+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Den of the Philociraptor (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=43)
+--- Thread: This is sooo gay (/showthread.php?tid=473)
This is sooo gay - Nintendarse - 14th June 2003
No, ABF, that's not quite right.
There are two main arguments for equal rights: one f the equates homosexuality with race, the other equates homosexuality with religion.
The first one is obvious. If homosexuality is as controlled as race by genetics, it is not just to decriminate against these people.
The second one states that even if homosexuality is as much of a choice as religion, what makes it fair to descriminate based upon homosexuality but not religion?
Weltall, in his most moderate moments, is arguing that because there is no evidence for a gay gene, homosexuals should not have special rights. If, by special rights, he means, "rights that heterosexual people do not have," I agree with him. If he defines special rights as rights that heterosexual people take for granted (sex, military service, civil union), I disagree with him.
Some people equate homosexuality to murder. It's okay to have impulses, as long as you don't act on them. This comes from a belief that some actions are inherently wrong. This usually comes from the Bible. In this code, murder (Thou shalt not kill) and homosexuality (Thou shalt not lie with another man as you would a woman) are inherently wrong. I have to say I completely respect the opinions of these people. My opinion is no better than theirs in the context of personal discussion. The problem I have is when this religious code is applied to the people of a nation which was founded on the belief that the values of the church and the values of the state must be separate. The "Bible" of the United States is the US Constitution.
My understanding of the Constitution is that you have the right to do anything you desire unless it conflicts with a higher right of another person/group of people. You have the right to move about in free space as you wish...until your fist strikes another person. In this case, the right of physical integrity (protection from assault) is held higher than the right of free movement. Many people disagree with this interpretation of the Constitution, but I find that it gives a much more universal understanding of morals.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 14th June 2003
Yeah, you're free to do or say whatever you want as long as it follows the law (no "fire" in a theater, no yelling that you want to kill the president to police officers or something, etc...). That means its equally true for neonazis as it is for people like us... until someone gets violent. This should apply to actions, too... its okay unless it hurts others in some way. And homosexuality does NOT hurt others... nor would civil unions/getting rid of sodomy laws/allowing military service.
Except for homophobes, but the government shouldn't pander to hate.
Oh, and Nintendarse, what about the middle ground between those two extemes?
This is sooo gay - alien space marine - 15th June 2003
Some Sodomy rules are good as it helps add charges to child molestors , Some man who rapes a young boy will get charged for rape and sodomy meaning longer Jail time.So perhaps this law needs to be modified like no unvoluntary sodomy , So if a guy grabs another guys nuts to twist them to inflict pain not in a sexual manner, he can still be charged for sodomy.
This is sooo gay - N-Man - 15th June 2003
Er... how about we just make child molestation laws more strict?
This is sooo gay - alien space marine - 15th June 2003
The sodomy law goes wider to adults as well , hence the sodomy assualt to humiliate someone.
This is sooo gay - N-Man - 15th June 2003
Sodomy is "an unusual sexual act, especially anal intercourse or bestiality". In that sense, I don't think physical assault involving genitalia would qualify as sodomy; it'd be hard to convince the jury, in any case.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 15th June 2003
Sodomy laws are there to supress homosexuals. No other reason. You don't exactly need sodomy laws for child molesters... they already have some pretty harsh laws about that... and its very good that the courts keep striking them down. I hope it continues.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 15th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Sodomy laws are there to supress homosexuals. No other reason. You don't exactly need sodomy laws for child molesters... they already have some pretty harsh laws about that... and its very good that the courts keep striking them down. I hope it continues.
I agree on that point. It could be changed to 'underage or non-consensual sodomy' to help tack on the time for pedos.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 15th June 2003
You agree sodomy should be legal? Given your positions, why?
and aren't any non-consensual sexual acts rape? Does it need two categories?
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 15th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
You agree sodomy should be legal? Given your positions, why?
and aren't any non-consensual sexual acts rape? Does it need two categories?
Because sodomy isn't exclusive to homosexuals. You don't need to be gay to have anal sex.
As for the second note, that is true technically, but as ASM said, it currently helps to add to the prison terms for pedophiles as a seperate charge, in addition to other forms of molestation.
This is sooo gay - Sacred Jellybean - 15th June 2003
Once again, why not just put stricter consequences on infringence of existing child molestation laws? Why should a man who fucked a child up the ass be given more time that a man who forced deep throat upon a child?
And if they only exist for the purpose of penalizing child molesters, then why do the penalties extend to adults engaging in sodomy? What rationalization can explain that? Adults should be allowed to engage in any type of private sexual activity they desire, even if it has potential to kill one of them (ie asphyxiation), as long as they're both/all willing to go through with it.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 15th June 2003
Yeah... I see no need for another law when just toughening up current ones would work just as well...
This is sooo gay - alien space marine - 16th June 2003
Asphyxiation should be ilegal as alot of people die from it .
This is sooo gay - N-Man - 16th June 2003
That is so going into my sig...
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 16th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by Sacred Jellybean
Once again, why not just put stricter consequences on infringence of existing child molestation laws? Why should a man who fucked a child up the ass be given more time that a man who forced deep throat upon a child?
Well, Bill Clinton said that deepthroating isn't sex, remember? Not that I believe him, but still, he almost got away with it.
I don't mean to single out one form of molestation, if seperate extra charges can be made for oral sex pedophelia as well, I'm all for it.
Quote:And if they only exist for the purpose of penalizing child molesters, then why do the penalties extend to adults engaging in sodomy? What rationalization can explain that? Adults should be allowed to engage in any type of private sexual activity they desire, even if it has potential to kill one of them (ie asphyxiation), as long as they're both/all willing to go through with it.
Well, there isn't any way to rationalize it, which is why I said it should be legal for consenting adults.
This is sooo gay - Nintendarse - 19th June 2003
Quote:(http://www.nytimes.com)
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
TORONTO, June 17 — The Canadian cabinet approved a new national policy today to open marriage to gay couples, paving the way for Canada to become the third country to allow same-sex unions.
"You have to look at history as an evolution of society," Prime Minister Jean Chrétien told reporters after a meeting of his cabinet. "According to the interpretation of the courts these unions should be legal in Canada. We will ensure that our legislation includes and legally recognizes the union of same-sex couples."
The decision to redefine marriage in Canada to include unions between men and between women will immediately take effect in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. Last week, the province's highest court ruled that current federal marriage laws are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.
Once aides to Mr. Chrétien draft the necessary legislation, the House of Commons is expected to pass it into law in the next few months. Although leaders of the two conservative parties and some Liberals have expressed reservations, there is little organized opposition to such legislation, and public opinion polls show a solid majority in favor of the change.
The policy opens the way for same-sex couples from the United States and around the world to travel here to marry, since Canada has no marriage residency requirements. In addition, gay-rights advocates in the United States are already declaring that Canada will serve as a vivid example to Americans that same-sex marriage is workable and offers no challenge to traditional heterosexual family life.
No American state allows same-sex marriage, but Vermont has enacted a law providing for civil unions, which allow gay couples many of the benefits of marriage.
Canadian marriage licenses have always been accepted in the United States, but now that the definition of marriage in the two countries appears likely to diverge, legal challenges to same-sex couples claiming rights and privileges deriving from their Canadian marriages seem certain to arise in at least some states.
This is sooo gay - Darunia - 19th June 2003
Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, dammit...gays need some new form of consecration that isnt marriage....MAKE UP A NEW ONE, DAMMIT!
This is sooo gay - OB1 - 19th June 2003
gayrige?
This is sooo gay - alien space marine - 19th June 2003
I agree, They should get some other form that offers simular benefits.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 19th June 2003
What's wrong with Civil Union like Vermont?
This is sooo gay - Nintendarse - 19th June 2003
Are you saying that the United States should conquer Canada and force them to conform to our view of marriage? ;)
...not that I wouldn't mind conquering Canada, but it doesn't seem to be the democratic thing to do. Of course, we could convince a majority of the United States that Canada has Weapons of Mass Destruction and that we are liberating Canada from a maniacal Communist government. :D
In all seriousness, the logical train goes like this.
1. Homosexuals have equal rights.
2. Marriage is a right.
3. Denying marriage to homosexuals would break #1.
This has parallels to the Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court case, which was about an interracial marriage.
1. African Americans have equal rights.
2. To say that African Americans cannot marry Caucasians is to assume that, in the eye of the law, African Americans and Caucasians are not the same
3. To deny marriage to the interracial couple would break #1.
Where it gets confusing is the whole organized religion comes into play. The government cannot force the church to do same-sex marriages, but to declare that same-sex marriages cannot exist would be a blatant contradiction of #1.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 19th June 2003
Is marriage really a right though? I'm certain that it would be implied and not expressed if it were. I'm just not certain that marriage is a guaranteed right to anyone.
This is sooo gay - Nintendarse - 19th June 2003
Two possible responses. I like both ways of thinking about it, but you'll probably like the first better.
1. Marriage is recognized as a right within the realm of privacy by Loving v. Virginia. It's pretty clear on that.
2. The United States Constitution does not say everything that you can do. The creators of the Constitution knew that there were rights that they couldn't think of that might pop up in the future. In addition, they knew that cultural values change. Instead of interpreting the Constitution as a list of rights you have, I prefer to interpret it as a list of protected rights. As long as you're not breaching anyone's protected rights, you have the right to do anything you want. I mean, the Constitution does not explicitly say that you have the right to move. Does that mean that everyone in the United States is breaking the law?
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 19th June 2003
Marriage a right? Well not in the Constitution, but as Nintendarse said that doesn't have everything in it... and I'd say that marriage is a central part of life. The law doesn't regulate if you can join this company or that, so why should it outlaw this? Its not like marriage is just a religious thing... far from it...
And it is a private issue so it really shouldn't be anyone else's business. If two people want to marry, so be it.
That is exactly what the Canadian Supreme Court just said... but I bet it'll be quite some time until we get there.
After all the current gay-right issue on the US Supreme Court isn't marriage, or even insuring equal rights... its whether they should continue to be criminals!
This is sooo gay - alien space marine - 20th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by Nintendarse
Are you saying that the United States should conquer Canada and force them to conform to our view of marriage? ;)
...not that I wouldn't mind conquering Canada, but it doesn't seem to be the democratic thing to do. Of course, we could convince a majority of the United States that Canada has Weapons of Mass Destruction and that we are liberating Canada from a maniacal Communist government. :D
In all seriousness, the logical train goes like this.
1. Homosexuals have equal rights.
2. Marriage is a right.
3. Denying marriage to homosexuals would break #1.
This has parallels to the Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court case, which was about an interracial marriage.
1. African Americans have equal rights.
2. To say that African Americans cannot marry Caucasians is to assume that, in the eye of the law, African Americans and Caucasians are not the same
3. To deny marriage to the interracial couple would break #1.
Where it gets confusing is the whole organized religion comes into play. The government cannot force the church to do same-sex marriages, but to declare that same-sex marriages cannot exist would be a blatant contradiction of #1.
In regards to interracial marriage it is not comdemned in the bible and infact it is accepted and protected by the law of god.The reason it is not accepted by many is because of racism or fear of racial tensions not that I agree with that reasoning.
as for homosexuals same sex marriage the church has the right to marry who the wish to , If they dont accept it they are not to be critized their beliefs should be respected. If they feel marriage is only for hetrosexuals its their decision the homosexuals can go to another church like the united church.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 20th June 2003
Sure, you could go to a different church. But homosexuals could only legally marry if it is legal in that state. And in the United States it is illegal for homosexuals to be married. So you could have a declaration of something, but not a marriage, unless we change the law.
This is sooo gay - Darunia - 20th June 2003
What's wrong with Civil Union like Vermont?
That's fine and dandy, I just feel that the term "marriage" should be reserved for a man and a woman. It was created for that.
This is sooo gay - Nintendarse - 21st June 2003
Quote:as for homosexuals same sex marriage the church has the right to marry who the wish to , If they dont accept it they are not to be critized their beliefs should be respected
I agree in part, disagree in part.
On one hand, I agree that just as National law should not be influenced by the Bible (Constitution is the US's "Bible"), it is not the right of the state to influence the church. It's a mutual separation.
On the other hand, demanding no criticism is a bit hypocritical. While the church's freedom of speech is to be respected, the freedom of speech of critics must be infringed upon? I've heard several people in support of the Iraq war say, "The freedom of speech protects the government from stopping you speak. It doesn't protect you from criticism." As a moderate liberal, I agree with them. Freedom of speech is a protection from governmental criticism, not societal criticism.