Law: How is gay different than (_blank_)?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

How is being gay different than being a (I don't know what the real word for this) [a practitioner of bestiality.]

A zoophiliac.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

[Mercedes Benzene]

Regarding the original question of this thread:
There ARE laws that make discrimination against homosexuals illegal...

Whether people choose to follow those laws or not is up to them... but its just like any case of discrimination: If you have a problem, go to the Supreme Court.

[Panjandrum]

Homosexuality is no diffrent than any other sexual deviation, such as kiddy love and s&m. So long as its consensual, I dont see how anyone can object. After all, its only sex.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

Homosexuality is no diffrent than any other sexual deviation, such as kiddy love and s&m. So long as its consensual, I dont see how anyone can object. After all, its only sex.

You assume homosexuality is "deviant" and that it's equivalent to what is basically rape. And then you say "as long as it's consensual" making yourself seem reasonable - but at the same time intentionally creating an emotional response with your evocation of "kiddy love."

A) Homosexuality may be "deviant" in the sense that it's not the norm, but it's not "deviant" in that it's inevitably harmful to the fabric of society.

B) Pedophilia cannot be consensual because children are incapable of giving informed consent to that kind of thing.

C) S&M is not "deviant" in the same way that either of those things is because it's a 'fetish' and not an attraction pattern.

That'll do for starters.

TFS

[HydrogenBond]

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

I brought up two fringe behaviors, i.e.,having sex with children and with animals. I am against both but they do offer an interesting parallel to current afairs like gay marriage. Let us look at beastiality. There is a lot of historic occurances of this. even on contemporary times, everyone has probably seen a dog hump a human leg. There are some people who just like sheep or other barnyard critters. Is there a beastiality gene? And if there is, does that mean these people also have the cultural right to bang animals, since the animals don't seem to really mind. Nobody is getting hurt. It is only sex and pleasure from two consenting life forms.

Picture if the females of culture began to feel sorry for the poor animal packers as they are perscecuted for coming out of the closet. The want culture to be more sensitive to their needs. They nag and convince the males to think with their hearts instead of their brains. Overtime, the men stop being coldly rational and become more subjective until they feel compassion for the animal bangers to where this becomes more socially acceptable, and protected by hate crime laws.

Consider the situation created in culture. Almost all people love animals, the majority of Americans have pets. They love their pets because their pets offer unconditional love and acceptance. Most people would never think of banging Fido, but now that banging Fido is socially acceptable ( as long as he consents), maybe that is a way to get even closer. Culture says this is OK, only religion resists and everyone knows religion is out of touch with the times. This would extend beastialty beyond those with the carte blanche genetic seal of approval into a cultural and psychological justification that was created by its cultural acceptance. People will begin to justify their new unnatural tendancies, as relative behavior, with the helpful support of the genetic and the psychological communities. This would also lead to try-sexual behavior, i.e, try anything at least once

During this time, gay bashing would subside because there is a new moral problem in town. Many of the gays are divided over the issue and team up with the religious right. This aliance allows a compromise to be reached such that the gays have their civil unions. As time goes on, the beatials begin to want to marry their mates since this behavior is becoming more mainstream. Why shouldn't man's best friend also be his mate for life. The shorter lifespan of animals allows one to have many mates over one's lifetime without the need of divorce. The beastials decide they wish to use the same term as the gays "civil union".

Civil union was original designed to mean a monogamous union between two loving and commited people of the same sex. Now the beastials wish to use this same term to descibe their unnatural marriage to animals. This new meaning would rob the original phrase of its spiritual meaning and turn it into something else. How does one think the gays would react?

I am not comparing the homosexuals to the beastials but are just going through a logical progression to put the shoe on the other foot.

[TheFaithfulStone]

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

Neither are children.

"Adult" relationships that are not between consenting adults are deviant because they harm someone (or something)

TFS

[arkain101]

I thought south park did a funny show on this.

A gay man got a surgery to become a women. He had all the parts, yet still was attracted to the same sex.

He called himself a women. He said I am not gay I am a strait women! The thing was, gay people no longer were attracted to him.

It actually made some sense. This can show a perspective on the issue pretty clearly. Many homosexuals could become women, and if they do, would they still be gay?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

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

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

[HydrogenBond]

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

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

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

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

.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

One person's behavior does affect another.

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

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

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

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

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

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

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


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

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