Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it's not that black and white

loving v. virginia

hmm, isn't that decision almost 40 yrs old and not current law?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

hmm, isn't that decision almost 40 yrs old and not current law?

1967... the decision was unanimous and has never since been overturned... so it is current law

as an interesting footnote, in 1912, congressman seaborn roddenberry of georgia proposed this constitutional amendment:

That intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians or any other character of persons within the United States or any territory under their jurisdiction, is forever prohibited; and the term 'negro or person of color,' as here employed, shall be held to mean any and all persons of African descent or having any trace of African or negro blood.

it didn't make it (and would be very interesting in today's world of DNA analysis... how many of us have absolutely "no trace" of african or negro blood? ), but a similar ammendment could be proposed concerning gays if there is truly such an overwhelming majority against gay marriage in our country

[Spock]

Well, I've got to go dust off the car and shovel a bit of snow; it's coming down quite hard; and so I can't accurately comment on that as my lawyer is out of town.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it didn't make it (and would be very interesting in today's world of DNA analysis... how many of us have absolutely "no trace" of african or negro blood? ), but a similar ammendment could be proposed concerning gays if there is truly such an overwhelming majority against gay marriage in our country

[off-topic]Did you know there's more genetic diversity within races than between races? And Africa has extremely high genetic diversity, while the rest of the world is much narrower? It's much more likely that two random people not from Africa (say, a person from Mongolia and a person from Paraguay) are very close genetically than two random people from Africa.[/off-topic]

[Jonathan]

[off-topic] Really? That's interesting. Where did you get that information? [/off-topic]

[Nurvingiel]

[off-topic]I forget. I'm pretty sure it was my first year anthropology course. (I loved that class so very, very much.)

The genetic diversity in Africa (and lack outside) is due to only a small group of African people leaving the continent. These few groups of people are the ancestors of all non-Africans. Thus Africa has not only those people's genes, but all the people that didn't leave.[/off-topic]

[Spock]

....sigh......

[Nurvingiel]

Heh sorry. I'll stop the OTness now.

So what did you think of my earlier comments? (Oppression jokes aside. )

[Spock]

I'm not going into O.T. comments.

[rohirrim TR]

*sigh*
I don't think this is a "rights" issue here, it appears to be more of a "morality" issue, unfortunately that complicates things.

As far as i can tell everyone has the same inalienable rights, and i personally have never seen anyone discriminated against because he/she was of a different orientation.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

*sigh*
I don't think this is a "rights" issue here, it appears to be more of a "morality" issue, unfortunately that complicates things.

As far as i can tell everyone has the same inalienable rights, and i personally have never seen anyone discriminated against because he/she was of a different orientation.

Have you ever seen gays not being allowed to marry?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

well, Rian since that isn't what she said, i'd say a fair guess is , no.

run the statement through a logic gate, and no, it is not a 2 wayer as you suggest.

although the quote originally put by Nurv can indeed be picked to hell if you wanted to ...

I said "expose the problems", and I think it does

Originally Posted by Nurvi

Majorities should not determine the rights of minorities.
...
minorities should not determine the rights of majorities
...
Exactly one half of the country shouldn't determine the rights of the other exact half of the country either.

Fine, but then how DO we determine rights?

And another thing on the original statement - for an extreme but perfectly valid example - pedophiles are a minority, and I hope no one would object to non-pedophiles (a majority) determining the rights of pedophiles (a definite minority) when legislation is under consideration concerning sex crimes.

I just think statements like that are easy to say, but do not stand up to scrutiny. Basically what the person saying that is saying, on every occasion when I've heard it and questioned them, is that the majority should rule on occasions when they agree with them, and majority should NOT rule in cases where they disagree with them.

It's easy to criticize; harder to propose solutions. We had a discussion on this a while back, and personally I think that our system in the USA is one of the best possible ones, given the diversity of opinion of people in general. But no system is perfect, because people aren't perfect.

Re your Canadian/American example - I would answer, "well, that would be a bummer!" And if enough Canadians thought that was wrong, (MAJORITY) or if it could be proved to the satisfaction of the MAJORITY of the legal/legislative subset of Canadians, then it would be changed. Life doesn't guarantee fair treatment, that's just a simple observeable (and sad) fact. I think we all need to fight for what we think is right. And that will differ, even among sincere people. So it often comes down to majority - just the way life is. And I'm waiting to see any better options.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And another thing on the original statement - for an extreme but perfectly valid example - pedophiles are a minority, and I hope no one would object to non-pedophiles (a majority) determining the rights of pedophiles (a definite minority) when legislation is under consideration concerning sex crimes.

Ah the old pedophile example... The fact is (once again) that pedophiles infringe on the rights of CHILDREN when they rape them... Homosexuals do NOT infringe on the rights of other homosexuals by engaging in marriage with them. Nor do they step on the rights of heterosexuals by doing such. So apples and oranges.

[Rían]

What you said has nothing to do with my example, IRex - I was only discussing the "majorities should not determine the rights of minorities" statement and showing problems with it. I was not even considering whether or not allowing homosexual marriage is right or not. I was only showing that that statement had flaws in it when examined.

[Butterbeer]

Exactly one half of the country shouldn't determine the rights of the other exact half of the country either.

(Nurv)

Fine, but then how DO we determine rights?

(Rian)

... never mind that ... how do we then define majority??

..exactly fifty-fifty? ... talk about loading the dice there Nurv!

BTW ... Ri - very odd to bring in pedophiles as a casual (or not) example there??? ... is there a reason you chose that particular example??

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Fine, but then how DO we determine rights?

How about we start by at least giving everyone the same rights and then we go from there to decide what these rights should be.

[Butterbeer]

*winks at Jonathan*

actually .. i'm not sure i agree with that ... start from there ...then decide? .. that implies upon consideration, subsequent positions may actually then decide to take rights away??

regardless of opinion or morality or position ... i thought the whole point of "Rights" whatever or wherever or whenever they are or relate to, is that they are by definition as "rights" universal?

...else they are not "rights" but priveledges.

best BB

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

that implies upon consideration, subsequent positions may actually then decide to take rights away??

Maybe, but then the rights would be taken away for everyone. It would be wrong to let some keep their rights while you deprive others from the same rights.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

regardless of opinion or morality or position ... i thought the whole point of "Rights" whatever or wherever or whenever they are or relate to, is that they are by definition as "rights" universal?

...else they are not "rights" but priveledges.

Yup!

[Spock]

but "rights" may be moral or legal...and if the later, laws are needed...if the former, society determines whether they exist at all.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

BTW ... Ri - very odd to bring in pedophiles as a casual (or not) example there??? ... is there a reason you chose that particular example??

Because it's like Hitler - everyone agrees that it's horrible. It's an easy example - you don't have to persuade people that it's wrong.