Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I disagree. It's the belief that there is insufficient evidence to make a conclusion about other belief systems. It, like atheism, is an extremely comfortable belief system - they're both based on "it's not my fault". And there is no "lack of the need" - the need is very strong in both cases, and atheists and agnostics are usually very passionate about their belief systems. I think agnosticism is usually NOT about truly searching - it's an entrenched belief.

I'm passionate about preserving the diversity of belief systems on our planet by encouraging people of those different belief systems to not just tolerate one another, but to appreciate and truly accept one another. I think our similarities as human beings far outweigh the flavor of beliefs we hold, and this includes my own. The problems most people wish to control in their lives are the same whether you are christian, hindu or muslim.

So I guess you can call it just another belief system. But I think characterizing it as "just the same" as fundamentalist belief systems is a vast generalization that doesn't take into account the fact that I don't believe the way I do because I know that I'm right. That doesn't really matter one way or another. I believe the way I do because I'm concerned about the people around me.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Well, marriage is a state approval of a union, or else a religious one. If you take the state out, then religious will be the only opportunity, which would effectively eliminate the possibility for nonreligious persons, which I think would be wrong.

But anyway, I think that the state should recognise heterosexual marriages, because they are ordered to family, which is the building block of society, apart from offering a nonreligious option.

Non-religious people get married all the time in all kinds of ceremonies. The ceremonies exist separate from religion and often state. In fact, homosexuals have been getting married for ages, sometimes within a religious context, sometimes not, it just hasn't been "legal".

The problem with marriage is our need to define it as a state. Imagine that if to join a religion you had to first register for a license with the government. They would have no right to tell you whether or not you could join that religion, but they asked for it to be registered none-the-less.

This is what marriage is in our society. State recognition of something the state has no business being a part of. We would lose absolutely nothing by taking the government out of the marriage business.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's a much deeper issue than you realise, I suspect.

I'm talking about my two-plus years of posts in this very thread, or previous incarnations of it.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And of course, the biggest question is: If not divine statute, then who or what has the right to determine right or wrong? If not God/gods/, then what is the standard? A Form of Good? If so, where does it come from?

As to where it comes from, as a sometimes skeptical supporter of Evolutionary Psychology, I believe it came out of the needs of an increasingly intelligent social animal to establish some way of living together successfully in groups.
How we justify and maintain those standards when we know where they came from is the tough part.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But you didn't answer my question about tolerance - here it is again:

Well, someone that tolerates an even broader range of sexual behavior would be "more tolerant" than someone that just favors adding gay marriage to the definition - is "more tolerant" always better? I would think you would disagree at some point along that line. So again, it's just a matter of differing opinions.

Sorry. You are quite right, though instead of a line, I think of it as more of a multidimensional space

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Where are they defined?

In the minds of those who experience them

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Are they always the same?

No

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why should my "right" be any less right than your "right" or TWfM's "right"?

It could be "wrong".

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If "right" changes, maybe people that we think are "wrong" are just ahead of their time, right?

Could be, but they would still be "wrong"

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If something is written in "some divine statue book somewhere", does that necessarily make it wrong?

No! If it were, it would be "right", presumably by definition. And the fact that a person might believe this to be so doesn't affect its rightness or wrongness per se.

But all this "relativism means you can do what the hell you want" is hair splitting. In reality, people don't, and yet ALL morality is clearly relative.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

As to where it comes from, as a sometimes skeptical supporter of Evolutionary Psychology, I believe it came out of the needs of an increasingly intelligent social animal to establish some way of living together successfully in groups.

Exactly!

and that's where religion came from as well

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Re: rights: No, I am not. You're not making important distinctions. First, there is a distinction between toleration of people and toleration of actions. If I didn't tolerate gays, then I would take a shotgun and go out and shoot them.

Don’t exaggerate Gwaimir. I don’t tolerate murderers but I don’t go out and shoot them. In fact I try not to interact with them at all. But if they come to my door I don’t let them in. And if they apply for a gun license I think they should be rejected. How intolerant of me!

I don't really think gay marriage is a matter of tolerance, as I laid out before.

And as I laid out in response I just don’t see how you can get around the fact that attempting to ban certain people from having the same rights as you based SOLEY on the inherent nature of those people is both discriminatory and grossly intolerant.

But there's no such as some vague recognition in general; it has to be recognition by some entity. In this case, that entity is a state, and I have a right to voice my opinion that that state should not recognise such unions.

You can voice your opinion all you want. As I said before that would make you basically just pig headed and not necessarily intolerant. Create a notarized legal document that basically states that I, Gwaimir, do officially and publicly announce my firm disagreement with the concept and conception of gay marriage and do not hereby officially recognize said marriages. And be done with it. But when you actually ENGAGE in actions that inhibit the right of another to do what you can freely do you are acting in an intolerant manner, in this case in regard to gays and gay marriage.

But again, it's merely an erroneous understanding of the (admittedly very vague) term "boy".

I don’t think its necessarily “erroneous�. I think the term “boy� is too broad a term to peg on a subset of adolescents only. After all couldn’t a 1 year old be a “boy�? And a 30 year old (to an 80 year old’s perspective)?

Anyway, even if child-molesting were the issue, no one would be saying that gays and child-molestors are the same.

Ha some people certainly do. Ive heard it more times then I can count. And certainly clever people with anti-gay agendas will as frequently as possible include both terms in the same argument as a means of harm by false association. And THAT even happens here with some frequency Ive noticed.

If you want, we can have another discussion on that.

Um what was it we were talking about here again?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That's not the equivalent at ALL. Homosexuals are so called
because of a certain BEHAVIOR or predilection towards a certain
BEHAVIOR. Being black or white is not a BEHAVIOR or a
predilection towards a BEHAVIOR.

Homosexuals are NOT defined by behavior. Homosexuals can be homosexuals without ever engaging in homosexual sex. Just as heterosexuals can be heterosexuals without ever engaging in heterosexual sex.

As far as “predilections� (I see you’ve added that term to your usual ‘behavior only’ argument) that’s the whole point here. If homosexuality is an integral part of their nature (just as some concentration of melanin is an integral part of the nature of a “black� person) then the comparison stands quite soundly.

I'll clear it up myself. I am NOT talking about molestation,
ok? I am NOT talking about molestation. I am talking about
adult/child sex, with both parties consenting.

Rian you know very well a CHILD cannot consent to sex. Period. Our society has determined based on known data and thereby set into law that a CHILD does not have the capacity to determine if engaging in sex with an adult is something beneficial to them or not. There are many strong reasons for this that are well known and any psychologist worth his salt could explain them to you. So unless the pedophiles can counter the evidence with enough credible evidence of their own showing that a CHILD SHOULD be having lots of sex early and often for THEIR benefit then it’s a ridiculous tactic to use in this discussion quite frankly.

Now if you want to talk about (as I said to Gwaimer) Adult/Teen sex that’s a whole different ball game. But when you use the term “boy� and “child� yer way out of line in this comparison.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Homosexuals are NOT defined by behavior. Homosexuals can be homosexuals without ever engaging in homosexual sex. Just as heterosexuals can be heterosexuals without ever engaging in heterosexual sex.

I tend to disagree. I think that the term homosexual better applies to someone who engages in those activities. It is our actions which define us, not predilections we're born with

As far as “predilections� (I see you’ve added that term to your usual ‘behavior only’ argument) that’s the whole point here. If homosexuality is an integral part of their nature (just as some concentration of melanin is an integral part of the nature of a “black� person) then the comparison stands quite soundly.

Rian you know very well a CHILD cannot consent to sex. Period. Our society has determined based on known data and thereby set into law that a CHILD does not have the capacity to determine if engaging in sex with an adult is something beneficial to them or not.

That's absurd. Consent according to Dictionary.com:

"To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent."

It's readily apparent that a child can agree to participate in sexual intercourse; consent merely involves an act of the will (and usually a vocalisation thereof, but not necessarily). Anyway, data CANNOT determine whether anyone has the capacity to determine something, especially something like this. You're playing fast and loose with words in the Major League here, IR.

[Insidious Rex]

No Im not. You knew exactly what I meant there. Sure a child can consent to something (if you want to be a technical stickler) but because they are a child (in this society) their consent is not recognized as legal. And to trick a child into literally consenting to sex is the equivilent of sexual abuse. I child can also drive if they like but the chances of that activity leading to injury or death are greatly increased despite what the child (or any adult) thinks is best.

I tend to disagree. I think that the term homosexual better applies to someone who engages in those activities. It is our actions which define us, not predilections we're born with

Then what do you call a person who is only attracted to the opposite sex but does not have sex?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Then what do you call a person who is only attracted to the opposite sex but does not have sex?

A priest!

Oh wait, that doesn't work either.

[Insidious Rex]

Then that settles it! Priests should NOT be allowed to marry! Lets make a constitutional amendmant!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

No Im not. You knew exactly what I meant there. Sure a child can consent to something (if you want to be a technical stickler) but because they are a child (in this society) their consent is not recognized as legal. And to trick a child into literally consenting to sex is the equivilent of sexual abuse. I child can also drive if they like but the chances of that activity leading to injury or death are greatly increased despite what the child (or any adult) thinks is best

I think this is based upon a poor idea of children. You seem to regard them as some kind of lower life-form, or some category or race separate from us. They aren't, they're smaller, less mature, but they are rational animals, they can make intelligent decisions. A child can consent without being "tricked" into it, I think.

If a man tells a woman that he loves her, and wants to marry, and through this enters into the sexual act with her, then dumps her, is this (legally speaking) abuse? Tricking someone into it is not necessarily abuse from a legal POV.

Driving is so vastly different from the sexual act that it is irrelevant. And if you try to draw parallels, I'm pretty sure it will make your post censor-material.

Then what do you call a person who is only attracted to the opposite sex but does not have sex?

Whether someone is attracted to the opposite or same sex, I call someone who does not have sex celibate.

[hectorberlioz]

Though I should say, Gwai, that not all children were raised in homes were rationale was championed...some kids can be tricked.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The lack of championing of rational does not negate one's innate ability to reason. All or practically all men have the capacity to reason, regardless of their background. Some kids can be tricked (or see through trickery) regardless of their background. Same is true of adults.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

I tend to disagree. I think that the term homosexual better applies to someone who engages in those activities. It is our actions which define us, not predilections we're born with

Please specify what you mean by 'those activities'.

One of the problems I'm seeing with this debate we're having is that it is focusing exclusively on male-male relationships.

What about female homosexuals?

Homosexual sex between two females is more likely to resemble heterosexual foreplay, does that make their attraction to eachother any less vaild?

And you are all forgetting that homosexual relationships are not just about sex. Outside of the bedroom, can you truly say that behavior exhibited by homosexual partners is significantly different from behavior shown by heterosexual couples?

What about courtship behavior?

Would you claim that both types of couples don't go on dates, don't give eachother gifts, don't sneak cuddles when the parents aren't looking, etc.? That homosexual couples aren't couples until they've had sex and until that happens they're what? Just close friends?

What I see happening is a dehumanizing. People try to isolate one single, clear cut cause so that they can say 'That's wrong' or 'That's right'. But human relationships don't work that way. You can't say that sexuality is defined by behavior, or genetics, or choice alone because it's really defined by a combination of all three, just like everything else that we consider human.

And instead of actually listening to each other and resolving the true issue, that a majority group unjustifiably feels threatened by a minority group and is trying to limit them by excluding them from a cultural practice which the government rewards, is being drowned in statistics and subjective definitons and religion and politics and ridiculous cause/effect arguments.

It is entirely frustrating.

They aren't, they're smaller, less mature, but they are rational animals, they can make intelligent decisions.

But the logic they use to get to those decisions is what matters and children do not have fully developed critical thinking skills. Most children think using 'will I be rewarded or punished for this' logic. Even if an adult means to give them a real choice in the matter, said adult will likely be attempting to persuade them to say yes, and because the proposed sex may sound like a reward and because most children expect punishment for saying no and will wish to avoid that a child will be likely to consent.

It is rational consent. It is not informed consent. Therefore it does not constitute legal consent.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I think this is based upon a poor idea of children. You seem to regard them as some kind of lower life-form, or some category or race separate from us. They aren't, they're smaller, less mature, but they are rational animals, they can make intelligent decisions. A child can consent without being "tricked" into it, I think.

You really seriously think a child can make competent rational consent choices about sexual activities on the same level as an adult? If so you need to catch up on some 150 years of child psychology data regarding both the cognitive and physiological reality of the average child’s brain. Either that or go sit in at a recess for a kindergarten class in your neighborhood and watch the interaction…

If a man tells a woman that he loves her, and wants to marry, and through this enters into the sexual act with her, then dumps her, is this (legally speaking) abuse?

No its not LEGALLY speaking abuse because if she is of a certain age in our society then she is eligible to BE abused by others all they want in this manner. It makes the others cads and pigs perhaps but not criminals. One would hope she would learn from it if it does happen to her but its not a prerequisite. Sure adults can make stupid mistakes (some do it all their lives) but that doesn’t at all take away from the fact that a childs mind and body is vastly different from an adult’s. A childs physiology and psychology is vastly different from an adult’s. This is why the concept of 5 year olds driving cars is a bad idea. This is ALSO why the concept of 5 year olds giving their consent to have sex is a bad idea also. Are there 5 year olds out there that can hang? Sure. Are there 40 year olds out there who consistently let others abuse them? Sure but that’s not a good enough justification to lower the age of consent to 5 or increase the age of consent to 41. You gotta go by what we know about children IN GENERAL.

Driving is so vastly different from the sexual act that it is irrelevant. And if you try to draw parallels, I'm pretty sure it will make your post censor-material.

It’s a great comparison. Don’t be afraid just because I make good analogies. I wasn’t speaking from the point of view of a dirty mind there necessarily. They both have the potential to cause great harm to the child do they not? They both require a kind of cognitive logical thinking that doesn’t develop until later in life. That’s simply a fact. So age restriction makes sense on both.

Whether someone is attracted to the opposite or same sex, I call someone who does not have sex celibate.

Sure they are either a celibate homosexual or a celibate heterosexual…

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

It's more like the difference between the Nazi attitude toward Jews and the historical Christian attitude.

To the Nazis, Jews were a racial group, whereas to the Christians Judaism was a certain behavior that was seen as damaging to the moral standards of the community. If the Jews stopped practising that behavior, they would be accepted as full members of society- therefore it's not discrimination.

Yes it is. Disciminate is to "make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice"; and I think it's done when preventing homosexuals from getting the rights heterosexuals get (i.e. marrying).

Besides, it's not only actions or behavior, and it's not like if they stop doing one thing or another they'd stop being homosexuals...

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

But the logic they use to get to those decisions is what matters and children do not have fully developed critical thinking skills. Most children think using 'will I be rewarded or punished for this' logic. Even if an adult means to give them a real choice in the matter, said adult will likely be attempting to persuade them to say yes, and because the proposed sex may sound like a reward and because most children expect punishment for saying no and will wish to avoid that a child will be likely to consent.

It is rational consent. It is not informed consent. Therefore it does not constitute legal consent.

Very true. Children also lack the maturity and experience to know that sexual activity will have harmful effects on them in the long term - most children just don't know enough about sex to know what they're consenting to, so their agreement can hardly be called true consent.

[klatukatt]

(Comment: This thread grows faster than the Teacup!)

[BeardofPants]

I don't have anything new to add, but hear ****ing hear Lady M. That is a very valid point you raise RE: what makes a couple, and YES it is more than the sex, and who sticks what in which hole. People often forget that. One of my best friends is gay, and lo! and behold, SHE isn't humping her girlfriend like bunnies in heat when she's around me. There's more to their relationship than fiddling with each other's bits.