Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I concede the point that it is sometimes useful to define groups by unchangeable characteristics (like in the San Fran example - hopefully the pamphlets are useful! )

I hope so, too, for I care about homosexuals just as much as heterosexuals, and AIDS is a terrible disease.

No one else has conceded this point yet.

Will anyone else concede it now? If not, why not?

What!? That's ridiculous, you know I don't believe that. (Though I see where you're going with this. )

Yes, I knew, but I wanted to hear it

I do believe that homosexuals have no control whatsoever over their sexual orientation. Heterosexuals also have no control over their sexual orientation.

I agree to a large extent, but not totally.

Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can choose to have relationships (or not), have sex (or not), eat tomatoes (or not), etc. Neither group has some sort of unending libido that they can't help but try to satisfy.

I agree (hey, Spock, we're setting records with agreement here!)

However, while heterosexuals can choose to marry, in many countries, homosexuals are not allowed to make this choice. I think the same choices should be open to both homosexual and heterosexual adults, since both have the same ability to make this choice (among other reasons).

Here's another group, just for the sake of discussion - brothers and sisters. Do you think they should be allowed to marry? Remember, abortion is legal (get rid of the possible genetic problems) and adoption/AI is possible (have kids, just like homosexuals have to do)

[Nurvingiel]

I almost regret conceding this point (I don't, but almost). Why? Because it's so dangerous and it can be abused horribly, and lead to prejudice. This is definitely not my goal. I know it also isn't your goal, which is why I felt I could concede this point to you.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree to a large extent, but not totally.

Really? Interesting. I'm interested to hear you elaborate on this point.


Ooh, brothers and sisters are marrying. That's a good one. I will admit that I think this is wrong and gross. We all have our prejudices.

However, the reason I oppose siblings marrying is because legally, it would be too hard to do without impinging on other human rights.
1. Abortion is legal in Canada. (But not everywhere in the USA IIRC.) However, it would be wrong to require two married people to have abortions. The forced abortions by the Chinese government are so wrong.
2. There is a high possiblity for abuse here, IMO. This is one reason I'm also leery of polygamous marriages - there are high incidences of abuse, as shown by the recent incident in SW BC in a town whose name escapes me. I'd recognize it if I saw it.
While one might argue that human rights are being impinged by not being able to marry your sibling or more than one person. However, I'm going to err on the cautious side of protecting really basic human rights.
Gay people, however, do not have any higher incidences of abuse that straight people, so I have no problem with them getting married.

edited for spelling

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I almost regret conceding this point (I don't, but almost). Why? Because it's so dangerous and it can be abused horribly, and lead to prejudice. This is definitely not my goal. I know it also isn't your goal, which is why I felt I could concede this point to you.

I'm glad you know me well enough to know I would NOT abuse this.

This is a very serious and important topic, IMO, and reaches very deeply into people's souls (or the evolutionary equivalent ). I think it's important to give truthful answers, even if it somewhat "threatens" your position, because I think the truth is always the best for those involved. I strive to be very truthful, even if it "hurts" my position, like when I say I don't think early-term abortion should be illegal, even though I think it's murder. That puts me in all sorts of "difficulties", but darn it, I think it's true, so I"ll say it.

Really? Interesting. I'm interested to hear you elaborate on this point.

I've said it before (what, you don't remember each and every one of my posts? ) but I'll explain briefly again (and in more detail upon request, if the brief stuff isn't enough).

Basically, from my observations of the world around us, I think we're born with various innate :
1. physical attributes,
2. physical/mental abilities, and
3. desires (our sexual desires being one of those).

I also think that our environment can affect all three of these things to varying degrees.

However, I also think that there is something in each person that is ABOVE those innate qualities - what I would call the soul or heart of a person - and this something chooses, to a varying degree of freedom depending upon the makeup of the person and how strong #s 1, 2, and 3 are, what the person will do, depending upon what we would call moral determinations.

(clear as mud? Wish I could word it better - are you following me?)

So while I believe that a homosexual person does not CHOOSE to be that way (neither does a heterosexual person), I also believe that IF a homosexual person comes to believe, for WHATEVER reason, that homosexual relations are wrong, then they will strive to not enter into those relations, and have varying degrees of success. Exactly like how when I was single, I thought that the right and best thing for me was to not have sex until I got married, and so even though I had strong desires to have sex with various guys, my heart/soul overcame those desires (and also let me plan ahead what situations to NOT get into! because if I did, I knew it would be hard to keep that goal).

I think I'll stop there for now - that's kind of a lot, and I'd like to make sure I explained it so you can understand it (altho maybe not agree with it )

Ooh, brothers and sisters are marrying. That's a good one. I will admit that I think this is wrong and gross. We all have our prejudices.

However, the reason I oppose siblings marrying is because legally, it would be too hard to do without impinging on other human rights.
1. Abortion is legal in Canada. (But not everywhere in the USA IIRC.) However, it would be wrong to require two married people to have abortions. The forced abortions by the Chinese government are so wrong.
2. There is a high possiblity for abuse here, IMO. This is one reason I'm also leery of polygamous marriages - there are high incidences of abuse, as shown by the recent incident in SW BC in a town whose name escapes me. I'd recognize it if I saw it.
While one might argue that human rights are being impinged by not being able to marry your sibling or more than one person. However, I'm going to err on the cautious side of protecting really basic human rights.

I think early term abortion is legal everywhere in the US, and currently abortion even in the 9th month is legal . So let's assume abortion is available, and there's no forced abortion.
As far as #2, there's a higher risk of contracting diseases in male-male sex, so why not err on the cautious side there, too?
I'll have to get to the rest later; I'm too tired now!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(clear as mud? Wish I could word it better - are you following me?)

I do follow. I... think...

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So while I believe that a homosexual person does not CHOOSE to be that way (neither does a heterosexual person), I also believe that IF a homosexual person comes to believe, for WHATEVER reason, that homosexual relations are wrong, then they will strive to not enter into those relations, and have varying degrees of success. Exactly like how when I was single, I thought that the right and best thing for me was to not have sex until I got married, and so even though I had strong desires to have sex with various guys, my heart/soul overcame those desires (and also let me plan ahead what situations to NOT get into! because if I did, I knew it would be hard to keep that goal).

I see what you're saying about planning and stuff when you were single. But why would a homosexual person decide that he or she is wrong? I hope this doesn't happen to people, life is hard enough.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think early term abortion is legal everywhere in the US, and currently abortion even in the 9th month is legal . So let's assume abortion is available, and there's no forced abortion.
As far as #2, there's a higher risk of contracting diseases in male-male sex, so why not err on the cautious side there, too?
I'll have to get to the rest later; I'm too tired now!

Okay, let's assume abortion is available everywhere. I think it's also fair to assume there's no forced abortions, since there's no way Americans would let that happen. But, what if a brother and sister are married, the sister gets pregnant, and they don't want an abortion? Then the foetus might have severe problems, and that's not the baby's fault at all. At the same time, forcing the parents to have an abortion is not okay. This dilemma is one reason why I don't think sibling intermarriage is okay, and it also serves to illustrate why this situation is not that comparable with gay marriage.

Now, you bring up the point that there's a higher risk of contracting STDs between two males having sex. However, this is not a pre-requisite for marriage. I think a lack of abuse is. For everyone.

Are you saying that there's no reason at all that two women shouldn't be allowed to get married? Risk of contracting an STD is lower between two women having sex than it is between two men.

There's also a lot we can do about that. One think I'm convinced should happen right now, is a condom should be designed specifically for anal sex. One with less risk of tearing, for example. (Is there already one?)

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

About "mob rule" in voting... I think that while the will of the majority of people should be represented in law, it's very important that majorities do not determine the rights of minorities. That's why Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the United States has the Bill of Rights. This protects human rights no matter who is in power, or what the majority of people support. I know that helps me sleep easier at night.

Hear hear, that's what I often say myself - a majority should not oppress a minority. That's worth saying again

[Spock]

....hmmm, then genocide in Africa for religious grounds, jailing and killing in China for the same, Kristalnacht in WW II, slavery in the 1800's would all qualify for my agreement.

....Unfortunately "the will of the people" is often expressed in laws and does by it's very process, offend or to use a liberal by word, oppress, a minority.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Absolutely NOT!!
It is NOT about straight people arguing over whether gays deserve equality, and I resent any implication that I think they are NOT equal!
Hmmph!
I'm SO tired of that false charge.

Well, I think brownjenkins answered that one. Don't be surprised that, if you would deny equal rights to a group, you are charged with not treating them equally!

I would also agree that incest should not be legal, and I would accept that this means I am not granting such people equality with others.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I also believe that IF a homosexual person comes to believe, for WHATEVER reason, that homosexual relations are wrong, then they will strive to not enter into those relations, and have varying degrees of success.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Exactly like how when I was single, I thought that the right and best thing for me was to not have sex until I got married, and so even though I had strong desires to have sex with various guys, my heart/soul overcame those desires (and also let me plan ahead what situations to NOT get into! because if I did, I knew it would be hard to keep that goal).

Disagreed! There is a world of difference between "don't do it, ever" and "don't do it just yet or in this particular way (such as out of wedlock or just because libraries give you the horn)." Not least in how it affects a person's sense of self-worth.

I guess that's why I questioned your experience of gays (sorry if it ticked you off): you strike me as a moral and highly empathic person and as such I would be surprised that you saw these situations as in any way comparable.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As far as #2, there's a higher risk of contracting diseases in male-male sex, so why not err on the cautious side there, too?

Because if we start from the position that gays are equal, so you have to provide a lot more than just a public health argument (which is pretty arbitrary in its choice of target) to deny them fundamental rights.

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by Spock

Rian: It's "ahhhh, Bach"

No No......it's AAWWWWWWWW!!!!! Spock!!!


Fine points are being made....I wonder if government & social Globalization is going to shatter sexual rights or bolster.....

[The Gaffer]

Good question. It seems that there is a worldwide struggle between fundamentalism, which would erode sexual rights, and secularism, which mostly guarantees them.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'd like to explore this further so I can understand your thinking.

So are you saying that you think incestuous people should NOT be treated equally?

to put it simply... incest is not acceptable in our society, so incestuous people are not treated equally (i.e. allowed to marry)... in fact, we send people who commit incest to prision

homosexuals are treated equally in out society, except in a select few areas (i.e. not allowed to marry)... so they are, in fact, not treated equally

and while, as you said, you can vote for whatever you think is good for society... you can not say that you treat a certain group equally and at the same time vote against that very equality

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I see what you're saying about planning and stuff when you were single. But why would a homosexual person decide that he or she is wrong? I hope this doesn't happen to people, life is hard enough.

1. It doesn't matter why they would decide if homosexual behavior is wrong or not. Many people have decided this, for varying reasons. And many people have decided that heterosexual behavior is wrong for them, for varying reasons. I think both groups should do what they think is right, don't you?

Okay, let's assume abortion is available everywhere. I think it's also fair to assume there's no forced abortions, since there's no way Americans would let that happen. But, what if a brother and sister are married, the sister gets pregnant, and they don't want an abortion? Then the foetus might have severe problems, and that's not the baby's fault at all.

We KNEW our middle child had severe birth defects to his legs when I was pregnant and could have had a legal abortion. We decided that the question of whether to keep him or kill him was not in our hands (as opposed to the death penalty, where death is a consequence imposed by society in reaction to a person's choices to do severe wrong). I just don't see this as a problem of any different type. As IRex (I believe) has said, if people want to do something that has increased risks, that's their choice.

At the same time, forcing the parents to have an abortion is not okay. This dilemma is one reason why I don't think sibling intermarriage is okay, and it also serves to illustrate why this situation is not that comparable with gay marriage.

Now, you bring up the point that there's a higher risk of contracting STDs between two males having sex. However, this is not a pre-requisite for marriage. I think a lack of abuse is. For everyone.

Basically, you're saying that you have your own opinion of what is OK to permit and what isn't, based on your own personal standards. So do I.

Are you saying that there's no reason at all that two women shouldn't be allowed to get married? Risk of contracting an STD is lower between two women having sex than it is between two men.

But I don't base my opinion solely on risk avoidance. Or, more accurately, I see more risks than you do.

There's also a lot we can do about that. One think I'm convinced should happen right now, is a condom should be designed specifically for anal sex. One with less risk of tearing, for example. (Is there already one?)

Do you really - REALLY - think that guys would use one?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Hear hear, that's what I often say myself - a majority should not oppress a minority. That's worth saying again

Could you clarify this? Do you think a majority should oppress a minority if the minority position happens to be what you, personally, consider to be wrong?

If, in a few years, a minority of people think that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, will you campaign for the majority to not oppress the minority?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

to put it simply... incest is not acceptable in our society, so incestuous people are not treated equally (i.e. allowed to marry)... in fact, we send people who commit incest to prision

homosexuals are treated equally in out society, except in a select few areas (i.e. not allowed to marry)... so they are, in fact, not treated equally

and while, as you said, you can vote for whatever you think is good for society... you can not say that you treat a certain group equally and at the same time vote against that very equality

So you would say that you do NOT treat incestuous people equally?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Well, I think brownjenkins answered that one. Don't be surprised that, if you would deny equal rights to a group, you are charged with not treating them equally!

I would also agree that incest should not be legal, and I would accept that this means I am not granting such people equality with others.

Let me get this really clear - you would grant that you are NOT treating incestuous people equally?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So you would say that you do NOT treat incestuous people equally?

yes... they should not be allowed to marry... something that any other two consenting adults should be allowed to do

if you agree with this, then you are not treating them equally either... and if you extend this ban to gays, then you are not treating them equally

you can't have it both ways

[Spock]

Here I go putting my one cent in.

Heterosexual is the definition a group and for that group Marriage is the ceremony.

Homosexuals are a different group and so Civil Unions is their ceremony.

They are completely different groups and as such should have their own definition and union.

I am now going to get more coffee as this is putting me to sleep

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Here I go putting my one cent in.

Heterosexual is the definition a group and for that group Marriage is the ceremony.

Homosexuals are a different group and so Civil Unions is their ceremony.

They are completely different groups and as such should have their own definition and union.

I am now going to get more coffee as this is putting me to sleep

aka, separate but equal... "you both have access to waterfountains, but the white one is here and the colored one over there"

i won't argue history... just that the distinction is unnecessary and not "equal"

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

aka, separate but equal... "you both have access to waterfountains, but the white one is here and the colored one over there"
i won't argue history... just that the distinction is unnecessary and not "equal"

How dare you compare these two subjects much less put them in the same category..

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

yes... they should not be allowed to marry... something that any other two consenting adults should be allowed to do

if you agree with this, then you are not treating them equally either... and if you extend this ban to gays, then you are not treating them equally

you can't have it both ways

I agree. I was just thinking that YOU thought that YOU didn't treat ANY groups unequally. But you say you treat some groups unequally. And by your definition, so do I. So please stop bugging me to stop treating a certain group unequally, when you also treat a certain group unequally. Sound fair?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

How dare you compare these two subjects much less put them in the same category..

the social impact is quite different in both categories... but the esssence behind both is similar

in our society if we decide a certain thing should not be the basis for any type of discrimination, be it skin color, sex, sexual practices, etc., we carry it across the board (at least in modern times)

we don't say, "okay a woman have a job, but the can't have the title of president"... a purely semantic distinction, but one that carries underlying social implications with it... let a small bit of discrimination in, and people use it to justify larger discriminatory actions

this is not to say that things can not be found to be unacceptable in society, and thus outlawed and discriminated against... i am only saying that you can't say on one hand that two groups are "equal" and then discriminate against them on the other

we have done this in the past in other cases and learned to get past it... i hope that eventually we will once again