Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It affects the society that I live in, so it affects me. Period.

But that says nothing about anything being forced on YOU as you stated. Where as BANNING people from marrying DOES directly affect them. Not simply their “society�. They are in effect being FORCED to live their lives (in regard to marriage) as you want them to.

Then open marriage up to anyone(s) and anything(s) and any definition (including marrows) if you want to be logically consistent. If not, then we're on the same playing field - you have your definition, I have mine.

No. The distinction that you continue to ignore is that I am only for banning people from doing something where such action causes direct restriction of freedoms and liberties to others as noted by the constitution. Like for example murdering someone or legislating that minorities cant vote, etc. If such freedoms and liberties are NOT restricted then there is no reason not to allow the action to take place. But you are for banning people from doing something that doesn’t cause any restrictions of freedoms or liberties for you or others. Restricting such action would be by definition unjustly discriminatory. Where as the former is simply discriminatory. So we are not on the same playing field. That’s a bogus rationalization. What you want to do in a nut shell is unjustly discriminate against others and use the concept of majority rule in a democracy as your rational for doing such. But the same rationalization was used in the past for unjust discriminations and to use it here is no better.

A person's definition of harm depends on their worldview. If mine is right, then homosexuality is definitely harmful.

Then if you think “homosexuality is definitely harmful� then you will have to be as adamant about banning gays from being gay as you are about keeping them from marrying. To be logically consistent… And furthermore if your logic is what causes harm should be banned then you better get ready to support a long list of things to ban and banish. And on the list would be marriage in any form since this has been shown to cause great harm to some.

Then your "it's not harmful" argument is empty, too!

Yes that’s a good way to convince me Rian. Ignore the data and just repeat.

I don't recall anything in the constitution saying that a person can't vote according to their beliefs. How in the world do you get that it's unconstitutional?

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.�

Youll note im NOT referring to the First Amendment there if that’s what you were worried about. So isn’t necessarily the fact that your using the bible as your basis for discriminating unjustly against others (since your ultimate rational for this is because it is mentioned in the bible) but that you are simply unjustly discriminating against certain people thus restricting them of their rightful “privileges�, their rightful “liberties� and the “equal protection� laid out above.

If you were atheist and saying gays shouldn’t marry because you felt it was harmful to them you would be as guilty of restricting those items as a religious Christian is. The argument either way is ban it because I think it causes harm even though I cant prove it and even though harm is no reason to suppress liberties (and freedom of expression by the way).

[inked]

Gaffer,

Your definition of fascism is a bit off:
"But that's not what makes it fascism-lite. Fascism is, if you like, the tyranny of the majority, where people in certain minority groups are forced to conform to a norm."


fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj.
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,� but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


fascism

n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)


I had rather gathered you were old enough to know better by experience or exposure to those who did know better. It is erroneous to define it as you do.

[Rían]

Only time for one -

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Then if you think “homosexuality is definitely harmful� then you will have to be as adamant about banning gays from being gay as you are about keeping them from marrying. To be logically consistent… And furthermore if your logic is what causes harm should be banned then you better get ready to support a long list of things to ban and banish. And on the list would be marriage in any form since this has been shown to cause great harm to some.

I've never said I think everything that I think is harmful should be legislated against. I think enforceability should also be considered, among other things. I don't think homosexual acts between consenting adults should be legislated against, even though I think it's wrong.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

No problem, it's good mental exercise for me.

Yay, someone who likes to think as much as I do!!

Originally Posted by Gaffer

Ohh, baby that's some sweet, sweet marrow.

LOL!

[Lotesse]

Post Edited out: off topic, flame inciting/baiting. Please only post in this topic if you have something positive to add to this discussion.

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've never said I think everything that I think is harmful should be legislated against. I think enforceability should also be considered, among other things. I don't think homosexual acts between consenting adults should be legislated against, even though I think it's wrong.

Good. Thank you.

I just felt like pointing out (mostly for my own amusement) that I am currently in a relationship with one guy (sexual and nostalgic), one girl (emotionally wonderful), and also courting one of her friends (purely sexual).

Insert segue here.

It is possible to be emotionally attracted to one gender but be sexually attracted to the other instead of just being fully attracted to one gender.

Insert segue here.

And all women are a bit bisexual just because women are so pretty that EVERYONE looks at them, not just guys. Whatever created women in Her image, the female body is a beautiful thing that turns heads when used properly.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Post Edited out: off topic, flame inciting/baiting. Please only post in this topic if you have something positive to add to this discussion.

Attention: I said nothing incitive, flaming, baiting, or negative. Same old stuff, man, every time I come here. Gotta edit every single post I make!! How funny. I was merely pointing out that The Gaffer, Lady M, Brownjenkins and Insidious Rex made excellent and graceful and intelligent arguments here, and in my opinion, won the arguments that have been going on, over & over again, hands down, with CLASS. Nothing negative there, folks.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

Whatever created women in Her image, the female body is a beautiful thing that turns heads when used properly.

Agreed

The male body rocks, too! But in a different way. I think the female body is more "artistically" beautiful. But I don't think one has to be "bisexual" to think this.

[The Gaffer]

As ever, Lotsy has hit the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by inked

Gaffer,

Your definition of fascism is a bit off:

I disagree, though I will not be participating in semantics. People can either engage with the arguments I put forward or not, it's up to them.

Consider for a moment what it would be like to live in a fascist state. Basically, everything is OK as long as you conform to the accepted racial/national/social definition. Since it's only minorities who don't, then it's possible to get away with it by exploiting existing prejudices.

Now, I think we are a long way from this, but there are signs of it. One of the steps down that particular slippery slope is the argument that opposing a war or questioning policy is unpatriotic. Another, IMO, is creating definitions for things like marriage. Consider the huge amount of effort that went into defining Aryan racial characteristics.

Hence the phrase "fascism lite".

While I believe that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman can be considered a symptom of fascism lite, it is a fairly minor element compared with the sort of arguments we routinely see from state sources in the political sphere.

(Things like: it's unpatriotic to point out that the Iraq war is a total disaster, or how the war on terror/drugs/communism/insert-current-bugbear has been stoked up to enable the state to justify itself without recourse to logic or reason. A key tactic for the fascist lite state.)

Having said that it's "fairly minor" (in the path-to-fascism scheme of things), that is not to understate the damage it would cause to millions of individuals. It would also enshrine prejudice in a way that would legitimise some rather nasty views about gays which I am sure are not shared by people here, but which exist in the wider world.

[Elfhelm]

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/076.html

Here is a study of the six fascist regimes and what constitutes their shared characteristics. Since the last three letters of the word are -ist or -ism it is an idea, and does not only refer to the Italian Party of the same name.

Singling out one internal group as "harmful" certainly does fit the pattern.

I provide this particular link because it contains both points of view.

[inked]

Elfhelm

Good resource. I think it supports my contention that fascism was a malapropism as used by TG. The only correlation he makes is the allegation that refusing marriage to G/L/B/T is sufficient to support a designation of fascism lite. Rather strained and overblown, that.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Singling out one internal group as "harmful" certainly does fit the pattern.

Well, seriously, several in this thread have often characterized Christians as a very harmful group - are they fascist?

[The Gaffer]

Well, the rhetorical point was based on the idea of conformity to the majority's definition of acceptable relationships/citizenry/whatever.

And don't get me started, there are endless examples of fascism-lite to be had in recent political events. Looking at Elfhelm's link (thanks for that, very interesting), I don't see any items where there isn't a litany of erosions to be cited from recent years.

No. I don't know anyone on this or any other thread who stated that Christians should be prevented from practising their religion. However, I am a fascist about spelling and punctuation...

* eats shoots and leaves *

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, seriously, several in this thread have often characterized Christians as a very harmful group - are they fascist?

It is when the GOVERNMENT does it. Was that unclear?

Edit: Here is the article by Umberto Eco to which the critic of the previous article refers. In here Eco even specifically states that intolerance of homosexuality is among the fascist tactics.

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've never said I think everything that I think is harmful should be legislated against. I think enforceability should also be considered, among other things. I don't think homosexual acts between consenting adults should be legislated against, even though I think it's wrong.

So then you admit to picking and choosing and being inconsistent in your approach to this. Which is of course what leads people to be perplexed why the "christian right" seems so "obsessed" (as has been said previously) with gays specifically and sex in general.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Since you can't know anything for sure, why bother arguing about anything?

That's exactly why we argue about things. If anyone could know for sure, there would be no argument.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

* eats shoots and leaves *

I heard there were a lot of grammatical errors in that book. Is that true?

Fascism can only be practiced by governments, I thought.


Gay is another natural type of love! <- just thought I'd put something on topic in here.

[inked]

Nurv,

1) I don't know, haven't read it!

2) An astute observation!

3) It is against nature! It's "natural" result is termination of the species.

Oh, well, 1 out of three, that's about the usual for our agreement.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by inked

Nurv,

1) I don't know, haven't read it!

2) An astute observation!

3) It is against nature! It's "natural" result is termination of the species.

Oh, well, 1 out of three, that's about the usual for our agreement.

No, its natural result is not termination of the species, because not the entire species is gay. A small percentage of the species is gay. A small percentage of non-breeders is hardly going to spell termination for the human race; population control at best. Love is natural. Human love, sexual love, is natural. Nothing unnatural about two adult humans loving one another sexually as well as mentally and intellectually.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So then you admit to picking and choosing and being inconsistent in your approach to this. Which is of course what leads people to be perplexed why the "christian right" seems so "obsessed" (as has been said previously) with gays specifically and sex in general.

Hey, I think that dwelling on and nursing angry thoughts is wrong - do you think we should try to legislate against that? I don't.

I'm not inconsistent - you apparently thought (WRONGLY!) that I thought everything I thought was wrong should be legislated against!?!

Nope.

When I consider how to vote, I consider several aspects. First, obviously, whether I think the thing is right or wrong. Also I consider the enforceability of the thing, and the benefits versus the costs. That's just off the top of my head - there might be more things to consider for different issues.