Army dismisses gay Arabic linguist
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
(Q) said:
I never sulk; I either pursue it (if it's worthwhile) or leave it (if it's not).
"Is there a reason for this discharge policy?" hmm yes that does sound equivocal.
The intents were apparently hidden from all the other posters as well.
But, I never make the same mistake twice (if I can help it), and I thank you for pointing it out.
Last edited:
(Q) said:
You speak from the vantage of greater knowledge. I checked the posting and it still does not indicate a recent policy or that it was established to permit representation in the military regardless of sexual orientation. Or maybe I'm too dumb to get it.
Tiassa:
"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."
There were actually laws on the books against sodomy (which is more inclusive of a term than "gay male anal sex" admittedly) until very recently. At the very least, homosexual unions would have been banned. There were also laws against "unnatural acts" and "buggery" and various other terms (Oscar Wilde was charged with violation of one, was he not?) for a great many centuries. Whereas most of these laws have sense been over turned, no positive right of marriage - specifically as it is outside the bonds of what license's prerequisites of one male, one female - has ever been given to gays.
"If someone claims a right you don't want to grant ...? That's another question, and reflects more on you than the claim."
Inclusion is not in and of itself something one must adhere to.
"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."
Actually, all aspects of our government have an obligation and duty to support the constitution. The judiciary is only specifically regulated to this duty in some certain cases, but they have no right to legislate from the bench. Similarly, it is not the place, no matter how "good", for courts to change social policy, to enact laws, et cetera et cetera, and resorting to the rhetoric of "would would be baby factories" and "blacks wouldn't marry whites!" is rather juvenile at best. It assumes these are objectively right when clearly they are whims of society.
"The simplicity of the discussion as insisted upon by the homophobes is exceptionally irrational."
Elaborate please?In what way are their arguments "simplistic" and in what way is it "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."
"Closetted behaviour"? Are you suggesting that in the current neutral/pro-gay enviroment, specifically in gay areas, that the promiscuity rate is caused by not being openly gay? What sources cite this as a cause?
"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."
I agree. It is not. It is a moral issue to be decided rationally, but neither side is patently absurd.
"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?"
I detest inaccurate words, specifically as I am philosophically inclined. Let's call it a pet peeve. Also, it is a word stemming from a political agenda.
"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?"
Quite simply: Homosexuality is not a religion. One may indeed practice one's religion - and indeed, freel free to pursue your own for however long you wish to - but there is no "religion of homosexuality" that mandates homosexual marriage. Similarly, even if it did, it would be subject to the law. Moslems allow for polygamy, but here in America (and most, if not all, of the West) one cannot have multiple (legal) wives. Mormonism has similar views. However, if one wants to engage in a non-legal relationship, go ahead.
"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."
Well technically speaking, a man's wives are only married to himself. Similarly, a wife's husbands (if we want to speak of polyandry) would be married to her only. In neither case would any single instance of marriage be communal. That these wives and/or husbands may have relationships amongst one another (it was reported as a scandal in harems from time to time) is possible, but they'd not be married. So technically, polygamy only then requires an allowance for being under contractual obligation to more than one person at a time. In the West, this is illegal in the sphere of marriage. In either case, it demonstrates a precedent for exclusion.
"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."
No society is obligated to accept everyone at everytime in every place. Similarly, in many cases society has all ready answered. Not a single state which had popular referendums on gay marriage passed. Many states without even a significant minority voting oppositely.
"Superstition does not a rational argument make."
Historical precedent is a great shaping force on human society.
"Antecedents in ownership?"
In some cases. Not in most. You'd be hard pressed to find women related to chattle in most societies, specifically European-derived ones. Women in both Rome and amongst Germanic tribes had the right of divorce, for instance. Similarly, Celtic women were afforded an intense degree of freedom. Moreover, even in more "subjugated societies", women were held not so much as a slave or property, but more along the lines of a paternal relationship, as it were.
"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."
There is a necessary impossibility of two homosexual men or lesbian women bearing children if they make recourse only to themselves. There is only a contingent impossibility that some heterosexual couples will not be capable of procreation. Categorically, then, heterosexuality is open, wheras homosexuality is closed, to the bearing of children. If marriage is basically meant to allow for child bearing, then it is unreasonable to allow relationships which are necessarily incapable of engaging in this act. Similarly, gay adoption is a whole different issue.
"The Emancipation Proclamation had no historical foundation. Child-labor regulations had no historical foundation. Human beings are better off for these two innovations."
Not objectively so, no. Child labour laws were enacted primarily to keep children from competing with adults for jobs (the adults did not want to lose their jobs to 12 year olds) and emancipation of slaves was either done for different political reasons (the civil war) or because it was not an issue (in much of the rest of the world). In either case, slavery was replaced with brutal market capitalism and/or vicious communist despotism (Russians went from serfs to Proletarian slaves).
"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."
No one suggests here that we oughn't respect gays.
".... 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)"
Is she here quoting a law or quoting the opinion of a scholar?
"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."
This does not imply ownership. The husband must provide and so must the wife. When someone owns a piece of property, one may do as one wish.
"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."
Oh well? Such is the way of the law. Should have considered making a will beforehand.
"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."
I agree with you. It is indeed "stubborn bigotry" that would accept exclusive terminology of marriage. If one is for "civil unions", one is for gay marriage with a different title. It is an absurd position to hold.
"Let me know when they come up with a "rational foundation" for homophobia."
I have given several for anti-gay marriage legislation. If you want more, I might be able to provide a few others.
"I thought your point had to do with "rational" foundations."
I was only here addressing Christianity's foundations for certain behaviours. A defense where a defense was justified.
"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."
Considering they all ready believe in superstition, your last statement does not stand to reason.
"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."
Actually, most of those popular referendums assumed the illegality of homosexual unions, if I recall. That is to say, it was a question whether to -allow- gay marriages, rather than -disallow- gay marriages. Similarly, there was a call for explicit portrayal of the state's opinions on the matter, specifically when the issue was constantly being focused upon.
"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."
Why so? Marriage has existed and indeed flourished under polygamous conditions for centuries. But as to "the sixteen people", see above for an argument as to why a man's wives are only married to him, not together, hence it is actually x amount of distinct marriages. Similarly, is it anymore rational or irrational to claim that marriage can occur betwixt two people of the same gender and that one person might be married to more than one other person?
"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."
Constitutional law does indeed hold sway over public opinion, but the courts do not have the right to institute new laws. The judiciary is subject to the legislature and the executive in this matter.
We're a Democratic Republic. For better or for worse, we must accept public opinion's elevated place. Government is by the people, for the people, et cetera, et cetera.
"Public opinion? In American society, public opinion has long been acknowledged as dangerous to minorities."
Sucks to be a minority, then.
"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."
Some men want "baby factories", as some women want to be "baby factories". In fact, one can convincingly argue that women's entire psychological makeup is completely geared towards securing a mate so she might bear his children, just as men most often seek out women to be the bearer of theirs.
In what way is it "to the detriment of our society" to have people that want children? No society can exist apart from its ability to sustain and increase its population over time. Moreover, even if it was "detrimental to our society", it would have to be accepted, as there is no way to prevent biological organisms from seeking reproduction.
And as to children without homes, those homes can be provided for by the state or by people who adopt. Gays included if such is the decision.
"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."
Why should a man feel repugnance to something he wants? If he is heterosexual, it is natural to want to have sex with a woman. Moreover, it is natural fo rhim to want to avoid sex with men. If one does not find killing and dying disgusting, it is irrational to fear it or otherwise be adverse to it.
"(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?)"
So? It is generally held that obsessive lust for women is a sign of unmanliness and weakness, specifically when this becomes ill-condusive to the cultivation of manliness in other spheres.
"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?"
Some people do. Cultures tend to go back and forth on such issues. I do not claim that it is an "evolution" to not stone an adulterer/ess. In fact, considering the harm this inflicts upon people? It seems rather reasonable in some regard.
"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."
It is not simple at all. It is a moral dilemma. Dilemmas imply complexity.
"And no amount of troops will ever change the fact that homophobic men are just quivering, insecure hypocrites."
How are they insecure and hypocritcal? That they do not wish to be met with something they find repugnant is a symptom of insecurity? Hypocricy because they engage in sexual advances on people receptive to this?
"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."
Terrorism is perhaps our main external problem and even then, that's arguable.
"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."
There were actually laws on the books against sodomy (which is more inclusive of a term than "gay male anal sex" admittedly) until very recently. At the very least, homosexual unions would have been banned. There were also laws against "unnatural acts" and "buggery" and various other terms (Oscar Wilde was charged with violation of one, was he not?) for a great many centuries. Whereas most of these laws have sense been over turned, no positive right of marriage - specifically as it is outside the bonds of what license's prerequisites of one male, one female - has ever been given to gays.
"If someone claims a right you don't want to grant ...? That's another question, and reflects more on you than the claim."
Inclusion is not in and of itself something one must adhere to.
"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."
Actually, all aspects of our government have an obligation and duty to support the constitution. The judiciary is only specifically regulated to this duty in some certain cases, but they have no right to legislate from the bench. Similarly, it is not the place, no matter how "good", for courts to change social policy, to enact laws, et cetera et cetera, and resorting to the rhetoric of "would would be baby factories" and "blacks wouldn't marry whites!" is rather juvenile at best. It assumes these are objectively right when clearly they are whims of society.
"The simplicity of the discussion as insisted upon by the homophobes is exceptionally irrational."
Elaborate please?In what way are their arguments "simplistic" and in what way is it "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."
"Closetted behaviour"? Are you suggesting that in the current neutral/pro-gay enviroment, specifically in gay areas, that the promiscuity rate is caused by not being openly gay? What sources cite this as a cause?
"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."
I agree. It is not. It is a moral issue to be decided rationally, but neither side is patently absurd.
"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?"
I detest inaccurate words, specifically as I am philosophically inclined. Let's call it a pet peeve. Also, it is a word stemming from a political agenda.
"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?"
Quite simply: Homosexuality is not a religion. One may indeed practice one's religion - and indeed, freel free to pursue your own for however long you wish to - but there is no "religion of homosexuality" that mandates homosexual marriage. Similarly, even if it did, it would be subject to the law. Moslems allow for polygamy, but here in America (and most, if not all, of the West) one cannot have multiple (legal) wives. Mormonism has similar views. However, if one wants to engage in a non-legal relationship, go ahead.
"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."
Well technically speaking, a man's wives are only married to himself. Similarly, a wife's husbands (if we want to speak of polyandry) would be married to her only. In neither case would any single instance of marriage be communal. That these wives and/or husbands may have relationships amongst one another (it was reported as a scandal in harems from time to time) is possible, but they'd not be married. So technically, polygamy only then requires an allowance for being under contractual obligation to more than one person at a time. In the West, this is illegal in the sphere of marriage. In either case, it demonstrates a precedent for exclusion.
"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."
No society is obligated to accept everyone at everytime in every place. Similarly, in many cases society has all ready answered. Not a single state which had popular referendums on gay marriage passed. Many states without even a significant minority voting oppositely.
"Superstition does not a rational argument make."
Historical precedent is a great shaping force on human society.
"Antecedents in ownership?"
In some cases. Not in most. You'd be hard pressed to find women related to chattle in most societies, specifically European-derived ones. Women in both Rome and amongst Germanic tribes had the right of divorce, for instance. Similarly, Celtic women were afforded an intense degree of freedom. Moreover, even in more "subjugated societies", women were held not so much as a slave or property, but more along the lines of a paternal relationship, as it were.
"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."
There is a necessary impossibility of two homosexual men or lesbian women bearing children if they make recourse only to themselves. There is only a contingent impossibility that some heterosexual couples will not be capable of procreation. Categorically, then, heterosexuality is open, wheras homosexuality is closed, to the bearing of children. If marriage is basically meant to allow for child bearing, then it is unreasonable to allow relationships which are necessarily incapable of engaging in this act. Similarly, gay adoption is a whole different issue.
"The Emancipation Proclamation had no historical foundation. Child-labor regulations had no historical foundation. Human beings are better off for these two innovations."
Not objectively so, no. Child labour laws were enacted primarily to keep children from competing with adults for jobs (the adults did not want to lose their jobs to 12 year olds) and emancipation of slaves was either done for different political reasons (the civil war) or because it was not an issue (in much of the rest of the world). In either case, slavery was replaced with brutal market capitalism and/or vicious communist despotism (Russians went from serfs to Proletarian slaves).
"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."
No one suggests here that we oughn't respect gays.
".... 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)"
Is she here quoting a law or quoting the opinion of a scholar?
"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."
This does not imply ownership. The husband must provide and so must the wife. When someone owns a piece of property, one may do as one wish.
"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."
Oh well? Such is the way of the law. Should have considered making a will beforehand.
"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."
I agree with you. It is indeed "stubborn bigotry" that would accept exclusive terminology of marriage. If one is for "civil unions", one is for gay marriage with a different title. It is an absurd position to hold.
"Let me know when they come up with a "rational foundation" for homophobia."
I have given several for anti-gay marriage legislation. If you want more, I might be able to provide a few others.
"I thought your point had to do with "rational" foundations."
I was only here addressing Christianity's foundations for certain behaviours. A defense where a defense was justified.
"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."
Considering they all ready believe in superstition, your last statement does not stand to reason.
"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."
Actually, most of those popular referendums assumed the illegality of homosexual unions, if I recall. That is to say, it was a question whether to -allow- gay marriages, rather than -disallow- gay marriages. Similarly, there was a call for explicit portrayal of the state's opinions on the matter, specifically when the issue was constantly being focused upon.
"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."
Why so? Marriage has existed and indeed flourished under polygamous conditions for centuries. But as to "the sixteen people", see above for an argument as to why a man's wives are only married to him, not together, hence it is actually x amount of distinct marriages. Similarly, is it anymore rational or irrational to claim that marriage can occur betwixt two people of the same gender and that one person might be married to more than one other person?
"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."
Constitutional law does indeed hold sway over public opinion, but the courts do not have the right to institute new laws. The judiciary is subject to the legislature and the executive in this matter.
We're a Democratic Republic. For better or for worse, we must accept public opinion's elevated place. Government is by the people, for the people, et cetera, et cetera.
"Public opinion? In American society, public opinion has long been acknowledged as dangerous to minorities."
Sucks to be a minority, then.
"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."
Some men want "baby factories", as some women want to be "baby factories". In fact, one can convincingly argue that women's entire psychological makeup is completely geared towards securing a mate so she might bear his children, just as men most often seek out women to be the bearer of theirs.
In what way is it "to the detriment of our society" to have people that want children? No society can exist apart from its ability to sustain and increase its population over time. Moreover, even if it was "detrimental to our society", it would have to be accepted, as there is no way to prevent biological organisms from seeking reproduction.
And as to children without homes, those homes can be provided for by the state or by people who adopt. Gays included if such is the decision.
"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."
Why should a man feel repugnance to something he wants? If he is heterosexual, it is natural to want to have sex with a woman. Moreover, it is natural fo rhim to want to avoid sex with men. If one does not find killing and dying disgusting, it is irrational to fear it or otherwise be adverse to it.
"(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?)"
So? It is generally held that obsessive lust for women is a sign of unmanliness and weakness, specifically when this becomes ill-condusive to the cultivation of manliness in other spheres.
"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?"
Some people do. Cultures tend to go back and forth on such issues. I do not claim that it is an "evolution" to not stone an adulterer/ess. In fact, considering the harm this inflicts upon people? It seems rather reasonable in some regard.
"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."
It is not simple at all. It is a moral dilemma. Dilemmas imply complexity.
"And no amount of troops will ever change the fact that homophobic men are just quivering, insecure hypocrites."
How are they insecure and hypocritcal? That they do not wish to be met with something they find repugnant is a symptom of insecurity? Hypocricy because they engage in sexual advances on people receptive to this?
"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."
Terrorism is perhaps our main external problem and even then, that's arguable.
If you're on the battlefield and you're worrying about some gay dude checking out your ass, you have problems. In fact, if you're thinking about sex at all while you're on the battlefield, you have problems but perhaps not as many as those who think gay dudes are staring at their asses.Prince_James said:
I hardly see how having gay people in a group "sexualizes" the atmosphere. Gay men can be trusted around other men just like straight men can be trusted around women.
I don't know which culture yours is, but in ours, gays are only portrayed by stereotypes as feminine. They aren't as fairy as you might think.Prince_James said:
Also, how does being feminine make you useless in battle? You and I both know that if this were the issue, then women would be excluded from the military as well, as they are perceptively feminine, just as gay guys are.
Surely that's a hyperbole. Considering that there are millions of gay people in the US, you couldn't possibly think that only five or less of the male ones are masculine, could you?Prince_James said:
What sort of information do you have to support the claim that homosexuals are almost exclusively feminine in your culture?
Athelwulf:
"If you're on the battlefield and you're worrying about some gay dude checking out your ass, you have problems. In fact, if you're thinking about sex at all while you're on the battlefield, you have problems — but perhaps not as many as those who think gay dudes are staring at their asses.
I hardly see how having gay people in a group "sexualizes" the atmosphere. Gay men can be trusted around other men just like straight men can be trusted around women."
The history of rape and other sexual malfeances on the battlefield refute you. Indeed, even in the military academy "The Citadel" have reported rape, despite not even being -in- combat at the time.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060824/ap_on_re_us/citadel_assaults_15
"I don't know which culture yours is, but in ours, gays are only portrayed by stereotypes as feminine. They aren't as fairy as you might think."
Sterotypes made by gays, for gays, and never disputed by gays. Ian McKellen addresses a gay crowd, and calls himself "Serena", their nickname for him.
"Also, how does being feminine make you useless in battle? You and I both know that if this were the issue, then women would be excluded from the military as well, as they are perceptively feminine, just as gay guys are."
Women oughn't tbe allowed in the military for the same reasons that gays oughtn't, excluding the fact that women and men would never likely be mixed in with one another, nor would there be ways to hide one's womenhood.
"Surely that's a hyperbole. Considering that there are millions of gay people in the US, you couldn't possibly think that only five or less of the male ones are masculine, could you?"
It was a hyperbolic statement, yes.
"What sort of information do you have to support the claim that homosexuals are almost exclusively feminine in your culture? "
See above for some.
"If you're on the battlefield and you're worrying about some gay dude checking out your ass, you have problems. In fact, if you're thinking about sex at all while you're on the battlefield, you have problems — but perhaps not as many as those who think gay dudes are staring at their asses.
I hardly see how having gay people in a group "sexualizes" the atmosphere. Gay men can be trusted around other men just like straight men can be trusted around women."
The history of rape and other sexual malfeances on the battlefield refute you. Indeed, even in the military academy "The Citadel" have reported rape, despite not even being -in- combat at the time.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060824/ap_on_re_us/citadel_assaults_15
"I don't know which culture yours is, but in ours, gays are only portrayed by stereotypes as feminine. They aren't as fairy as you might think."
Sterotypes made by gays, for gays, and never disputed by gays. Ian McKellen addresses a gay crowd, and calls himself "Serena", their nickname for him.
"Also, how does being feminine make you useless in battle? You and I both know that if this were the issue, then women would be excluded from the military as well, as they are perceptively feminine, just as gay guys are."
Women oughn't tbe allowed in the military for the same reasons that gays oughtn't, excluding the fact that women and men would never likely be mixed in with one another, nor would there be ways to hide one's womenhood.
"Surely that's a hyperbole. Considering that there are millions of gay people in the US, you couldn't possibly think that only five or less of the male ones are masculine, could you?"
It was a hyperbolic statement, yes.
"What sort of information do you have to support the claim that homosexuals are almost exclusively feminine in your culture? "
See above for some.
Prince James said:
What would have been and what was are two different things; that bigots failed to cover the bases is not the fault of the homosexual.
To the other, however, we must reiterate the presumption of one male, one female. I live in a liberal state that managed to cover that issue long ago. Homophobes are running scared in Washington right now because they fear for their long standard against gays. To the other, however, it’s not the fault of the gays that nobody in Oregon or any other of the states rushing to define marriage bothered to cover their bases. The reality is that the “prerequisite” of one male and one female is a subjective limitation, an aesthetic assertion dressed as moral propriety, and a bastion of gender discrimination that bigots are rushing to affirm.
When what one is included in is equality, it damn well is in the United States. Gender is not a reason to exclude people from anything. Even restrooms.
Imagine that you put together a ballot-initiative petition and submit a qualifying number of signatures. Now imagine that the Secretary of State (in whatever given state you choose) decides that your ballot initiative would, were it approved by the people and enacted by the state, violate not only the state constitution but the federal constitution as well. Should the government bar the initiative from the ballot?
See, the thing is that “legislating from the bench” is, these days, a buzzword among conservatives for “upholding the constitution”. If a judge strikes down a law because it violates the constitution, s/he is accused of “legislating from the bench”. Even more ridiculously, conservatives recently accused the Supreme Court of the United States of “legislating from the bench” when all it did was uphold a decision by a conservative state’s supreme court. During the whole ruckus about executing juvenile offenders, I did not come across any conservative rancor toward the Missouri Supreme Court; the hostility was aimed at the Supreme Court of the United States.
To my own experience, I never heard much complaining about “legislating from the bench” until the courts struck down Colorado Amendment 2, an anti-gay ballot measure, for violating the U.S. Constitution. For the last thirteen or so years, I’ve heard conservatives complain of “legislating from the bench” more and more often, to the point that, as I’ve noted, it is a catch-phrase for any decision conservatives don’t like. (Strange, to the other, that if we review Ted Nace’s Gangs of America, a book that recounts the rise of corporate power in American society, nobody seems to complain about “legislating from the bench”, even though corporate patsies were given jobs on the court specifically to ignore historical precedent and write decisions turning the judiciary on its ear.)
So at what point ought constitutional adherence enter the process? Should a Secretary of State be allowed to decide that a blatantly and intentionally discriminatory ballot measure ought not go on the ballot, or should the courts, when appropriately petitioned, consider whether or not a law adheres to the constitution?
Again, you’re resorting to the empty rhetoric of “legislating from the bench”. As to “baby factories”, one would need to deny American history in order to ignore the point. Regarding blacks marrying whites, I would ask you to provide a rational reason why different skin colors shouldn’t be allowed to marry one another.
It is not a matter of assuming something is objectively right when it is simply a societal whim. Two words that might confuse you:
- Logic
- Integrity
- Integrity
The idea of “human rights” is not just a whim; rather, it evolves from history’s utter failure to provide a specific reason to reserve such “rights” from certain segments of humanity. Past reasons for reserving such rights have included gender, skin color, and religious creed. Past prohibitions (societal whims) have included such things as masturbation. Should we suspend someone’s civil rights because they masturbate? I would think not. Should we suspend someone’s civil rights because they have sex with their own gender? I don’t see the reason. That a party to a marriage is the wrong gender does not seem a reason to forbid the marriage; instead, it reeks of gender discrimination.
The simplicity comes in the moralism, a simple prescription that God says this is right, that generations of politically-enforced bigotry are right, and the alternative is wrong. Life is only so simple if we all decide it is. We might as well go back to poisoning our wives when we are dissatisfied with them. (Check the Bible for that one.) The irrationality comes from the actual lack of rational argument supporting the conservative/traditionalist/bigoted position.
Justifying bigotry by pointing to a history of bigotry is insufficient. History says that Jews are subhuman, Africans have no rights, and women exist for the sustenance and entertainment of men. How did it get that way? Coercion and death. What? It’s human history. Everything has to do with coercion and death. Even a casual perusal of history will point out that those who would put the coercive power of government to the greatest good are anathema.
You’re not really this stupid, and that’s part of what bothers me about your argument. It’s not the promiscuity itself that is the problem, but the dangerous nature of that promiscuity. Yes, closeted behavior tends to be more dangerous. Sexual behavior, the behavior of substance use and abuse, and even hidden politics. Sexual behavior: the CDC has noted that STD rates among gay men are up in closeted communities (e.g. Hispanic, black), and that openly-gay communities (e.g. white) tend to reflect STD rate fluctuations similar to heterosexuals (e.g. complicity and awareness). Drugs? Look at the success of needle exchanges; ten years in Pierce (Tacoma) and King (Seattle) Counties in Washington state and the estimates run as high as a million HIV transmissions prevented. Not bad, I’d say. But hey, maybe you feel differently.
Any argument whose best support is, “Because we say so,” is patently absurd.
Welcome to the English language in the twenty-first century. Especially American English.
Then again, you do use the phrase, “legislating from the bench”, but that’s not a single word, so I understand how it passes your standard.
And?
To the other, I’m out of time for the evening. I’ll get back to the rest of your argument when I decide there’s something worth answering. It wouldn’t be so bad, except that this is the same crap I’ve heard for fifteen years. Maybe I expect too much of people, but I figure the bigots could come up with something, well, if not better, at least different.
But you know us liberal elitists; we’re probably asking too much of people. After all, inclusionism is what makes us so elitist, you know. And excluding exclusionary politics? Hell, that makes us the most exclusive of all, doesn’t it?
Is it too much to ask that you live and let live? Apparently.
Tiassa:
"What would have been and what was are two different things; that bigots failed to cover the bases is not the fault of the homosexual."
Calling the oppositional view "bigotted" is not at all productive, anymore then calling people who are for or against tax-cuts are "biggoted" and "hateful" respectively.
"To the other, however, we must reiterate the presumption of one male, one female. I live in a liberal state that managed to cover that issue long ago. Homophobes are running scared in Washington right now because they fear for their long standard against gays. To the other, however, it’s not the fault of the gays that nobody in Oregon or any other of the states rushing to define marriage bothered to cover their bases. The reality is that the “prerequisite” of one male and one female is a subjective limitation, an aesthetic assertion dressed as moral propriety, and a bastion of gender discrimination that bigots are rushing to affirm."
I am going to have to concede this point, actually. Apparently you are correct. Only recently did they -explicitly- deny marriage to gays, as it never was explicitly noted. However, as previous laws made marriage impossible amongst gays (including crminalizing homosexuality itself) and that they were not explicitly included in marriage, at best the law was ambigious and the legislative actions are proper.
"When what one is included in is equality, it damn well is in the United States. Gender is not a reason to exclude people from anything. Even restrooms."
Equality implies legal equality as a citizen, not inclusion in every license. Age and competancy are also part of licenses, are you suggesting that the retarded and toddlers ought to be able to own a gun, drive, et cetera?
"Imagine that you put together a ballot-initiative petition and submit a qualifying number of signatures. Now imagine that the Secretary of State (in whatever given state you choose) decides that your ballot initiative would, were it approved by the people and enacted by the state, violate not only the state constitution but the federal constitution as well. Should the government bar the initiative from the ballot?"
I believe, actually, that any law can be passed regardless of whether or not it violates or does not violate the constitution, only that laws which violate the constitution would be scrapped by the appropriate powers. Judicial rulings, however, can be basically over run by the legislative power to amend the constitution.
"See, the thing is that “legislating from the bench” is, these days, a buzzword among conservatives for “upholding the constitution”. If a judge strikes down a law because it violates the constitution, s/he is accused of “legislating from the bench”. Even more ridiculously, conservatives recently accused the Supreme Court of the United States of “legislating from the bench” when all it did was uphold a decision by a conservative state’s supreme court. During the whole ruckus about executing juvenile offenders, I did not come across any conservative rancor toward the Missouri Supreme Court; the hostility was aimed at the Supreme Court of the United States."
The idea is that the Supreme Court of the Unitd States should be above and beyond the "legislating from the bench" of the lower Federal courts.
"To my own experience, I never heard much complaining about “legislating from the bench” until the courts struck down Colorado Amendment 2, an anti-gay ballot measure, for violating the U.S. Constitution. For the last thirteen or so years, I’ve heard conservatives complain of “legislating from the bench” more and more often, to the point that, as I’ve noted, it is a catch-phrase for any decision conservatives don’t like. (Strange, to the other, that if we review Ted Nace’s Gangs of America, a book that recounts the rise of corporate power in American society, nobody seems to complain about “legislating from the bench”, even though corporate patsies were given jobs on the court specifically to ignore historical precedent and write decisions turning the judiciary on its ear.)"
Judicial precedent has a long history of being non-binding on future decisions.
But anyway, yes, you are correct: The rancor over this has started only when judges started declaring this and that and this and that constitutional or unconstitutional.
"So at what point ought constitutional adherence enter the process? Should a Secretary of State be allowed to decide that a blatantly and intentionally discriminatory ballot measure ought not go on the ballot, or should the courts, when appropriately petitioned, consider whether or not a law adheres to the constitution?"
All measures properly brought forward to the legislature should be put up for vote by the members of the respective houses of the state and/or federal congresses.
But yes, courts have the right to review things pertaining to the constitution. Technically speaking, marriage is not once mentioned in the federal constitution, and almost all the ballots amended their state constitution.
"Again, you’re resorting to the empty rhetoric of “legislating from the bench”. As to “baby factories”, one would need to deny American history in order to ignore the point. Regarding blacks marrying whites, I would ask you to provide a rational reason why different skin colors shouldn’t be allowed to marry one another."
I'd like you to present where any law subjected women to this status of "baby factoryhood"?
And as for a hypothetical defense of segregation laws: MIxing the white and black races results in the dissolution of both and is an act of small-scale genocide. By producing mulatto children, one is regulating the fate of both races to oblivion, and through allowing the continued practice is to wage war against said respective races, even to the point where it ought to be construed as against treaties signed against practices of "ethnic cleansing".
"It is not a matter of assuming something is objectively right when it is simply a societal whim. Two words that might confuse you:
- Logic
- Integrity"
Societies aren't exactly logical entities, nor must they sponsor "integrity". Societies have various forms of governments, legal and moral law codes, et cetera, et cetera.
"The idea of “human rights” is not just a whim; rather, it evolves from history’s utter failure to provide a specific reason to reserve such “rights” from certain segments of humanity. Past reasons for reserving such rights have included gender, skin color, and religious creed. Past prohibitions (societal whims) have included such things as masturbation. Should we suspend someone’s civil rights because they masturbate? I would think not. Should we suspend someone’s civil rights because they have sex with their own gender? I don’t see the reason. That a party to a marriage is the wrong gender does not seem a reason to forbid the marriage; instead, it reeks of gender discrimination."
All arguments in support of all-inclusive rights can be made for exclusive-rights reversed. Similarly, society demands exclusivity, in order to assure the sustainability of a criminal-justice system, for taxation, for age-based restrictions, et cetera, et cetera. You will also note that proclaiming a right from birth, whether for everyone or for a specific group, is fundamentally the same. Contrast the rights of aristocracies to the rights of democracies and you shall find nothing different.
"The simplicity comes in the moralism, a simple prescription that God says this is right, that generations of politically-enforced bigotry are right, and the alternative is wrong."
One can make a non-religious argument against homosexuality. In fact, it is very easy. You will also note that modern religions rarely use Divine Command Theory, but Natural Law THeory, to support their foundations. This has been the case essentially as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas.
"We might as well go back to poisoning our wives when we are dissatisfied with them. (Check the Bible for that one.)"
Actually, since you mentioned it, might you? For I have not once heard of -that- in the Bible. Indeed, there is legal divorce in the Old Testament, civic (not personal) punishment for a sundry variety of marriage and sex related crimes, but I know of no poisoning.
"The irrationality comes from the actual lack of rational argument supporting the conservative/traditionalist/bigoted position.
I fail to see how either of these arguments are in and of themselves, more rational:
Rights should be exclusive.
Rights should be inclusive.
It rather seems like it requires a certain society to see what would fit better.
"Justifying bigotry by pointing to a history of bigotry is insufficient. History says that Jews are subhuman, Africans have no rights, and women exist for the sustenance and entertainment of men. How did it get that way? Coercion and death. What? It’s human history. Everything has to do with coercion and death. Even a casual perusal of history will point out that those who would put the coercive power of government to the greatest good are anathema."
No more insufficient as relating laws back to other laws made by these very same people we are condemning.
I also fail to see how Jews are not subhuman, Africans have rights, and women do not exist for the sustenance and entertainment of men? Have you any way to refute these things using objective standards that do not depend on a cultural interpretation? Which exist outside of a society's determinations?
In fact, does not all societyand civilization demand a bit of the arbitrary? And to even enforce things which really, one might ask, what right does the government have to butt in? What else is a judicial system to begin with but an arbitrary declaration of certain principles?
"It’s not the promiscuity itself that is the problem, but the dangerous nature of that promiscuity. Yes, closeted behavior tends to be more dangerous. Sexual behavior, the behavior of substance use and abuse, and even hidden politics. Sexual behavior: the CDC has noted that STD rates among gay men are up in closeted communities (e.g. Hispanic, black), and that openly-gay communities (e.g. white) tend to reflect STD rate fluctuations similar to heterosexuals (e.g. complicity and awareness). Drugs? Look at the success of needle exchanges; ten years in Pierce (Tacoma) and King (Seattle) Counties in Washington state and the estimates run as high as a million HIV transmissions prevented. Not bad, I’d say. But hey, maybe you feel differently."
Promiscuity, whether protected or not, is inherently dangerous behaviour, specifically amongst homosexual men. The practices (oral and anal sex) which most often characterizes gay sexual exchanges, are most prone to transmission of the virus. Even when a condom or other steps are taken to avoid transmission, the risk is proportionally greater than for most other types.
As to whites/blacks/latinos, consider this: http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_333/newhivdataalters.html
I would also ask if you have any information regarding your claim that white homosexuals have a prevalence of AIDS (as opposed to STDS as a whole) roughly equal to straight white men? For according to this website, which lists a scholarly source for the information (I have no verification of the validity of the rest of the website, and in fact, it seems pretty poor, but is listing non-biased information) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/mabcortico.htm :
Review of the literature of the causes and the pathogenesis of AIDS worldwide revealed that approximately 90% of AIDS cases in the USA and Europe are observed in homosexual men and drug users.
Unless you are saying that the majority of homosexuals are black/hispanic and that whites are disproportionally ill-represented in the homosexual populace, your claims seem to be discreditted.
But as to needle exchanges: Of course this will lower the rate of HIV. But it most certainly provokes people to continue the behaviour, as well as sanitizes it from one of the great counter-forces against starting (the risk of death through a horrid disease). That is to say, socially it is best when drug addicts are HIV positive, for at least they die and at least they fear that death is approaching whenever they poke themselves with a needle, clean or otherwise.
"Any argument whose best support is, “Because we say so,” is patently absurd."
Problems with homosexuality do not resolve to "because we say so".
"Welcome to the English language in the twenty-first century. Especially American English."
I am atemptingh tu wright liek Chaucer butte dooing teribblee.
"Then again, you do use the phrase, “legislating from the bench”, but that’s not a single word, so I understand how it passes your standard."
Technically, judges are passing new laws on the bench. Opponents of homosexuality do no hold a fear (necessarily) of homosexuality.
"“ Homosexuality is not a religion. ”
And?"
Homosexuality is thus not eligible for protections given to religions.
"What would have been and what was are two different things; that bigots failed to cover the bases is not the fault of the homosexual."
Calling the oppositional view "bigotted" is not at all productive, anymore then calling people who are for or against tax-cuts are "biggoted" and "hateful" respectively.
"To the other, however, we must reiterate the presumption of one male, one female. I live in a liberal state that managed to cover that issue long ago. Homophobes are running scared in Washington right now because they fear for their long standard against gays. To the other, however, it’s not the fault of the gays that nobody in Oregon or any other of the states rushing to define marriage bothered to cover their bases. The reality is that the “prerequisite” of one male and one female is a subjective limitation, an aesthetic assertion dressed as moral propriety, and a bastion of gender discrimination that bigots are rushing to affirm."
I am going to have to concede this point, actually. Apparently you are correct. Only recently did they -explicitly- deny marriage to gays, as it never was explicitly noted. However, as previous laws made marriage impossible amongst gays (including crminalizing homosexuality itself) and that they were not explicitly included in marriage, at best the law was ambigious and the legislative actions are proper.
"When what one is included in is equality, it damn well is in the United States. Gender is not a reason to exclude people from anything. Even restrooms."
Equality implies legal equality as a citizen, not inclusion in every license. Age and competancy are also part of licenses, are you suggesting that the retarded and toddlers ought to be able to own a gun, drive, et cetera?
"Imagine that you put together a ballot-initiative petition and submit a qualifying number of signatures. Now imagine that the Secretary of State (in whatever given state you choose) decides that your ballot initiative would, were it approved by the people and enacted by the state, violate not only the state constitution but the federal constitution as well. Should the government bar the initiative from the ballot?"
I believe, actually, that any law can be passed regardless of whether or not it violates or does not violate the constitution, only that laws which violate the constitution would be scrapped by the appropriate powers. Judicial rulings, however, can be basically over run by the legislative power to amend the constitution.
"See, the thing is that “legislating from the bench” is, these days, a buzzword among conservatives for “upholding the constitution”. If a judge strikes down a law because it violates the constitution, s/he is accused of “legislating from the bench”. Even more ridiculously, conservatives recently accused the Supreme Court of the United States of “legislating from the bench” when all it did was uphold a decision by a conservative state’s supreme court. During the whole ruckus about executing juvenile offenders, I did not come across any conservative rancor toward the Missouri Supreme Court; the hostility was aimed at the Supreme Court of the United States."
The idea is that the Supreme Court of the Unitd States should be above and beyond the "legislating from the bench" of the lower Federal courts.
"To my own experience, I never heard much complaining about “legislating from the bench” until the courts struck down Colorado Amendment 2, an anti-gay ballot measure, for violating the U.S. Constitution. For the last thirteen or so years, I’ve heard conservatives complain of “legislating from the bench” more and more often, to the point that, as I’ve noted, it is a catch-phrase for any decision conservatives don’t like. (Strange, to the other, that if we review Ted Nace’s Gangs of America, a book that recounts the rise of corporate power in American society, nobody seems to complain about “legislating from the bench”, even though corporate patsies were given jobs on the court specifically to ignore historical precedent and write decisions turning the judiciary on its ear.)"
Judicial precedent has a long history of being non-binding on future decisions.
But anyway, yes, you are correct: The rancor over this has started only when judges started declaring this and that and this and that constitutional or unconstitutional.
"So at what point ought constitutional adherence enter the process? Should a Secretary of State be allowed to decide that a blatantly and intentionally discriminatory ballot measure ought not go on the ballot, or should the courts, when appropriately petitioned, consider whether or not a law adheres to the constitution?"
All measures properly brought forward to the legislature should be put up for vote by the members of the respective houses of the state and/or federal congresses.
But yes, courts have the right to review things pertaining to the constitution. Technically speaking, marriage is not once mentioned in the federal constitution, and almost all the ballots amended their state constitution.
"Again, you’re resorting to the empty rhetoric of “legislating from the bench”. As to “baby factories”, one would need to deny American history in order to ignore the point. Regarding blacks marrying whites, I would ask you to provide a rational reason why different skin colors shouldn’t be allowed to marry one another."
I'd like you to present where any law subjected women to this status of "baby factoryhood"?
And as for a hypothetical defense of segregation laws: MIxing the white and black races results in the dissolution of both and is an act of small-scale genocide. By producing mulatto children, one is regulating the fate of both races to oblivion, and through allowing the continued practice is to wage war against said respective races, even to the point where it ought to be construed as against treaties signed against practices of "ethnic cleansing".
"It is not a matter of assuming something is objectively right when it is simply a societal whim. Two words that might confuse you:
- Logic
- Integrity"
Societies aren't exactly logical entities, nor must they sponsor "integrity". Societies have various forms of governments, legal and moral law codes, et cetera, et cetera.
"The idea of “human rights” is not just a whim; rather, it evolves from history’s utter failure to provide a specific reason to reserve such “rights” from certain segments of humanity. Past reasons for reserving such rights have included gender, skin color, and religious creed. Past prohibitions (societal whims) have included such things as masturbation. Should we suspend someone’s civil rights because they masturbate? I would think not. Should we suspend someone’s civil rights because they have sex with their own gender? I don’t see the reason. That a party to a marriage is the wrong gender does not seem a reason to forbid the marriage; instead, it reeks of gender discrimination."
All arguments in support of all-inclusive rights can be made for exclusive-rights reversed. Similarly, society demands exclusivity, in order to assure the sustainability of a criminal-justice system, for taxation, for age-based restrictions, et cetera, et cetera. You will also note that proclaiming a right from birth, whether for everyone or for a specific group, is fundamentally the same. Contrast the rights of aristocracies to the rights of democracies and you shall find nothing different.
"The simplicity comes in the moralism, a simple prescription that God says this is right, that generations of politically-enforced bigotry are right, and the alternative is wrong."
One can make a non-religious argument against homosexuality. In fact, it is very easy. You will also note that modern religions rarely use Divine Command Theory, but Natural Law THeory, to support their foundations. This has been the case essentially as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas.
"We might as well go back to poisoning our wives when we are dissatisfied with them. (Check the Bible for that one.)"
Actually, since you mentioned it, might you? For I have not once heard of -that- in the Bible. Indeed, there is legal divorce in the Old Testament, civic (not personal) punishment for a sundry variety of marriage and sex related crimes, but I know of no poisoning.
"The irrationality comes from the actual lack of rational argument supporting the conservative/traditionalist/bigoted position.
I fail to see how either of these arguments are in and of themselves, more rational:
Rights should be exclusive.
Rights should be inclusive.
It rather seems like it requires a certain society to see what would fit better.
"Justifying bigotry by pointing to a history of bigotry is insufficient. History says that Jews are subhuman, Africans have no rights, and women exist for the sustenance and entertainment of men. How did it get that way? Coercion and death. What? It’s human history. Everything has to do with coercion and death. Even a casual perusal of history will point out that those who would put the coercive power of government to the greatest good are anathema."
No more insufficient as relating laws back to other laws made by these very same people we are condemning.
I also fail to see how Jews are not subhuman, Africans have rights, and women do not exist for the sustenance and entertainment of men? Have you any way to refute these things using objective standards that do not depend on a cultural interpretation? Which exist outside of a society's determinations?
In fact, does not all societyand civilization demand a bit of the arbitrary? And to even enforce things which really, one might ask, what right does the government have to butt in? What else is a judicial system to begin with but an arbitrary declaration of certain principles?
"It’s not the promiscuity itself that is the problem, but the dangerous nature of that promiscuity. Yes, closeted behavior tends to be more dangerous. Sexual behavior, the behavior of substance use and abuse, and even hidden politics. Sexual behavior: the CDC has noted that STD rates among gay men are up in closeted communities (e.g. Hispanic, black), and that openly-gay communities (e.g. white) tend to reflect STD rate fluctuations similar to heterosexuals (e.g. complicity and awareness). Drugs? Look at the success of needle exchanges; ten years in Pierce (Tacoma) and King (Seattle) Counties in Washington state and the estimates run as high as a million HIV transmissions prevented. Not bad, I’d say. But hey, maybe you feel differently."
Promiscuity, whether protected or not, is inherently dangerous behaviour, specifically amongst homosexual men. The practices (oral and anal sex) which most often characterizes gay sexual exchanges, are most prone to transmission of the virus. Even when a condom or other steps are taken to avoid transmission, the risk is proportionally greater than for most other types.
As to whites/blacks/latinos, consider this: http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_333/newhivdataalters.html
I would also ask if you have any information regarding your claim that white homosexuals have a prevalence of AIDS (as opposed to STDS as a whole) roughly equal to straight white men? For according to this website, which lists a scholarly source for the information (I have no verification of the validity of the rest of the website, and in fact, it seems pretty poor, but is listing non-biased information) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/mabcortico.htm :
Review of the literature of the causes and the pathogenesis of AIDS worldwide revealed that approximately 90% of AIDS cases in the USA and Europe are observed in homosexual men and drug users.
Unless you are saying that the majority of homosexuals are black/hispanic and that whites are disproportionally ill-represented in the homosexual populace, your claims seem to be discreditted.
But as to needle exchanges: Of course this will lower the rate of HIV. But it most certainly provokes people to continue the behaviour, as well as sanitizes it from one of the great counter-forces against starting (the risk of death through a horrid disease). That is to say, socially it is best when drug addicts are HIV positive, for at least they die and at least they fear that death is approaching whenever they poke themselves with a needle, clean or otherwise.
"Any argument whose best support is, “Because we say so,” is patently absurd."
Problems with homosexuality do not resolve to "because we say so".
"Welcome to the English language in the twenty-first century. Especially American English."
I am atemptingh tu wright liek Chaucer butte dooing teribblee.
"Then again, you do use the phrase, “legislating from the bench”, but that’s not a single word, so I understand how it passes your standard."
Technically, judges are passing new laws on the bench. Opponents of homosexuality do no hold a fear (necessarily) of homosexuality.
"“ Homosexuality is not a religion. ”
And?"
Homosexuality is thus not eligible for protections given to religions.
Fear and loathing, and also hatred
A couple of things I would ask you to consider:
Think of the drug war in the U.S., specifically the part that deals with marijuana. Opponents of legalization mourn marijuana's service as a "gateway" drug to both a criminal underworld and escalation of drug-use habits. Yet it is the very cause of such associations between marijuana, criminality, and increased use of drugs less stable that the legalization effort seeks to address. It seems odd to think that those things on the list to be addressed by an outlook should be held, for their very existence, against the proposal. It's like arguing against poverty awareness because poor people exist.
The fact that a symptom exists is no excuse for failing to address the symptom or its causes.
This is pretty much the same problem I perceive in the homophobic argument, the heterosupremacist, or bigoted, as such.
You're kidding, right?
Really, that was almost funny.
Besides, even mental retards have the occasional opinion. Does that mean everyone in the world should have to eat an Oreo when my cousin says?
Really, what gives the irrational fears--see, hatred is a symptom, a symptom of fear, and its actual result is to give you more to fear--of heterosupremacists any more credibility than a Down's syndrome case? Should we all have to decorate our homes with unicorns and rainbows?
Let's keep some sense of proportion here, eh?
Look at the Amendments. Look at that Bill of Rights. Free speech? Protection from unnecessary and unwarranted prosecution? The right to bear arms? And what's come after: equal protection, new suffrage?
What are the Amendments most recently proposed? A flag-burning amendment designed to limit free speech? A marriage amendment designed to insist on the propriety of gender discrimination?
Yeah, sure, whatever. What we giveth, we also taketh away. Recent attempts by the Congressional GOP to limit the power of the judiciary have met with little success. The idea that people have no recourse under the law tends to distress Americans, but even by your expressed belief I'm having a hard time figuring out this "legislating from the bench" thing. I mean, we seem to agree on certain aspects of it, but tend to see the situation vastly differently. Perhaps you have a more exclusive or restrictive interpretation of the Constiution than I do.
Umm ... right. Okay ...?
I tend to wonder what the problem is. (As to Nace's book, though ... yeah, some of those decisions confuse the hell out of me.)
What about public ballot initiative? Toss it?
You'll have to give me some time; who knows, I might get a book out of it. After all, it usually took more than one law to create the result that a woman's primary responsibility was to provide dietary, hygenic, and sexual relief to her husband.
I would recall an article I posted recently:
If you really need me to go through and index all the statutes for you, give me a few years at least.
I had asked for a rational reason. And yes, I understand it's hypothetical. But do you see the problem? "Genocide"? "Regulating the fate of ... races"? "Ethnic cleansing"?
Just so I understand: Are you comparing one's senses of love and attraction to the deliberate choice to, say, massacre thousands through forced starvation, hacking machetes, or gas chambers? Consider the idea that my daughter falls in love with a black man: how, rationally speaking, would this be akin to genocide, ethnic cleansing, &c.?
I don't find the proposition to be built on rational bases. It is an irrational proposition. Similarly, the heterosupremacist, homophobic argument seems built on similarly irrational bases. With promiscuity and STD's, for instance, it seems that the heterosupremacists wish to maintain one of the major contributors to risky behavior--e.g. "the closet"--in order to have a basis for complaining about the idea of reducing that contribution. The symptoms of the closet are simply not an argument against opening the closet. The procreation argument falls through, as well. If any marriage is supposed to produce children, and a barren marriage is sanctioned, the only real difference between my parents' marriage and a gay marriage is the fact of differing gender. And gender discrimination is one of the toughest things Americans have put themselves to figuring out. That difficulty may not be entirely the fault of the concept itself. People are to blame. The religious argument, the "ewww!" argument, nothing about the homophobic argument arises from rational bases. That is the one thing the anti-miscegenation argument you offered has in common with the homophobic argument.
And yet societies appeal to thinks such as logical, rational thinking, and care much about the appearance of integrity. If people have standards, why not aspire to them instead of look for others to beat over the head?
The reversed arguments generally don't make sense. Consider an aspect of Roper v. Simmons: the decision to not execute offenders who were juveniles at the time of their crime does have some weight in sentimental terms, that people don't like to execute children, but the decision could not stand without having answered factual questions about the processes of juvenile brains. To reverse that factual argument would include the reversal of principle so that, "Structural and procedural differences about juvenile and adult brains not significant of different structures and processes, will tend toward different results, and therefore should not be regarded as equals in terms of moral and decisive outcomes; thus, juvenile offenders should be treated the same as adult offenders because there is no difference in the decision-making process that leads to criminal behavior." Or ... uh, something like that.
This is a problem for arguing that "all arguments ... can be made ... reversed."
Furthermore, the exclusivity you refer to certainly has to do with more substantial justifications than mere aesthetics.
And it's a weak argument in this case.
See Numbers 5: if a man suspects his wife of jealousy, he takes her to the priest; the priest makes her drink a liquid that will either cause her great pain or not--
One is inherent, the other must be conceived and enforced.
O-tay. Whatever you say.
Who has the inherent right to judge and stratify? Lacking judgment and stratification, there is no justification for removing any person's rights. What we claim for ourselves, if we are equals, we give to other people. Otherwise, there really isn't much point to humans existing in societies.
Social structures are ubiquitous, it seems. But that should tell you something about fundamental human nature, too.
Right, well, how much time would you like to spend on the history that is while considering the things that need to be done? Obviously, as little as possible, since your discriminatory solutions don't even bother with the questions except to get irritated at gay people that they exist at all.
Thanks for the Gay City News article; there's nothing in there that's news to me, but at least you're looking around. I do appreciate it.
In fact, I've found more recent numbers than the ones I've referred to in the most recent past. I need to find a better copy of the numbers, but according to a 2005 article, Latino gay HIV transmission has flattened off. I did finally find an old Sciforums topic that is a factor in my outlook. Unfortunately, the article link (a Yahoo! News link) is broken.
That's not quite it. The fluctuations of HIV transmission at the time reflected among white male heterosexuals a pattern akin to the effects of complicity and awareness in heterosexuals: the point is that the symptoms lessen when the causes are addressed.
Umm ... yeah.
Remember, I said rational bases.
Don't let it get to you. The language seems predisposed against communication, these days.
What laws? To find that no law prohibits does not mean a law has been created.
And yes, it is fear. Convince me otherwise, please.
My religious outlook, that is, my understanding of the concept of God, makes no prohibition against homosexuality. Any law that sets irrational and discriminatory prohibitions against homosexuals violates my religious outlook. Then again, my religious outlook is my business. The factual outlook is something else entirely. Homophobes complaining about the effects of the way they want things in order to make things stay the same does not make sense.
Besides, homosexuality is a gender issue, and gender is protected. Y'know, equal protection?
Prince James said:
A couple of things I would ask you to consider:
- Owing to the repetetive and irrational nature of the exclusionary heterosupremacist argument, bigotry is what it is. The impact such policies bring to bear on the lives of their victims is tragic, and it is very hateful to wish such ill onto other people. Were the cause of heterosupremacist exclusionism some sort of just and rational end built on rational bases, it would be hateful nor bigoted.
- If the appearances of inflexible words like bigotry and hate are so difficult to behold, how is it that you can stand to argue such an absolute and inflexible perspective? Of late, I've been trying to be as blunt and rude toward heterosupremacist bigots as civility allows; it's been a weak effort, but blunt rudeness seems such an attractive argument for the heterosupremacist bigots that there must be a reason. Maybe if I can understand that reason ... after all, it can simply be that it's fun and simple for the frightened.
- If the appearances of inflexible words like bigotry and hate are so difficult to behold, how is it that you can stand to argue such an absolute and inflexible perspective? Of late, I've been trying to be as blunt and rude toward heterosupremacist bigots as civility allows; it's been a weak effort, but blunt rudeness seems such an attractive argument for the heterosupremacist bigots that there must be a reason. Maybe if I can understand that reason ... after all, it can simply be that it's fun and simple for the frightened.
Think of the drug war in the U.S., specifically the part that deals with marijuana. Opponents of legalization mourn marijuana's service as a "gateway" drug to both a criminal underworld and escalation of drug-use habits. Yet it is the very cause of such associations between marijuana, criminality, and increased use of drugs less stable that the legalization effort seeks to address. It seems odd to think that those things on the list to be addressed by an outlook should be held, for their very existence, against the proposal. It's like arguing against poverty awareness because poor people exist.
The fact that a symptom exists is no excuse for failing to address the symptom or its causes.
This is pretty much the same problem I perceive in the homophobic argument, the heterosupremacist, or bigoted, as such.
You're kidding, right?
Really, that was almost funny.
Besides, even mental retards have the occasional opinion. Does that mean everyone in the world should have to eat an Oreo when my cousin says?
Really, what gives the irrational fears--see, hatred is a symptom, a symptom of fear, and its actual result is to give you more to fear--of heterosupremacists any more credibility than a Down's syndrome case? Should we all have to decorate our homes with unicorns and rainbows?
Let's keep some sense of proportion here, eh?
Look at the Amendments. Look at that Bill of Rights. Free speech? Protection from unnecessary and unwarranted prosecution? The right to bear arms? And what's come after: equal protection, new suffrage?
What are the Amendments most recently proposed? A flag-burning amendment designed to limit free speech? A marriage amendment designed to insist on the propriety of gender discrimination?
Yeah, sure, whatever. What we giveth, we also taketh away. Recent attempts by the Congressional GOP to limit the power of the judiciary have met with little success. The idea that people have no recourse under the law tends to distress Americans, but even by your expressed belief I'm having a hard time figuring out this "legislating from the bench" thing. I mean, we seem to agree on certain aspects of it, but tend to see the situation vastly differently. Perhaps you have a more exclusive or restrictive interpretation of the Constiution than I do.
Umm ... right. Okay ...?
I tend to wonder what the problem is. (As to Nace's book, though ... yeah, some of those decisions confuse the hell out of me.)
What about public ballot initiative? Toss it?
You'll have to give me some time; who knows, I might get a book out of it. After all, it usually took more than one law to create the result that a woman's primary responsibility was to provide dietary, hygenic, and sexual relief to her husband.
I would recall an article I posted recently:
Same-sex marriage, however, remained unimaginable because marriage had two traditional functions that were inapplicable to gays and lesbians. First, marriage allowed families to increase their household labor force by having children. Throughout much of history, upper-class men divorced their wives if their marriage did not produce children, while peasants often wouldn't marry until a premarital pregnancy confirmed the woman's fertility ....
.... In addition, 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."
This law of "coverture" was supposed to reflect the command of God and the essential nature of humans. It stipulated that a wife could not enter into legal contracts or own property on her own. In 1863, a New York court warned that giving wives independent property rights would "sow the seeds of perpetual discord," potentially dooming marriage.
Even after coverture had lost its legal force, courts, legislators and the public still cleaved to the belief that marriage required husbands and wives to play totally different domestic roles. In 1958, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the traditional legal view that wives (unlike husbands) couldn't sue for loss of the personal services, including housekeeping and the sexual attentions, of their spouses. The judges reasoned that only wives were expected to provide such personal services anyway.
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. (Koontz, Stephanie; July 7, 2005)
.... In addition, 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."
This law of "coverture" was supposed to reflect the command of God and the essential nature of humans. It stipulated that a wife could not enter into legal contracts or own property on her own. In 1863, a New York court warned that giving wives independent property rights would "sow the seeds of perpetual discord," potentially dooming marriage.
Even after coverture had lost its legal force, courts, legislators and the public still cleaved to the belief that marriage required husbands and wives to play totally different domestic roles. In 1958, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the traditional legal view that wives (unlike husbands) couldn't sue for loss of the personal services, including housekeeping and the sexual attentions, of their spouses. The judges reasoned that only wives were expected to provide such personal services anyway.
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. (Koontz, Stephanie; July 7, 2005)
If you really need me to go through and index all the statutes for you, give me a few years at least.
I had asked for a rational reason. And yes, I understand it's hypothetical. But do you see the problem? "Genocide"? "Regulating the fate of ... races"? "Ethnic cleansing"?
Just so I understand: Are you comparing one's senses of love and attraction to the deliberate choice to, say, massacre thousands through forced starvation, hacking machetes, or gas chambers? Consider the idea that my daughter falls in love with a black man: how, rationally speaking, would this be akin to genocide, ethnic cleansing, &c.?
I don't find the proposition to be built on rational bases. It is an irrational proposition. Similarly, the heterosupremacist, homophobic argument seems built on similarly irrational bases. With promiscuity and STD's, for instance, it seems that the heterosupremacists wish to maintain one of the major contributors to risky behavior--e.g. "the closet"--in order to have a basis for complaining about the idea of reducing that contribution. The symptoms of the closet are simply not an argument against opening the closet. The procreation argument falls through, as well. If any marriage is supposed to produce children, and a barren marriage is sanctioned, the only real difference between my parents' marriage and a gay marriage is the fact of differing gender. And gender discrimination is one of the toughest things Americans have put themselves to figuring out. That difficulty may not be entirely the fault of the concept itself. People are to blame. The religious argument, the "ewww!" argument, nothing about the homophobic argument arises from rational bases. That is the one thing the anti-miscegenation argument you offered has in common with the homophobic argument.
And yet societies appeal to thinks such as logical, rational thinking, and care much about the appearance of integrity. If people have standards, why not aspire to them instead of look for others to beat over the head?
The reversed arguments generally don't make sense. Consider an aspect of Roper v. Simmons: the decision to not execute offenders who were juveniles at the time of their crime does have some weight in sentimental terms, that people don't like to execute children, but the decision could not stand without having answered factual questions about the processes of juvenile brains. To reverse that factual argument would include the reversal of principle so that, "Structural and procedural differences about juvenile and adult brains not significant of different structures and processes, will tend toward different results, and therefore should not be regarded as equals in terms of moral and decisive outcomes; thus, juvenile offenders should be treated the same as adult offenders because there is no difference in the decision-making process that leads to criminal behavior." Or ... uh, something like that.
This is a problem for arguing that "all arguments ... can be made ... reversed."
Furthermore, the exclusivity you refer to certainly has to do with more substantial justifications than mere aesthetics.
And it's a weak argument in this case.
See Numbers 5: if a man suspects his wife of jealousy, he takes her to the priest; the priest makes her drink a liquid that will either cause her great pain or not--
"But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, then" (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) "the LORD make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell; may this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your body swell and your thigh fall away." And the woman shall say, "Amen, Amen." Then the priest shall write these curses in a book, and wash them off into the water of bitterness and he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain .... (Numbers, 5.20-24, RSV)
One is inherent, the other must be conceived and enforced.
O-tay. Whatever you say.
Who has the inherent right to judge and stratify? Lacking judgment and stratification, there is no justification for removing any person's rights. What we claim for ourselves, if we are equals, we give to other people. Otherwise, there really isn't much point to humans existing in societies.
Social structures are ubiquitous, it seems. But that should tell you something about fundamental human nature, too.
Right, well, how much time would you like to spend on the history that is while considering the things that need to be done? Obviously, as little as possible, since your discriminatory solutions don't even bother with the questions except to get irritated at gay people that they exist at all.
Thanks for the Gay City News article; there's nothing in there that's news to me, but at least you're looking around. I do appreciate it.
In fact, I've found more recent numbers than the ones I've referred to in the most recent past. I need to find a better copy of the numbers, but according to a 2005 article, Latino gay HIV transmission has flattened off. I did finally find an old Sciforums topic that is a factor in my outlook. Unfortunately, the article link (a Yahoo! News link) is broken.
That's not quite it. The fluctuations of HIV transmission at the time reflected among white male heterosexuals a pattern akin to the effects of complicity and awareness in heterosexuals: the point is that the symptoms lessen when the causes are addressed.
Umm ... yeah.
Remember, I said rational bases.
Don't let it get to you. The language seems predisposed against communication, these days.
What laws? To find that no law prohibits does not mean a law has been created.
And yes, it is fear. Convince me otherwise, please.
My religious outlook, that is, my understanding of the concept of God, makes no prohibition against homosexuality. Any law that sets irrational and discriminatory prohibitions against homosexuals violates my religious outlook. Then again, my religious outlook is my business. The factual outlook is something else entirely. Homophobes complaining about the effects of the way they want things in order to make things stay the same does not make sense.
Besides, homosexuality is a gender issue, and gender is protected. Y'know, equal protection?
Last edited:
tiassa:
"- Owing to the repetetive and irrational nature of the exclusionary heterosupremacist argument, bigotry is what it is. The impact such policies bring to bear on the lives of their victims is tragic, and it is very hateful to wish such ill onto other people. Were the cause of heterosupremacist exclusionism some sort of just and rational end built on rational bases, it would be hateful nor bigoted."
Again, rational objections to the behaviour, moral reasoning, et cetera, et cetera...
Must I quote St. Thomas Aquinas or something to show to you that there are indeed well thought out arguments against homosexuality?
"- If the appearances of inflexible words like bigotry and hate are so difficult to behold, how is it that you can stand to argue such an absolute and inflexible perspective? "
Actually, I am not here strongly protesting homosexuality. At best, I am weakly doing so, and only in a limited sphere. But my objection resides in the fact that hate and bigotry presuppose an irrational basis for arguments presented. This is not necessarily so.
"Think of the drug war in the U.S., specifically the part that deals with marijuana. Opponents of legalization mourn marijuana's service as a "gateway" drug to both a criminal underworld and escalation of drug-use habits. Yet it is the very cause of such associations between marijuana, criminality, and increased use of drugs less stable that the legalization effort seeks to address. It seems odd to think that those things on the list to be addressed by an outlook should be held, for their very existence, against the proposal. It's like arguing against poverty awareness because poor people exist."
Arguments can be made that marijuana legalization only promotes its usage, therefore, increasing the propensity for those to seek greater crimes. Moreover, of course taking criminality out of the equation divorces it from crime, but this would be the case in any crime. Making stealing legal would destroy theft, but you know, -stealing would be legal-.
"You're kidding, right?
Really, that was almost funny."
Prerequisites, no matter what they are based on, are -necessary- for the proper functioning of society.
"Really, what gives the irrational fears--see, hatred is a symptom, a symptom of fear, and its actual result is to give you more to fear--of heterosupremacists any more credibility than a Down's syndrome case? Should we all have to decorate our homes with unicorns and rainbows?"
People hate ugliness. Does ugliness necessarily invoke fear? It can - such as in the case of horrible monsters and the like - but not necessarily. This would seem to undermine the notion that "all hate is fear". Similarly, one needn't hate homosexuality to proclaim that homosexuality should not be given the same legal rights as heterosexuality.
"What are the Amendments most recently proposed? A flag-burning amendment designed to limit free speech? A marriage amendment designed to insist on the propriety of gender discrimination?"
Considering the other amendments to the bill of rights are arbitrary, why not?
You will note that the Bill of Rights begins with negative rights, which limit an entity (government). Why not limit certain other things? We've even passed a (admittedly disasterous) amendment to prohibit alcohol sales.
"Yeah, sure, whatever. What we giveth, we also taketh away. Recent attempts by the Congressional GOP to limit the power of the judiciary have met with little success. The idea that people have no recourse under the law tends to distress Americans, but even by your expressed belief I'm having a hard time figuring out this "legislating from the bench" thing. I mean, we seem to agree on certain aspects of it, but tend to see the situation vastly differently. Perhaps you have a more exclusive or restrictive interpretation of the Constiution than I do."
When at least I use the term "legislation from the bench", I am addressing the fact that recent judicial rulings tend to extend the power of judiciary from "assuring things are in line with the constitution", to "enacting social policy and over turning legislative decisions with wide public support". This may result from the necessary subjectivity of all judicial rulings, and the fact that a single judge - or even a group of judges - can act virtually unopposed and one can do little to counteract this, but have 66 percent of the legislature on one's side, or trust in one's stacking of the court with sympathetic judges.
I would also extend this to the Supreme Court Ruling on emminent domain and on banning states from declaring medical marijuana to be legal.
But yes, I do believe we also have a philosophical difference in regards to our interpretation of what the constitution necessarily entails.
"I tend to wonder what the problem is. (As to Nace's book, though ... yeah, some of those decisions confuse the hell out of me.)"
The problem is that it is viewed as an abbrogation of the judicial process.
"What about public ballot initiative? Toss it?"
No. If the ballot initiative meets the prerequisites for being put on the ballot, then it must be allowed.
"Same-sex marriage, however, remained unimaginable because marriage had two traditional functions that were inapplicable to gays and lesbians. First, marriage allowed families to increase their household labor force by having children. Throughout much of history, upper-class men divorced their wives if their marriage did not produce children, while peasants often wouldn't marry until a premarital pregnancy confirmed the woman's fertility ...."
It is true that marriage has primarily been about the raising of children. However, I would like some scholarly resources on the last claim. I have heard it once or twice casually mentioned, but if you could provide the footnote for such a thing, I'd be interested.
".... In addition, 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.""
I believe I asked you, or someone else, whether or not the last part of that quote was found in the law, or an editorial edition by a speaking on the topic.
"This law of "coverture" was supposed to reflect the command of God and the essential nature of humans. It stipulated that a wife could not enter into legal contracts or own property on her own. In 1863, a New York court warned that giving wives independent property rights would "sow the seeds of perpetual discord," potentially dooming marriage."
This does not entail "baby factoryhood". It does entail that the law reflected a belief that the man should have some rights that the woman did not have. Specifically, it tried to prevent marriage partners from having assets and property not to be found in the possession of the other. Technically speaking, so long as they were married, the wife owned everything her husband did.
"Even after coverture had lost its legal force, courts, legislators and the public still cleaved to the belief that marriage required husbands and wives to play totally different domestic roles. In 1958, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the traditional legal view that wives (unlike husbands) couldn't sue for loss of the personal services, including housekeeping and the sexual attentions, of their spouses. The judges reasoned that only wives were expected to provide such personal services anyway."
Well considering men had a role of providing certain care and the like in exchange for such things, it would stand to reason that women could not sue for sex.
"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. (Koontz, Stephanie; July 7, 2005)"
Note that the law demanded that the man provide for the family. This is a mutual obligation. A contract.
"If you really need me to go through and index all the statutes for you, give me a few years at least."
That would be excessive. So no.
"I had asked for a rational reason. And yes, I understand it's hypothetical. But do you see the problem? "Genocide"? "Regulating the fate of ... races"? "Ethnic cleansing"?"
I would say that, at the very least, moves to promote diversity are undermined by an insistance on intermixing. The way to keep diversity is to segregate. This is how dog breeds, for instance, retain their unique identity. In so much as a total mixing of races would eventually destroy both as unique entities, it is genocidal.
Note that the Russian forces entering Germany raped three million German women in an attempt to destroy the German race through polluting the gene pool. That this only worked in part - I imagine only a fraction of the women actually became pregnant afterwards, or survived through the brutal treatment in the harsh post war conditions - is fortunate.
"Just so I understand: Are you comparing one's senses of love and attraction to the deliberate choice to, say, massacre thousands through forced starvation, hacking machetes, or gas chambers? Consider the idea that my daughter falls in love with a black man: how, rationally speaking, would this be akin to genocide, ethnic cleansing, &c.?"
Genocide progresses by single actions. If enough people interbreed, eventually that is enough to cause a genocide over a long enough period of time. That the act is not objectionable on the small scale, does not change the fact that eventually it will result in this if not arrested.
"With promiscuity and STD's, for instance, it seems that the heterosupremacists wish to maintain one of the major contributors to risky behavior--e.g. "the closet"--in order to have a basis for complaining about the idea of reducing that contribution."
It is widely claimed that homosexuals are more sexually open with one another, as men want sex more. The popular German band Rammstein recently made a song to this affect, supposively inspired by gay friends of the Band, namely, "Mann gegen Mann". Similarly, it is not just closetted men that have such promiscious relationships. Many openly gay men, in openly gay areas, in openly gay atmospheres, engage in this behaviour. One can hardly claim that "gay havens" such as San Fransisco, New York, London, Berlin, Paris, with tons of this behaviour going on, would provoke promiscuity out of a well known gay populace.
STDs are also exacerbated by the acts themselves. Lesbians, for instance, have the least amount of contraction of many STDS, do the fact that the non-penetrative aspects of their sexual engagements (barring "toys" and such) prevent many of the main contributions to such infections.
"The procreation argument falls through, as well. If any marriage is supposed to produce children, and a barren marriage is sanctioned, the only real difference between my parents' marriage and a gay marriage is the fact of differing gender. "
The difference is quite simple: Whereas heterosexuals -can- have children, homosexuals -cannot-. That some heterosexuals are sterile does not categorically deny the capacity for heterosexuals to produce children, whereas gays categorically cannot.
"And yet societies appeal to thinks such as logical, rational thinking, and care much about the appearance of integrity. If people have standards, why not aspire to them instead of look for others to beat over the head?"
Some societies do. Some Western, post-enlightenment societies, that is. You will note that arguments from tradition hold far more sway in much of the rest of the world, specifically in the Orient.
"The reversed arguments generally don't make sense. Consider an aspect of Roper v. Simmons: the decision to not execute offenders who were juveniles at the time of their crime does have some weight in sentimental terms, that people don't like to execute children, but the decision could not stand without having answered factual questions about the processes of juvenile brains. To reverse that factual argument would include the reversal of principle so that, "Structural and procedural differences about juvenile and adult brains not significant of different structures and processes, will tend toward different results, and therefore should not be regarded as equals in terms of moral and decisive outcomes; thus, juvenile offenders should be treated the same as adult offenders because there is no difference in the decision-making process that leads to criminal behavior." Or ... uh, something like that."
The idea in such a defense would be to invalidate the major differences in juvenile and adult brain structures, specifically in light of the fact that current scientific theory is at best, ambigious about such things. The idea is that one is stressing the importance of one thing. Stress the importance of the other - the true reverse - and you get a different answer. I.E. "Juveniles still come to rational decisions about bad behaviour, and despite some minor brain differences, commit vicious crimes that are substantially no different than adult crimes, hence, ought to be executed, specifically as juveniles above a certain age, cannot possibly be considered morally inculpable any further".
"Furthermore, the exclusivity you refer to certainly has to do with more substantial justifications than mere aesthetics."
Let us begin with the fact that the United States had an exclusivist conception of democratic rights to an engrained demi-aristocracy with gentry elements before it expanded its view over two centuries. In either case, though, it was declaring "a right that one is born with", just as the old nobles would proclaim that it was their born right.
"And it's a weak argument in this case."
In so much as homosexuality is found in nature, yes. But Natural Law is not about finding "what happens amongst animals". That is, presuming this is why you meant that it is a "weak argument".
"See Numbers 5: if a man suspects his wife of jealousy, he takes her to the priest; the priest makes her drink a liquid that will either cause her great pain or not--"
This is an old tradition, found amongst many cultures, that physical results will accord with guilt. The idea - held by both man and woman - is that innocence will free someone from it. That this was irrational is only to be found in modern scientific knowledge, where we know that someone's ability to withstand certain punishments or drink certain poisons.
Also, it is a wee bit different than "the right to poison your wife", as it requires a judicial person (a priest) and acquiesence of the wife to it. At the very least, if she is guilty, she can confess of it to avoid being poisoned. The only problem is that her innocence is not necessarily proved.
"One is inherent, the other must be conceived and enforced."
Rights as inherent to everyone demands just as much whimsy on the part of humanity, when one considers that force is the main arbitrator in this world. That someone has a "right" to anything, generally requires a sophisticated framework. Consider Hobbes' natural rights in "Leviathan", as well as later Enlightenment philosophers on the subject.
In fact, if one were to be brutally honest, one might conclude that "rights belong to the strong and dominate" according to Darwin. Note the rights of the alpha of the wolf pack.
"Who has the inherent right to judge and stratify? Lacking judgment and stratification, there is no justification for removing any person's rights. What we claim for ourselves, if we are equals, we give to other people. Otherwise, there really isn't much point to humans existing in societies."
That we are equals must first be justified. In fact, that we are clearly are unequal in many respects suggests that equality is a myth. Societies actually use the inequalities to assure that society works, by delineating the farmer's work to the farmer, the blacksmith's work to the blacksmith, the warrior's work to the warrior, et cetera. If they were all equal, they'd participate equally in all tasks and with equal skill. They do not.
"Social structures are ubiquitous, it seems. But that should tell you something about fundamental human nature, too."
Social structures are indeed ubiquitous, but the notion of human freedom in a democratic system akin to the United States with declared laws and rights is another thing.
"Right, well, how much time would you like to spend on the history that is while considering the things that need to be done? Obviously, as little as possible, since your discriminatory solutions don't even bother with the questions except to get irritated at gay people that they exist at all."
What history are you referencing?
"Thanks for the Gay City News article; there's nothing in there that's news to me, but at least you're looking around. I do appreciate it."
A pleasure.
"In fact, I've found more recent numbers than the ones I've referred to in the most recent past. I need to find a better copy of the numbers, but according to a 2005 article, Latino gay HIV transmission has flattened off. I did finally find an old Sciforums topic that is a factor in my outlook. Unfortunately, the article link (a Yahoo! News link) is broken."
I had trouble finding such recent findings, as I do believe that statistics generally take a few years to compile from various sources. Of course, this means that we're always dealing with data a few years antiquated, but it seems enough.
"That's not quite it. The fluctuations of HIV transmission at the time reflected among white male heterosexuals a pattern akin to the effects of complicity and awareness in heterosexuals: the point is that the symptoms lessen when the causes are addressed."
Ah, okay. I will agree with you. Once you look at causes, you can tackle the issue.
"What laws? To find that no law prohibits does not mean a law has been created."
http://www.rjrutkowski.com/editorial_marriage2.htm - A nice editorial on the subject, regarding wild interpretation which essentially forces a creation of a new law, if not all ready amounts to a new law passed.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/samesex.marriage/index.html - This raises a point that many people detest the fact that judges, which aren't elected, are making such decisions. That is to say, it is the most undemocratic aspect of the US government that is acting in such a way.
"And yes, it is fear. Convince me otherwise, please."
Well actually, let me ask you a question: Do you consider "fear" to amount to any idea that "bad things will come of this"? Or do you imply "fear" in a personal sense? Because in general, I am refering to it in the personal sense, not the detached variation.
"My religious outlook, that is, my understanding of the concept of God, makes no prohibition against homosexuality. Any law that sets irrational and discriminatory prohibitions against homosexuals violates my religious outlook. Then again, my religious outlook is my business. The factual outlook is something else entirely. Homophobes complaining about the effects of the way they want things in order to make things stay the same does not make sense."
You are free to hold this belief. But that you hold this belief only means that you hold this belief. Homosexuals don't get to, by their religious beliefs, change laws, anymore than anyone else.
"Besides, homosexuality is a gender issue, and gender is protected. Y'know, equal protection? "
There is nothing at all in the constitution that speaks of sexual preferences. Gender, yes, but gender is "male or female". Moreover, that is just voting. One cannot deny women the vote, but one can deny them pretty much everything else which is not granted to all citizens.
"- Owing to the repetetive and irrational nature of the exclusionary heterosupremacist argument, bigotry is what it is. The impact such policies bring to bear on the lives of their victims is tragic, and it is very hateful to wish such ill onto other people. Were the cause of heterosupremacist exclusionism some sort of just and rational end built on rational bases, it would be hateful nor bigoted."
Again, rational objections to the behaviour, moral reasoning, et cetera, et cetera...
Must I quote St. Thomas Aquinas or something to show to you that there are indeed well thought out arguments against homosexuality?
"- If the appearances of inflexible words like bigotry and hate are so difficult to behold, how is it that you can stand to argue such an absolute and inflexible perspective? "
Actually, I am not here strongly protesting homosexuality. At best, I am weakly doing so, and only in a limited sphere. But my objection resides in the fact that hate and bigotry presuppose an irrational basis for arguments presented. This is not necessarily so.
"Think of the drug war in the U.S., specifically the part that deals with marijuana. Opponents of legalization mourn marijuana's service as a "gateway" drug to both a criminal underworld and escalation of drug-use habits. Yet it is the very cause of such associations between marijuana, criminality, and increased use of drugs less stable that the legalization effort seeks to address. It seems odd to think that those things on the list to be addressed by an outlook should be held, for their very existence, against the proposal. It's like arguing against poverty awareness because poor people exist."
Arguments can be made that marijuana legalization only promotes its usage, therefore, increasing the propensity for those to seek greater crimes. Moreover, of course taking criminality out of the equation divorces it from crime, but this would be the case in any crime. Making stealing legal would destroy theft, but you know, -stealing would be legal-.
"You're kidding, right?
Really, that was almost funny."
Prerequisites, no matter what they are based on, are -necessary- for the proper functioning of society.
"Really, what gives the irrational fears--see, hatred is a symptom, a symptom of fear, and its actual result is to give you more to fear--of heterosupremacists any more credibility than a Down's syndrome case? Should we all have to decorate our homes with unicorns and rainbows?"
People hate ugliness. Does ugliness necessarily invoke fear? It can - such as in the case of horrible monsters and the like - but not necessarily. This would seem to undermine the notion that "all hate is fear". Similarly, one needn't hate homosexuality to proclaim that homosexuality should not be given the same legal rights as heterosexuality.
"What are the Amendments most recently proposed? A flag-burning amendment designed to limit free speech? A marriage amendment designed to insist on the propriety of gender discrimination?"
Considering the other amendments to the bill of rights are arbitrary, why not?
You will note that the Bill of Rights begins with negative rights, which limit an entity (government). Why not limit certain other things? We've even passed a (admittedly disasterous) amendment to prohibit alcohol sales.
"Yeah, sure, whatever. What we giveth, we also taketh away. Recent attempts by the Congressional GOP to limit the power of the judiciary have met with little success. The idea that people have no recourse under the law tends to distress Americans, but even by your expressed belief I'm having a hard time figuring out this "legislating from the bench" thing. I mean, we seem to agree on certain aspects of it, but tend to see the situation vastly differently. Perhaps you have a more exclusive or restrictive interpretation of the Constiution than I do."
When at least I use the term "legislation from the bench", I am addressing the fact that recent judicial rulings tend to extend the power of judiciary from "assuring things are in line with the constitution", to "enacting social policy and over turning legislative decisions with wide public support". This may result from the necessary subjectivity of all judicial rulings, and the fact that a single judge - or even a group of judges - can act virtually unopposed and one can do little to counteract this, but have 66 percent of the legislature on one's side, or trust in one's stacking of the court with sympathetic judges.
I would also extend this to the Supreme Court Ruling on emminent domain and on banning states from declaring medical marijuana to be legal.
But yes, I do believe we also have a philosophical difference in regards to our interpretation of what the constitution necessarily entails.
"I tend to wonder what the problem is. (As to Nace's book, though ... yeah, some of those decisions confuse the hell out of me.)"
The problem is that it is viewed as an abbrogation of the judicial process.
"What about public ballot initiative? Toss it?"
No. If the ballot initiative meets the prerequisites for being put on the ballot, then it must be allowed.
"Same-sex marriage, however, remained unimaginable because marriage had two traditional functions that were inapplicable to gays and lesbians. First, marriage allowed families to increase their household labor force by having children. Throughout much of history, upper-class men divorced their wives if their marriage did not produce children, while peasants often wouldn't marry until a premarital pregnancy confirmed the woman's fertility ...."
It is true that marriage has primarily been about the raising of children. However, I would like some scholarly resources on the last claim. I have heard it once or twice casually mentioned, but if you could provide the footnote for such a thing, I'd be interested.
".... In addition, 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.""
I believe I asked you, or someone else, whether or not the last part of that quote was found in the law, or an editorial edition by a speaking on the topic.
"This law of "coverture" was supposed to reflect the command of God and the essential nature of humans. It stipulated that a wife could not enter into legal contracts or own property on her own. In 1863, a New York court warned that giving wives independent property rights would "sow the seeds of perpetual discord," potentially dooming marriage."
This does not entail "baby factoryhood". It does entail that the law reflected a belief that the man should have some rights that the woman did not have. Specifically, it tried to prevent marriage partners from having assets and property not to be found in the possession of the other. Technically speaking, so long as they were married, the wife owned everything her husband did.
"Even after coverture had lost its legal force, courts, legislators and the public still cleaved to the belief that marriage required husbands and wives to play totally different domestic roles. In 1958, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the traditional legal view that wives (unlike husbands) couldn't sue for loss of the personal services, including housekeeping and the sexual attentions, of their spouses. The judges reasoned that only wives were expected to provide such personal services anyway."
Well considering men had a role of providing certain care and the like in exchange for such things, it would stand to reason that women could not sue for sex.
"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. (Koontz, Stephanie; July 7, 2005)"
Note that the law demanded that the man provide for the family. This is a mutual obligation. A contract.
"If you really need me to go through and index all the statutes for you, give me a few years at least."
That would be excessive. So no.
"I had asked for a rational reason. And yes, I understand it's hypothetical. But do you see the problem? "Genocide"? "Regulating the fate of ... races"? "Ethnic cleansing"?"
I would say that, at the very least, moves to promote diversity are undermined by an insistance on intermixing. The way to keep diversity is to segregate. This is how dog breeds, for instance, retain their unique identity. In so much as a total mixing of races would eventually destroy both as unique entities, it is genocidal.
Note that the Russian forces entering Germany raped three million German women in an attempt to destroy the German race through polluting the gene pool. That this only worked in part - I imagine only a fraction of the women actually became pregnant afterwards, or survived through the brutal treatment in the harsh post war conditions - is fortunate.
"Just so I understand: Are you comparing one's senses of love and attraction to the deliberate choice to, say, massacre thousands through forced starvation, hacking machetes, or gas chambers? Consider the idea that my daughter falls in love with a black man: how, rationally speaking, would this be akin to genocide, ethnic cleansing, &c.?"
Genocide progresses by single actions. If enough people interbreed, eventually that is enough to cause a genocide over a long enough period of time. That the act is not objectionable on the small scale, does not change the fact that eventually it will result in this if not arrested.
"With promiscuity and STD's, for instance, it seems that the heterosupremacists wish to maintain one of the major contributors to risky behavior--e.g. "the closet"--in order to have a basis for complaining about the idea of reducing that contribution."
It is widely claimed that homosexuals are more sexually open with one another, as men want sex more. The popular German band Rammstein recently made a song to this affect, supposively inspired by gay friends of the Band, namely, "Mann gegen Mann". Similarly, it is not just closetted men that have such promiscious relationships. Many openly gay men, in openly gay areas, in openly gay atmospheres, engage in this behaviour. One can hardly claim that "gay havens" such as San Fransisco, New York, London, Berlin, Paris, with tons of this behaviour going on, would provoke promiscuity out of a well known gay populace.
STDs are also exacerbated by the acts themselves. Lesbians, for instance, have the least amount of contraction of many STDS, do the fact that the non-penetrative aspects of their sexual engagements (barring "toys" and such) prevent many of the main contributions to such infections.
"The procreation argument falls through, as well. If any marriage is supposed to produce children, and a barren marriage is sanctioned, the only real difference between my parents' marriage and a gay marriage is the fact of differing gender. "
The difference is quite simple: Whereas heterosexuals -can- have children, homosexuals -cannot-. That some heterosexuals are sterile does not categorically deny the capacity for heterosexuals to produce children, whereas gays categorically cannot.
"And yet societies appeal to thinks such as logical, rational thinking, and care much about the appearance of integrity. If people have standards, why not aspire to them instead of look for others to beat over the head?"
Some societies do. Some Western, post-enlightenment societies, that is. You will note that arguments from tradition hold far more sway in much of the rest of the world, specifically in the Orient.
"The reversed arguments generally don't make sense. Consider an aspect of Roper v. Simmons: the decision to not execute offenders who were juveniles at the time of their crime does have some weight in sentimental terms, that people don't like to execute children, but the decision could not stand without having answered factual questions about the processes of juvenile brains. To reverse that factual argument would include the reversal of principle so that, "Structural and procedural differences about juvenile and adult brains not significant of different structures and processes, will tend toward different results, and therefore should not be regarded as equals in terms of moral and decisive outcomes; thus, juvenile offenders should be treated the same as adult offenders because there is no difference in the decision-making process that leads to criminal behavior." Or ... uh, something like that."
The idea in such a defense would be to invalidate the major differences in juvenile and adult brain structures, specifically in light of the fact that current scientific theory is at best, ambigious about such things. The idea is that one is stressing the importance of one thing. Stress the importance of the other - the true reverse - and you get a different answer. I.E. "Juveniles still come to rational decisions about bad behaviour, and despite some minor brain differences, commit vicious crimes that are substantially no different than adult crimes, hence, ought to be executed, specifically as juveniles above a certain age, cannot possibly be considered morally inculpable any further".
"Furthermore, the exclusivity you refer to certainly has to do with more substantial justifications than mere aesthetics."
Let us begin with the fact that the United States had an exclusivist conception of democratic rights to an engrained demi-aristocracy with gentry elements before it expanded its view over two centuries. In either case, though, it was declaring "a right that one is born with", just as the old nobles would proclaim that it was their born right.
"And it's a weak argument in this case."
In so much as homosexuality is found in nature, yes. But Natural Law is not about finding "what happens amongst animals". That is, presuming this is why you meant that it is a "weak argument".
"See Numbers 5: if a man suspects his wife of jealousy, he takes her to the priest; the priest makes her drink a liquid that will either cause her great pain or not--"
This is an old tradition, found amongst many cultures, that physical results will accord with guilt. The idea - held by both man and woman - is that innocence will free someone from it. That this was irrational is only to be found in modern scientific knowledge, where we know that someone's ability to withstand certain punishments or drink certain poisons.
Also, it is a wee bit different than "the right to poison your wife", as it requires a judicial person (a priest) and acquiesence of the wife to it. At the very least, if she is guilty, she can confess of it to avoid being poisoned. The only problem is that her innocence is not necessarily proved.
"One is inherent, the other must be conceived and enforced."
Rights as inherent to everyone demands just as much whimsy on the part of humanity, when one considers that force is the main arbitrator in this world. That someone has a "right" to anything, generally requires a sophisticated framework. Consider Hobbes' natural rights in "Leviathan", as well as later Enlightenment philosophers on the subject.
In fact, if one were to be brutally honest, one might conclude that "rights belong to the strong and dominate" according to Darwin. Note the rights of the alpha of the wolf pack.
"Who has the inherent right to judge and stratify? Lacking judgment and stratification, there is no justification for removing any person's rights. What we claim for ourselves, if we are equals, we give to other people. Otherwise, there really isn't much point to humans existing in societies."
That we are equals must first be justified. In fact, that we are clearly are unequal in many respects suggests that equality is a myth. Societies actually use the inequalities to assure that society works, by delineating the farmer's work to the farmer, the blacksmith's work to the blacksmith, the warrior's work to the warrior, et cetera. If they were all equal, they'd participate equally in all tasks and with equal skill. They do not.
"Social structures are ubiquitous, it seems. But that should tell you something about fundamental human nature, too."
Social structures are indeed ubiquitous, but the notion of human freedom in a democratic system akin to the United States with declared laws and rights is another thing.
"Right, well, how much time would you like to spend on the history that is while considering the things that need to be done? Obviously, as little as possible, since your discriminatory solutions don't even bother with the questions except to get irritated at gay people that they exist at all."
What history are you referencing?
"Thanks for the Gay City News article; there's nothing in there that's news to me, but at least you're looking around. I do appreciate it."
A pleasure.
"In fact, I've found more recent numbers than the ones I've referred to in the most recent past. I need to find a better copy of the numbers, but according to a 2005 article, Latino gay HIV transmission has flattened off. I did finally find an old Sciforums topic that is a factor in my outlook. Unfortunately, the article link (a Yahoo! News link) is broken."
I had trouble finding such recent findings, as I do believe that statistics generally take a few years to compile from various sources. Of course, this means that we're always dealing with data a few years antiquated, but it seems enough.
"That's not quite it. The fluctuations of HIV transmission at the time reflected among white male heterosexuals a pattern akin to the effects of complicity and awareness in heterosexuals: the point is that the symptoms lessen when the causes are addressed."
Ah, okay. I will agree with you. Once you look at causes, you can tackle the issue.
"What laws? To find that no law prohibits does not mean a law has been created."
http://www.rjrutkowski.com/editorial_marriage2.htm - A nice editorial on the subject, regarding wild interpretation which essentially forces a creation of a new law, if not all ready amounts to a new law passed.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/samesex.marriage/index.html - This raises a point that many people detest the fact that judges, which aren't elected, are making such decisions. That is to say, it is the most undemocratic aspect of the US government that is acting in such a way.
"And yes, it is fear. Convince me otherwise, please."
Well actually, let me ask you a question: Do you consider "fear" to amount to any idea that "bad things will come of this"? Or do you imply "fear" in a personal sense? Because in general, I am refering to it in the personal sense, not the detached variation.
"My religious outlook, that is, my understanding of the concept of God, makes no prohibition against homosexuality. Any law that sets irrational and discriminatory prohibitions against homosexuals violates my religious outlook. Then again, my religious outlook is my business. The factual outlook is something else entirely. Homophobes complaining about the effects of the way they want things in order to make things stay the same does not make sense."
You are free to hold this belief. But that you hold this belief only means that you hold this belief. Homosexuals don't get to, by their religious beliefs, change laws, anymore than anyone else.
"Besides, homosexuality is a gender issue, and gender is protected. Y'know, equal protection? "
There is nothing at all in the constitution that speaks of sexual preferences. Gender, yes, but gender is "male or female". Moreover, that is just voting. One cannot deny women the vote, but one can deny them pretty much everything else which is not granted to all citizens.
Prince James said:
If you think it would be helpful, by all means.
I concur that your presentation is weak, but my assertion of hatred and bigotry arises from fifteen years of examining the issue and having yet to hear a rational basis for the homophobic position. Furthermore, it is worth noting that I came to consciousness of these issues because of homophobes. Had they not made ballot issues out of disenfranchising people from society based on the genders of their lovers, homosexuals would probably not have seen the civil-rights progress they’ve experienced in that time.
And arguments can be made that the moon is made out of cheese. After all, any moon rocks suggesting the contrary are false; arguments can be made, after all, that the whole moon trip was a fake.
Are you intentionally missing the point, or is this one of those handicaps I’m obliged to respect because it’s not your fault?
Likewise, the day marijuana became illegal, the government was faced with millions of new criminals. Remember that marijuana originally became illegal because of and through Congress’ power to regulate commerce. Look up Harry Anslinger someday; it’s too long a digression to make a point out of in this topic.
The proper functioning of society depends on a rational and appropriate basis for any given prerequisites. Such as driving: who cares if we give driver’s licenses to the blind? That you would consider gender as compelling a prerequisite as competency (e.g. retarded or not?) is interesting.
Perceived ugliness does evoke fear. It is often an irrational fear, such as fearing that one can “catch” mental retardation, obesity, &c. Furthermore, when the homophobes actually get a rational point to their argument, you might have a point that one need not hate homosexuality to discriminate against it. For instance, I would not dream of denying your right to discriminate between the sexual encounters that will or will not bring you fulfillment. Nor would I, so long as those encounters involve proper consent of the participants, discriminate against you legally for the fact of whatever circumstances bring you fulfillment.
Considering the alternatives made people so miserable they went to war, I think it’s very difficult to call the Bill of Rights arbitrary. Considering the philosophical history that helped develop the Bill of Rights, I find it ridiculous to call those amendments arbitrary.
Are you playing a character here, or do you really believe that people can’t learn, and that history describes a series of arbitrary outcomes?
The main body of the U.S. Constitution outlines what powers the government has according to the consent of the governed. The “negative rights” of the government entity are the limitations of government power that were expressly left out of the main body. The government of the United States is empowered to the service of the people.
Here’s the problem with your “negative rights” proposition: In the past, and still in the present, and almost assuredly in the future, Christian advocates have made curious pleas to government agencies. Those pleas involve the idea that a published work is somehow offensive to the Christian conscience. The solution offered by the complaining Christian advocates has routinely been to restrict publication of, distribution, or access to the offending materials. In short, the idea is that a Christian’s right to free speech and religion is violated by the mere recognition of another’s—e.g. the offending author. That is, the Christian’s first amendment right is fulfilled only when another’s is specifically violated.
Now, whether you agree with that assertion or not, would you include government in that right? Is the government such an independent entity that it can assert its right to free speech? Well, if people exist for the sake of government, yes. But in a society where government is expected to exist for the benefit of the people, no. “Negative rights” of governmental entities is a proposition that depends on a different assertion of government than the one your proposition examines.
And look at the disaster of prohibition: this is the problem of amending the U.S. Constitution for narrow and prohibitive concerns.
So would most of the conservative knee-jerks whose assertions I have characterized. But what, for example, are you talking about? What decisions?
What’s the Eminent Domain precedent? The medical marijuana’s a mess, I admit, but in line with judicial history.
If the prerequisite demands constitutionality, should a Secretary of State decide? If the prerequisite does not expressly demand constitutionality, what will happen when an unconstitutional statute passes the people and gets hauled into court? Should the judges just say, “To hell with the constitution?” Again, we come back to anti-miscegenation laws. The court could have deferred to public sentiment, but instead deferred to the Constitution. There are still some folks who are sore over that one.
Well, you know, there’s an entire church out there founded on the whim of a guy who had his wife thrown in prison for failing to bear a male child; of course, at the time he couldn’t have known that the problem was his, not hers.
Add it to the list, though. I’ll get to it when I’m not on restricted time. As a side commentary, though, this is what happens when people stop paying attention to history.
I’m not as good at looking up English Common Laws, but yes, that the one is the husband was part of the law.
Wow. That’s an interpretation, all right. I’m impressed. Really, I am. You’re so discordant to history that I’m thinking this is some sort of anemic character act you’re putting on. Maybe it’s not so anemic; after all, that one took some creativity.
Er … what?!
Never mind. I’d probably rather not know.
What? Marriage as legalized prostitution? Sex as a contractual obligation? I’ve never heard of such a thing. After all, it’s not like feminists made that point thirty years ago and have been ridiculed for it ever since.
What are the inherent rights of a “race”? The “race” itself, I mean, and not the individuals of that “race”?
A “race” has no rights. It is an abstract concept. If a “race” disappears because the people of that “race” choose to marry and mingle with people of another “race”, there is nothing the “race” can do except reassert itself through nature somewhere down the line.
The ideals of either Nazi Germany or Bolshevik Russia do not make a good case example for the rest of society. That one group held a warped assertion while another responded with an equally twisted notion is an example of human shortcomings, the kind of things that will make the “human race” nonexistent.
I suppose I fail to see how it matters. “Race” is a hideously wrong notion in human history, as people have done little by it except find reasons to hate one another and fail to cooperate. If the “races” are “wiped out through genocide” as people stop caring about skin color and eye formation in matters of love and trust, it would be of great comfort to those of us who wonder anxiously about the future of the human species.
Interesting way of looking at sexual openness. I recently drank with a fellow who makes a point of pronouncing his heterosexuality, and yet he was very determined to find some reason to show me his cock. Hmph. As to Rammstein … so a crappy techno band made a song about their friends; that’s exactly what it is: a crappy song about a band’s friends. Extrapolation is in the mind of the beholder.
Given that I accept the claim of general gay promiscuity for its prevalence in the culture—since my personal experience has been to the directly contrary—I fail to see your point. Given that my heterosexual risks far outweigh my homosexual risks, at least in my own history, the whole thing seems kind of strange to me. Observationally, the nearest I can figure is that the statistics about the closet, whether involving sex, drugs, religion, &c., have the greatest credibility. That STD’s are on the rise in minority communities where there is a stronger prejudice against homosexuality, and homosexuals are more inclined to stay closeted … look, even I know from experience that experiences from the closet are more risky than those in the open. It’s a long, long explanation for someone unwilling to see what is so apparent, but perhaps in the near future I will attempt it for you. After all, it is important to me, in the end, that people understand. Yes, it’s hard for someone to hear that they’re being hateful, but sometimes that’s life. I’d rather help people get over it than rub their noses in it.
I’ll try to get back to the parts I missed in a later post.
tiassa:
"If you think it would be helpful, by all means."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q154_A11.html
The argument begins here, although you may want to read the entire section to get a grasp for his arguments against lust. Of course, St. Thomas Aquinas was also religious, but his primary foundations for his philosophy is Aristoleanism.
"I concur that your presentation is weak, but my assertion of hatred and bigotry arises from fifteen years of examining the issue and having yet to hear a rational basis for the homophobic position. Furthermore, it is worth noting that I came to consciousness of these issues because of homophobes. Had they not made ballot issues out of disenfranchising people from society based on the genders of their lovers, homosexuals would probably not have seen the civil-rights progress they’ve experienced in that time."
Actually, I do believe the gay rights movement began in the 60s, did it not?
"And arguments can be made that the moon is made out of cheese. After all, any moon rocks suggesting the contrary are false; arguments can be made, after all, that the whole moon trip was a fake."
Are you saying that marijuana, if it is truly a gateway drug - which studies do show a correlation in marijuana usage before going onto heavier drugs - that people will not be more likely to try cocaine, crack, opium, or various other illegal drugs?
"Likewise, the day marijuana became illegal, the government was faced with millions of new criminals. Remember that marijuana originally became illegal because of and through Congress’ power to regulate commerce. Look up Harry Anslinger someday; it’s too long a digression to make a point out of in this topic."
I'm quite aware of its history, yes. But of course, when you make anything illegal one is met with new criminals. Tomorrow, make eating pizza illegal, and millions should be made criminals.
"The proper functioning of society depends on a rational and appropriate basis for any given prerequisites. Such as driving: who cares if we give driver’s licenses to the blind? That you would consider gender as compelling a prerequisite as competency (e.g. retarded or not?) is interesting."
ACtually, gender all ready does play a role in determinations of prerequisites for certain activities. Women are prohibited from direct-combat roles in the military, for instance.
"Perceived ugliness does evoke fear. It is often an irrational fear, such as fearing that one can “catch” mental retardation, obesity, &c. Furthermore, when the homophobes actually get a rational point to their argument, you might have a point that one need not hate homosexuality to discriminate against it. For instance, I would not dream of denying your right to discriminate between the sexual encounters that will or will not bring you fulfillment. Nor would I, so long as those encounters involve proper consent of the participants, discriminate against you legally for the fact of whatever circumstances bring you fulfillment."
Some people respond that way, yes. But others can say "I do not want people to be obese, or retarded, because they suffer". This implies a hatred of the condition because of its causes, but not of the person, nor of a fear.
"Considering the alternatives made people so miserable they went to war, I think it’s very difficult to call the Bill of Rights arbitrary. Considering the philosophical history that helped develop the Bill of Rights, I find it ridiculous to call those amendments arbitrary."
People did indeed go to war, but not over the bill of rights. The bill of rights came almost a decade after the American Revolution. Of course, some of the foundations of such were found in the Lockean Natural Law language of Jefferson's constitution, but "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is far different from the specific rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, societies can and do function outside of these rights and there is no ontological necessity in adhering to them, hence, arbitrary.
"Are you playing a character here, or do you really believe that people can’t learn, and that history describes a series of arbitrary outcomes?"
I do not view history as progressive, but cyclic, on the foundation of human nature's predisposition to -not- learning from her mistakes, and not only that, but for true greatness and intelligence to be found in only a fraction of the population. For every Jefferson, there are a thousand Fillmores.
Also, I am myself extremely for an amendment that would criminalize flag burning. I do not see why traitorous actions need be allowed.
"Now, whether you agree with that assertion or not, would you include government in that right? Is the government such an independent entity that it can assert its right to free speech? Well, if people exist for the sake of government, yes. But in a society where government is expected to exist for the benefit of the people, no. “Negative rights” of governmental entities is a proposition that depends on a different assertion of government than the one your proposition examines."
As governments, despite being formed "by the people, for the people", do take on aspects of actual beings, and that they take on a "life of their own" through the action of the leaders of said governments, and that they exist quite apart from the average voter's control (and only in collection can the voters matter at all), it would seem that yes, a government does demand "free speech" and various other rights. That they are limited in this realm in theory (but basically impossibly under practice if the populace is not willing to wage an armed insurrection) is only because tyranny can often be too difficult in certain situations to enforce. But you should also note that the Constitution has gradually moved towards said tyranny, through instituting such things as a constitutional amendment that allowed them to tax income legally.
But this is all very tangential to the topic at hand.
The constitution has, and continues to, exclude people. It used to exclude blacks and women and now excludes those under 18 from the right to vote.
"And look at the disaster of prohibition: this is the problem of amending the U.S. Constitution for narrow and prohibitive concerns."
Or it shows the disaster of mandating social change. What is demanding homosexual marriage be legal but doign the same thing?
"So would most of the conservative knee-jerks whose assertions I have characterized. But what, for example, are you talking about? What decisions?"
Massachusetts SUpreme Court ruling on gay marriage and the US Supreme Court Ruling on Medical Marijuana come to mind. I would also state that Eminent Domain rulings in the US Supreme Court are of a type of this legislation from the bench and amount to a wholesale acceptance of highway robbery.
"What’s the Eminent Domain precedent? The medical marijuana’s a mess, I admit, but in line with judicial history."
The Eminent Domain case rested on the legality of eminent domain when there was a "public use" and fair and just compensation was offered. In a Supreme Court Ruling last year, this allowed "public use" to also include such things as "commercial development", so basically, one's town can force one to leave one's property if they want a Wal-Mart on your land. This leads to rampant government corruption as well as a total and complete violation of property rights, specifically as "public use" is not to be found in private corporations getting land, just because they can be taxed by that government.
"If the prerequisite demands constitutionality, should a Secretary of State decide? If the prerequisite does not expressly demand constitutionality, what will happen when an unconstitutional statute passes the people and gets hauled into court? Should the judges just say, “To hell with the constitution?” Again, we come back to anti-miscegenation laws. The court could have deferred to public sentiment, but instead deferred to the Constitution. There are still some folks who are sore over that one."
If the prerequisite demands constitutionality, then the appropriate authorities for the determination of constitutionality ought to be asked to evaluate, in a system that allows appeal, said constitutionality, although actually, the public's vote should be considered in the very same rulings, as public will is -crucial- to the establishment of what it means to have a constitution in the first place.
But actually, miscegenation was widely held to be legal by many, many courts, before another court determined it differently. This tends to happen in our history a lot. If judicial ruling is to be considered so sacred, does not this undermine it?
"Well, you know, there’s an entire church out there founded on the whim of a guy who had his wife thrown in prison for failing to bear a male child; of course, at the time he couldn’t have known that the problem was his, not hers."
Yes, the great irony of the Anglican Church. But then again, I believe Henry VIII's haunch of meat makes up for it.
"Add it to the list, though. I’ll get to it when I’m not on restricted time. As a side commentary, though, this is what happens when people stop paying attention to history."
It isn't that horrible to divorce someone which does not satisfy one's demands for an heir.
"I’m not as good at looking up English Common Laws, but yes, that the one is the husband was part of the law."
I just looked up the quote, and actually, it isn't at all English Common Law apparently...
"Charlie Bewell (Louis Calhern) giving fatherly advice to his daughter Susan Dewell Vega (Lucille Ball) on her wedding day in Forever, Darling (1956): ''The thing to remember is that in marriage the husband and wife are one... and the husband is the one.''"
http://www.sex-lexis.com/SYNONYMS/darling
I also found only that paper quoting that English Common Law as such. Considering a movie used the exact same quote and that is the listed thing on "sex-lexis" dictionary, would seem to indicate something amiss.
"Wow. That’s an interpretation, all right. I’m impressed. Really, I am. You’re so discordant to history that I’m thinking this is some sort of anemic character act you’re putting on. Maybe it’s not so anemic; after all, that one took some creativity."
Are you telling me that when a law says "the husband and the wife are one" and the wife is considered to have a legal right to protection and other such things from her husband, that she does not participate in the ownership of the property she maintains in the union with her husband?
"Er … what?!
Never mind. I’d probably rather not know."
Let me ask you this:
John and Jane Doe make a contract. In this contract, John gets to watch professional wrestling and Jane gets to shop for shoes (whoa-ho, how sexist am I?) in exchange for John making sure that Jane has money to buy said shoes, and Jane giving him beer and nachos so he might enjoy Hulk Hogan kicking the hell out of some guy even moreso than normal. Now suppose that Jane wants to watch pro-wrestling with John? Does she have a right of violation of the contract if John refuses? Not at all! However, if she did not have the money to buy on shoes, well then, John would be in violation of the contract, now wouldn't he?
Now replace the above scenarios with the historical considerations. Men = Provide and get sex and cleaning. Women = Provide sex and cleaning, and get provided for. Either violate the other, the contract is broken.
"What? Marriage as legalized prostitution? Sex as a contractual obligation? I’ve never heard of such a thing. After all, it’s not like feminists made that point thirty years ago and have been ridiculed for it ever since."
It has aspects of prostitution to it, yes. As do almost all relationships. We do not give freely of ourselves, but always for a price. A prostitute is simply another example of the capitalistic system that underlies all actions.
"What are the inherent rights of a “race”? The “race” itself, I mean, and not the individuals of that “race”?"
According to UN Treaties, apparently, races have the right to not be annihilated. Genocide and ethnic cleansing are internationally recognized as crimes against humanity. Signatories include the United States.
"A “race” has no rights. It is an abstract concept. If a “race” disappears because the people of that “race” choose to marry and mingle with people of another “race”, there is nothing the “race” can do except reassert itself through nature somewhere down the line."
A race can be exterminated by another race and we call it genocide. If someone were to screw a race out of existence purposefully, would not this be genocide? And is not this part of -every- instance of race mixing?
"The ideals of either Nazi Germany or Bolshevik Russia do not make a good case example for the rest of society. That one group held a warped assertion while another responded with an equally twisted notion is an example of human shortcomings, the kind of things that will make the “human race” nonexistent."
ACtually, violence works as an excellent means of survival. MAD was based on the idea of mutual violence as a force to counteract annihilation from a first-strike. If such destruction was not as assured, we may have engaged in a disasterous nuclear exchange.
But even if Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are not prime examples of humanity - it could, in fact, be argued that they are, in the sense that their violence and militarism are much more in line with history than demi-peaceful Western democracies - they still present a great example of how interbreeding can be a violent act.
"I suppose I fail to see how it matters. “Race” is a hideously wrong notion in human history, as people have done little by it except find reasons to hate one another and fail to cooperate. If the “races” are “wiped out through genocide” as people stop caring about skin color and eye formation in matters of love and trust, it would be of great comfort to those of us who wonder anxiously about the future of the human species."
Races represent genetic adaptation to enviroments over thousands of years, as well as the foundations for cultures which produce either good or bad ends.
"Interesting way of looking at sexual openness. I recently drank with a fellow who makes a point of pronouncing his heterosexuality, and yet he was very determined to find some reason to show me his cock. Hmph. As to Rammstein … so a crappy techno band made a song about their friends; that’s exactly what it is: a crappy song about a band’s friends. Extrapolation is in the mind of the beholder."
Evidently these friends and the German gay scene had neither a problem with the song, nor an objection to its content, and even seemed to agree with the message presented. But that is odd that your "straight" friend, wanted you to see his penis.
"Given that I accept the claim of general gay promiscuity for its prevalence in the culture—since my personal experience has been to the directly contrary—I fail to see your point. Given that my heterosexual risks far outweigh my homosexual risks, at least in my own history, the whole thing seems kind of strange to me."
What do you mean by "heterosexual v. homosexual risks"?
"Observationally, the nearest I can figure is that the statistics about the closet, whether involving sex, drugs, religion, &c., have the greatest credibility. That STD’s are on the rise in minority communities where there is a stronger prejudice against homosexuality, and homosexuals are more inclined to stay closeted"
You must also take into consideration that blacks and latinos are, on average, far less educated, as well as being generally disclined to the practice of contraceptive sex even with heterosexual relations. This is evidenced by the massive amount of bastard children born into these communities, as well as the sexual history of the men and women in terms of partners had over a life time.
Roman:
"Ever hear of the Spartans? "
Spartans had pederastic relationships with boys they mentored. This is significantly different than adult sexual relationships with men and attraction to adult males being endemic. Considering that they were somewhat forced to both marry women and to stay with their wives - the Spartan way of keeping homosexuality out of the picture - this seems to imply that even the Spartans did not sanction sex as a regular practice amongst their men. That it might have happened is possible, yes. But remember also that the Spartans were highly militarized and discipliend to start with and ontop of that, their wives were specificaly meant to be treated as sex objects. Spartan men, throughout the early part of their relationship with their wives, were encouraged to basically screw and go back to manly things later.
"If you think it would be helpful, by all means."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q154_A11.html
The argument begins here, although you may want to read the entire section to get a grasp for his arguments against lust. Of course, St. Thomas Aquinas was also religious, but his primary foundations for his philosophy is Aristoleanism.
"I concur that your presentation is weak, but my assertion of hatred and bigotry arises from fifteen years of examining the issue and having yet to hear a rational basis for the homophobic position. Furthermore, it is worth noting that I came to consciousness of these issues because of homophobes. Had they not made ballot issues out of disenfranchising people from society based on the genders of their lovers, homosexuals would probably not have seen the civil-rights progress they’ve experienced in that time."
Actually, I do believe the gay rights movement began in the 60s, did it not?
"And arguments can be made that the moon is made out of cheese. After all, any moon rocks suggesting the contrary are false; arguments can be made, after all, that the whole moon trip was a fake."
Are you saying that marijuana, if it is truly a gateway drug - which studies do show a correlation in marijuana usage before going onto heavier drugs - that people will not be more likely to try cocaine, crack, opium, or various other illegal drugs?
"Likewise, the day marijuana became illegal, the government was faced with millions of new criminals. Remember that marijuana originally became illegal because of and through Congress’ power to regulate commerce. Look up Harry Anslinger someday; it’s too long a digression to make a point out of in this topic."
I'm quite aware of its history, yes. But of course, when you make anything illegal one is met with new criminals. Tomorrow, make eating pizza illegal, and millions should be made criminals.
"The proper functioning of society depends on a rational and appropriate basis for any given prerequisites. Such as driving: who cares if we give driver’s licenses to the blind? That you would consider gender as compelling a prerequisite as competency (e.g. retarded or not?) is interesting."
ACtually, gender all ready does play a role in determinations of prerequisites for certain activities. Women are prohibited from direct-combat roles in the military, for instance.
"Perceived ugliness does evoke fear. It is often an irrational fear, such as fearing that one can “catch” mental retardation, obesity, &c. Furthermore, when the homophobes actually get a rational point to their argument, you might have a point that one need not hate homosexuality to discriminate against it. For instance, I would not dream of denying your right to discriminate between the sexual encounters that will or will not bring you fulfillment. Nor would I, so long as those encounters involve proper consent of the participants, discriminate against you legally for the fact of whatever circumstances bring you fulfillment."
Some people respond that way, yes. But others can say "I do not want people to be obese, or retarded, because they suffer". This implies a hatred of the condition because of its causes, but not of the person, nor of a fear.
"Considering the alternatives made people so miserable they went to war, I think it’s very difficult to call the Bill of Rights arbitrary. Considering the philosophical history that helped develop the Bill of Rights, I find it ridiculous to call those amendments arbitrary."
People did indeed go to war, but not over the bill of rights. The bill of rights came almost a decade after the American Revolution. Of course, some of the foundations of such were found in the Lockean Natural Law language of Jefferson's constitution, but "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is far different from the specific rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, societies can and do function outside of these rights and there is no ontological necessity in adhering to them, hence, arbitrary.
"Are you playing a character here, or do you really believe that people can’t learn, and that history describes a series of arbitrary outcomes?"
I do not view history as progressive, but cyclic, on the foundation of human nature's predisposition to -not- learning from her mistakes, and not only that, but for true greatness and intelligence to be found in only a fraction of the population. For every Jefferson, there are a thousand Fillmores.
Also, I am myself extremely for an amendment that would criminalize flag burning. I do not see why traitorous actions need be allowed.
"Now, whether you agree with that assertion or not, would you include government in that right? Is the government such an independent entity that it can assert its right to free speech? Well, if people exist for the sake of government, yes. But in a society where government is expected to exist for the benefit of the people, no. “Negative rights” of governmental entities is a proposition that depends on a different assertion of government than the one your proposition examines."
As governments, despite being formed "by the people, for the people", do take on aspects of actual beings, and that they take on a "life of their own" through the action of the leaders of said governments, and that they exist quite apart from the average voter's control (and only in collection can the voters matter at all), it would seem that yes, a government does demand "free speech" and various other rights. That they are limited in this realm in theory (but basically impossibly under practice if the populace is not willing to wage an armed insurrection) is only because tyranny can often be too difficult in certain situations to enforce. But you should also note that the Constitution has gradually moved towards said tyranny, through instituting such things as a constitutional amendment that allowed them to tax income legally.
But this is all very tangential to the topic at hand.
The constitution has, and continues to, exclude people. It used to exclude blacks and women and now excludes those under 18 from the right to vote.
"And look at the disaster of prohibition: this is the problem of amending the U.S. Constitution for narrow and prohibitive concerns."
Or it shows the disaster of mandating social change. What is demanding homosexual marriage be legal but doign the same thing?
"So would most of the conservative knee-jerks whose assertions I have characterized. But what, for example, are you talking about? What decisions?"
Massachusetts SUpreme Court ruling on gay marriage and the US Supreme Court Ruling on Medical Marijuana come to mind. I would also state that Eminent Domain rulings in the US Supreme Court are of a type of this legislation from the bench and amount to a wholesale acceptance of highway robbery.
"What’s the Eminent Domain precedent? The medical marijuana’s a mess, I admit, but in line with judicial history."
The Eminent Domain case rested on the legality of eminent domain when there was a "public use" and fair and just compensation was offered. In a Supreme Court Ruling last year, this allowed "public use" to also include such things as "commercial development", so basically, one's town can force one to leave one's property if they want a Wal-Mart on your land. This leads to rampant government corruption as well as a total and complete violation of property rights, specifically as "public use" is not to be found in private corporations getting land, just because they can be taxed by that government.
"If the prerequisite demands constitutionality, should a Secretary of State decide? If the prerequisite does not expressly demand constitutionality, what will happen when an unconstitutional statute passes the people and gets hauled into court? Should the judges just say, “To hell with the constitution?” Again, we come back to anti-miscegenation laws. The court could have deferred to public sentiment, but instead deferred to the Constitution. There are still some folks who are sore over that one."
If the prerequisite demands constitutionality, then the appropriate authorities for the determination of constitutionality ought to be asked to evaluate, in a system that allows appeal, said constitutionality, although actually, the public's vote should be considered in the very same rulings, as public will is -crucial- to the establishment of what it means to have a constitution in the first place.
But actually, miscegenation was widely held to be legal by many, many courts, before another court determined it differently. This tends to happen in our history a lot. If judicial ruling is to be considered so sacred, does not this undermine it?
"Well, you know, there’s an entire church out there founded on the whim of a guy who had his wife thrown in prison for failing to bear a male child; of course, at the time he couldn’t have known that the problem was his, not hers."
Yes, the great irony of the Anglican Church. But then again, I believe Henry VIII's haunch of meat makes up for it.
"Add it to the list, though. I’ll get to it when I’m not on restricted time. As a side commentary, though, this is what happens when people stop paying attention to history."
It isn't that horrible to divorce someone which does not satisfy one's demands for an heir.
"I’m not as good at looking up English Common Laws, but yes, that the one is the husband was part of the law."
I just looked up the quote, and actually, it isn't at all English Common Law apparently...
"Charlie Bewell (Louis Calhern) giving fatherly advice to his daughter Susan Dewell Vega (Lucille Ball) on her wedding day in Forever, Darling (1956): ''The thing to remember is that in marriage the husband and wife are one... and the husband is the one.''"
http://www.sex-lexis.com/SYNONYMS/darling
I also found only that paper quoting that English Common Law as such. Considering a movie used the exact same quote and that is the listed thing on "sex-lexis" dictionary, would seem to indicate something amiss.
"Wow. That’s an interpretation, all right. I’m impressed. Really, I am. You’re so discordant to history that I’m thinking this is some sort of anemic character act you’re putting on. Maybe it’s not so anemic; after all, that one took some creativity."
Are you telling me that when a law says "the husband and the wife are one" and the wife is considered to have a legal right to protection and other such things from her husband, that she does not participate in the ownership of the property she maintains in the union with her husband?
"Er … what?!
Never mind. I’d probably rather not know."
Let me ask you this:
John and Jane Doe make a contract. In this contract, John gets to watch professional wrestling and Jane gets to shop for shoes (whoa-ho, how sexist am I?) in exchange for John making sure that Jane has money to buy said shoes, and Jane giving him beer and nachos so he might enjoy Hulk Hogan kicking the hell out of some guy even moreso than normal. Now suppose that Jane wants to watch pro-wrestling with John? Does she have a right of violation of the contract if John refuses? Not at all! However, if she did not have the money to buy on shoes, well then, John would be in violation of the contract, now wouldn't he?
Now replace the above scenarios with the historical considerations. Men = Provide and get sex and cleaning. Women = Provide sex and cleaning, and get provided for. Either violate the other, the contract is broken.
"What? Marriage as legalized prostitution? Sex as a contractual obligation? I’ve never heard of such a thing. After all, it’s not like feminists made that point thirty years ago and have been ridiculed for it ever since."
It has aspects of prostitution to it, yes. As do almost all relationships. We do not give freely of ourselves, but always for a price. A prostitute is simply another example of the capitalistic system that underlies all actions.
"What are the inherent rights of a “race”? The “race” itself, I mean, and not the individuals of that “race”?"
According to UN Treaties, apparently, races have the right to not be annihilated. Genocide and ethnic cleansing are internationally recognized as crimes against humanity. Signatories include the United States.
"A “race” has no rights. It is an abstract concept. If a “race” disappears because the people of that “race” choose to marry and mingle with people of another “race”, there is nothing the “race” can do except reassert itself through nature somewhere down the line."
A race can be exterminated by another race and we call it genocide. If someone were to screw a race out of existence purposefully, would not this be genocide? And is not this part of -every- instance of race mixing?
"The ideals of either Nazi Germany or Bolshevik Russia do not make a good case example for the rest of society. That one group held a warped assertion while another responded with an equally twisted notion is an example of human shortcomings, the kind of things that will make the “human race” nonexistent."
ACtually, violence works as an excellent means of survival. MAD was based on the idea of mutual violence as a force to counteract annihilation from a first-strike. If such destruction was not as assured, we may have engaged in a disasterous nuclear exchange.
But even if Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are not prime examples of humanity - it could, in fact, be argued that they are, in the sense that their violence and militarism are much more in line with history than demi-peaceful Western democracies - they still present a great example of how interbreeding can be a violent act.
"I suppose I fail to see how it matters. “Race” is a hideously wrong notion in human history, as people have done little by it except find reasons to hate one another and fail to cooperate. If the “races” are “wiped out through genocide” as people stop caring about skin color and eye formation in matters of love and trust, it would be of great comfort to those of us who wonder anxiously about the future of the human species."
Races represent genetic adaptation to enviroments over thousands of years, as well as the foundations for cultures which produce either good or bad ends.
"Interesting way of looking at sexual openness. I recently drank with a fellow who makes a point of pronouncing his heterosexuality, and yet he was very determined to find some reason to show me his cock. Hmph. As to Rammstein … so a crappy techno band made a song about their friends; that’s exactly what it is: a crappy song about a band’s friends. Extrapolation is in the mind of the beholder."
Evidently these friends and the German gay scene had neither a problem with the song, nor an objection to its content, and even seemed to agree with the message presented. But that is odd that your "straight" friend, wanted you to see his penis.
"Given that I accept the claim of general gay promiscuity for its prevalence in the culture—since my personal experience has been to the directly contrary—I fail to see your point. Given that my heterosexual risks far outweigh my homosexual risks, at least in my own history, the whole thing seems kind of strange to me."
What do you mean by "heterosexual v. homosexual risks"?
"Observationally, the nearest I can figure is that the statistics about the closet, whether involving sex, drugs, religion, &c., have the greatest credibility. That STD’s are on the rise in minority communities where there is a stronger prejudice against homosexuality, and homosexuals are more inclined to stay closeted"
You must also take into consideration that blacks and latinos are, on average, far less educated, as well as being generally disclined to the practice of contraceptive sex even with heterosexual relations. This is evidenced by the massive amount of bastard children born into these communities, as well as the sexual history of the men and women in terms of partners had over a life time.
Roman:
"Ever hear of the Spartans? "
Spartans had pederastic relationships with boys they mentored. This is significantly different than adult sexual relationships with men and attraction to adult males being endemic. Considering that they were somewhat forced to both marry women and to stay with their wives - the Spartan way of keeping homosexuality out of the picture - this seems to imply that even the Spartans did not sanction sex as a regular practice amongst their men. That it might have happened is possible, yes. But remember also that the Spartans were highly militarized and discipliend to start with and ontop of that, their wives were specificaly meant to be treated as sex objects. Spartan men, throughout the early part of their relationship with their wives, were encouraged to basically screw and go back to manly things later.
Roman:
"They actually didn't stay with their wives. Men an women were kept in different households."
I'm fairly certain you are wrong on that one after the initial stages of marriage. Men would not be permitted to sleep in the barracks a few years into the marriage.
"They actually didn't stay with their wives. Men an women were kept in different households."
I'm fairly certain you are wrong on that one after the initial stages of marriage. Men would not be permitted to sleep in the barracks a few years into the marriage.