthetics is more important than other people's rights.
Indeed. No one is here saying that homosexuality does not have its place in some societies in a positive life, or that homosexualx are incapable of being good citizens.
I would like you to imagine something for me: Joe is gay, and outs himself in his teens. His family rejects him, his father kicks him out. Joe makes his way in the world and becomes successful enough to own property. He lives in a monogamous relationship with Bill, his male lover, for thirty years. Before they finish drawing up their wills, Joe dies in an accident (not from a long illness). Joe's brother, who has not spoken or communicated with him in all those years, asserts familial right to Joe's estate. Bill is left with nothing.
Think about it this way: when "civil unions" grant all the rights that make such unions properly equal to marriage, so that a "separate-but-equal" standard exists based on gender, all that's left is the stubborn bigotry that insists on exclusivity in terminology. Until we achieve "separate-but-equal", hatemongers like Joe's brother will always be able to contest the love and faith of a thirty-year life partner. And the U.S. courts already refuse "separate-but-equal" on a gender basis.
And Westerners cannot have a problem with any of these groups based on rational foundations, specifically homosexuals?
Let me know when they come up with a "rational foundation" for homophobia.
Moreover, Christianity has laws which prohibit homosexuality which has a foundation in their holy book. It is rather silly to say they have no foundation then for their judgement of homosexuality as a sin.
I thought your point had to do with "rational" foundations.
Admittedly, many Christians then take this to mean they can be vicious and anti-Christian to those whom are participants in homosexuality, and therein the problems reside.
Historically, hateful vice seems to be part and parcel of Christian faith. Historically, few Christians have ever truly put their faith in God. And those that do? They have no reason to contest gay marriage; they will place their faith in God's judgment, and not seek to exercise arbitrary authority derived from superstition.
Licenses have prerequisites. One has to be 16 to drive, 18 to join the military and have sex freely, 21 to drink. Are you saying we cannot then have these prerequisites? For marriage on a civil level is just that: A license. Gays, by virtue of not desiring to be part of a male-female relationship, thus do not meet the qualifications of marriage.
That's a new prerequisite for at least twelve states as of November, 2004. Your point does not hold weight. Had the prerequisite already existed, we would not have chicken-little rushes to ban gay marriage.
And, once again, legislation has been enacted to limit other marriage choices. Ones which even have legitimate social foundations, I.E. polygamy, and which have a time-honoured tradition of being practiced extensively throughout history. If we can exclude them, why not homosexuals?
You'll have to make more clear the equation of how "two people" is the same as "three people", or even "four people", or, if you like, "sixteen people". I think by the time we get around to recognizing polygamous marriages, it will be time to confess that the concept of marriage has outlived its purpose. Life
will go on.
Similarly, if it is not public opinion that shapes law, what is? Do not homosexuals merely have to convince the public they aren't so bad to get public opinion to change? And perhaps even laws? For if the public demand it, eventually it shall be done, will it not?
In the U.S., the Constitution holds precedent over public opinion. To recall the issue of courts overstepping their boundaries, consider that the issue in the 1990s was to compel states and their schools to indoctrinate children to believe that homosexual conduct was the same as bestiality or child-rape. Public opinion is not always so rational.
Loving v. Virginia (
1,
2,
3) was so considered an example of inappropriate judicial activism that, despite the 1967 decision that established the supreme law of the land, it took 33 years for the last state (Alabama) to actually remove its anti-miscegenation laws from the books.
Public opinion? In American society, public opinion has long been acknowledged as dangerous to minorities.
Men want sex from women. This is a pretty natural thing, you know, considering it is a biological imperative and necessary for the survival of the species. That men may feel resentment when a woman turns him down is no more illogical than anyone else that feels rejection when someone turns one down, for sex or otherwise. Similarly, to call someone a slut is to simply state the fact that this person is wont to have sex with many different people, and in so much as many people do this, and this is distasteful to many people (and potentially psychologically and physically harmful) it is rational for people to speak of it in such tones as to convey this.
Men want women to be their baby factories? Yes, this is obvious throughout history. Biological imperative as your argument considers it, however, works to the detriment of our society. It seems that "tradition", in fact, is what is unhealthy for the future of the species. And also the children waiting for homes.
Inasmuch as a soldier's discomfort is concerned, when we think of such things as the infamous Tail Hook scandal, it really makes men sound hypocritical: they don't want to be hit on by other men at all, much less crudely. When men can apply that standard to women, as well, the repugnance some men feel when approached by another man might be worth considering. In the meantime, it's all just petty crap. Really, we men can put up with killing and dying, but the idea that another man wants to give me an orgasm is supposed to be repugnant? When did men become such pussies? Oh, right. We've always been.
(And, yes, calling a man a pussy is as derogatory as calling anything a man doesn't like gay. I still treasure that wonderful quote from
The Simpsons: "Dude, you're kissing a girl? That's so gay!" See
#4F01, "Lisa's Date With Density". Sometimes I think it's just too hard for the majority of men to figure out. Men may pursue pussy, such as you've noted, but they still hold it in such low esteem. Strange, isn't it?)
I doubt this, considering relationships are central to the human experience, and will always be fraught with difficulties and entanglements. No society can be simple.
One would hope, I would think, that the species would evolve such as it has. Do we not look back on the biblical idea of poisoning an unsatisfactory wife, or stoning adulterers to death as somewhat savage? Do we in Western society not protest the perceived primitivism of Islamic Shari'a courts that would kill women for sex outside of marriage?
Hey, maybe you think it's a good thing to kill people over sexual issues. But given that "no society can be simple", as you have it, one would think that ours could, at the apex of human accomplishment, get over something so stupid as homophobia.
Internal societal problems are more capable of destablization than external problems. You cannot send troops to tackle a social problem.
You're right: you cannot send troops to tackle stupidity.
And no amount of troops will ever change the fact that homophobic men are just quivering, insecure hypocrites.
I still can't believe that people are more afraid of homosexuals than terrorism. What's the point of a war on terror if terrorism isn't our biggest problem? Maybe we could have a war on ugly automotive paint jobs next. Or a war on mullets.
____________________
Notes:
