Law: How is gay different than (_blank_)?

TheFaithfulStone · 06-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

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

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

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

TFS

Kriminal99 · 06-24-2006

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

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

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

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

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

Cedars · 06-24-2006

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

HydrogenBond · 06-24-2006

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

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

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

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

InfiniteNow · 06-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

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

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

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

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

Cedars · 06-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

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

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

jamongo · 06-24-2006

I wonder, but not very often, if there are not many many more homosexuals males than we are aware of.
Listening to some English expressions has caused me great concern.
How many times have you heard one man say to another:
"Kiss my a$$!-- Definitely a homosexual act!
"Up Yours!" -- Absolutely!
"F..k you!" -- What else but?
"Suck my d----!" Top of the list!
I think if you have ever used such expressions, you might want to take a deep look into your psychological depths before you answer the thread question.

Michaelangelica · 10-28-2006

Quote:

A wild, and gay, kingdom

Oct. 24, 2006
Courtesy The Research Council of Norway
and World Science staff

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

all.[/
http://www.world-science.net/otherne...ay-animals.htm