posted
Ok, Fugu, but I don't think my position is harming anyone, and I don't hold the position for my own benefit or even just that of my family. I believe it is about the greater good of society. But it is simply my belief, YMMV. Key word: belief. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly -- I don't feel you've made clear enough what your position is for me to evaluate whether its harming anyone; also, its important to note that almost any position will harm someone for some definition of the word harm.
Re: homosexual lifestyle. If that's the only difference, its not an impasse. The Supreme Court of the United States has quite clearly stated that what goes on in the bedroom is Constitutionally no business of government when the only objection is either that it is between people of the same sex or that it is a type of sex commonly undertaken by members of the same sex.
As such, if that is the only foundation for law against such relationships to be based on, it fails.
posted
AllI am saying is we should not allow homosexual marriages, as the laws that have developed ragarding different aspects of marriage, like children, has evolved to support the male-famale gender inequalities.
I say give homosexuals civil unions and then let the appropriate laws develop around civil unions. Man-Man or Women-Women relationships, by their structural differences will require different laws.
If homosexual couples want heterosexual couples to not just "tolerate," but "embrace" their lifestyle, then they can encourage heterosexual individuals to forgo traditional marriage and get civil unions.
But to give the same status and laws to same gender unions that heterosexual unions have, does not make sense to me--from a legal or social perspective.
quote: Our marriage laws are a body of laws that have grown, from antiquity, to address the lack of parity between man and women in society, due to the fact that women bare children and have less strength as men do in the workplace.
What do you mean by "women... have less strength as men do in the workplace"? Are you talking about brute strength or do you think that women are less capable of having a successful career than men?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to go into the whole "successful career" myth, but I do see what Alexa is saying. It is a fact that, historically, women have long had great difficulty competing with men in the workplace. This is not an indication of relative intelligence or capability, but rather a simple statement of cultural fact. Marriage laws, with property rights, insurance arrangements and traditional divorce settlements, reflect this. These laws are beginning to evolve with changes in culture, but I think what Alexa is trying to say is that heterosexual union and homosexual union have unique and disparate histories, and it can be argued that there should be unique sets of laws governing the two situations. These laws can not only reflect unique histories and present conditions, but can evolve independently as cultural paradigms evolve around them.
It is an interesting position. One that I had not previously considered, but it does make some good sense. I'll have to think on it.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AllI am saying is we should not allow homosexual marriages, as the laws that have developed ragarding different aspects of marriage, like children, has evolved to support the male-famale gender inequalities.
Alexa, I would be curious what laws you are referring to?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:the laws that have developed ragarding different aspects of marriage, like children, has evolved to support the male-famale gender inequalities.
So, by your definition of the development of law over time, the move to legally support gay marriage would be a fitting tribute. As it is, there are currently plenty of inequalities between hetero- and homosexuality. Like the laws that were put into place to address gender inequalities then, new laws are being put into place to addres inequalities now. What is the difference?
And for the record, gay couples CAN get married, they just can't get recognition for that marriage in all public institutions. I have attended religiously sanctioned gay marriages at a variety of churches (2 Christian and 1 Unitarian Universalist) and in the eyes of those congregations and in the eyes of the God they believe in, these marriages are sanctioned and holy. People may debate what THEIR interpretation of what THEIR God would think, but the fact is that there are a lot of different ideas of what God thinks on these issues. The government shouldn't be in the position to pick and choose from those ideas.
quote: So, by your definition of the development of law over time, the move to legally support gay marriage would be a fitting tribute. As it is, there are currently plenty of inequalities between hetero- and homosexuality. Like the laws that were put into place to address gender inequalities then, new laws are being put into place to address inequalities now. What is the difference?
The difference is the inequalities addressed in current marriage laws are derived from the inequalities in man-women relationships. The TYPES of inequalities homosexuals face are different then the inequalities of man-woman relationships. For example, men still make on average more then women; women, unlike men, can give birth and feel the sense of motherhood.
I know someone named K. K is the mother of three and got a divorce. She claims she fought for custody of her kids. Well, she lost.
Stop, open your mind, and think. Are there any conclusions you are making about a mom who fought for custody of her kids and lost? Let's add to the equation that the dad makes about $9.00/hour and is not wealthy by any standard....What are you feeling right now?
If you think she did not win custody because she is VERY unstable, you are right.
If the roles were reversed, and you think of a guy who fought for custody of his kids and lost, would you feel the same about him as K?
You shouldn't, not because you your some judgmental *explicative*, but because laws are designed to keep the children with the mom. If K would of shown ANY sign of stability, she could of won some type of custody.
There are assumptions about motherhood that the laws honor. There are all sorts of legal battles to determine if guys are being treated fair, and there are more and more joint custody battles where the man is winning partial custody. But still, these battles are tied to the male-female role expectations, the women’s movement, the rights of dads, and inequalities by nature of the difference of men and women. These legal disputes are *evolving* from man-women relationships.
Man-man or woman-woman relationships are structurally different. If Rosie married Ellen, adopted a baby and then got a divorce, there is no precedent to determine by what standard either one would get custody. Is it determined by tho makes the most money? Is there a standard of stability? Do they get joint custody? What if one moves to the other coast?
The structural difference between same sex unions, would require a different type of laws that are not founded in the man-woman paradigm of family law.
quote:And for the record, gay couples CAN get married, they just can't get recognition for that marriage in all public institutions.
Of course. I have a friend who married in the woods without involving the government, but since we are talking about legal implications and social status of having the public recognize gay marriage, self proclaimed marriages aren't really what we are talking about.
Storm Saxon,
As I have a full time job, a part time job, a Masters Class, and I am in the middle of pregnancy, I have not had time to look up specific laws. Give me some time. I am at work, but I have a good acquaintance (a lawyer who specializes in family law) who can help me be more specific. I will try to contact him tonight.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there a difference between fairness and equality?
Yes, there's definitely a difference between the two. For example, a criminal court proceeding could be called unfair if it did not allow the defendant to compel witnesses to testify, but if all defendants were treated this way it would not be unequal.
posted
Another question: is there anything more important than fairness and equality? In other words, can something be right, but not equal and/or fair?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It can, if it is for the benefit of society But it is hard to determine what is best for society without taking every member into consideration and not just a handful of groups clumped together into a stereotype. After all, if the country prides itself on freedom and equality, it must live up to that standard.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The structural difference between same sex unions, would require a different type of laws that are not founded in the man-woman paradigm of family law.
Yes, this is true, but totally pointless as a reason not to go forward with legally recognizing gay marriage. There have to be all sorts of paradigm shifts because of cultural changes. You make the example yourself. Current bias of the court shows that in divorce cases, the children typically go to the mother for custody as a rule and only in situations like the above (a very unstable mother) would they go against that. This has to change because the culture of the US right now is NOT the dad bringing home the bacon while mom slaves in the kitchen while herding a flock of children. To put that bacon on the table (and to even own a table) couples often both have to work and because of this change, one would HOPE that the courts would change their views on custody.
More importantly, your example has nothing to do with gay couples. There is a crisis in America with couples divorcing left and right and children being raised by single parents or having to deal with hopping between two homes and two sets of parents. This is all BEFORE gay marriage is legalized.
Precedent is set by courts willing to make the call and simply adding a new wrinkle to the old problem shouldn't be a reason to not do something. That is why the courts are there, to constantly set precedent on new situations and interpretations of the law. I hope Rosie and Ellen stay together with their newly adopted child, but if they don't and can't work it out themselves, I hope that they find a court willing to think a little and not be afraid to set new precedent as their historical counterparts did.
posted
Is there more to marriage than children's rights?
OSC's article tightly ties marriage and parenting together. As a married man without a foreseeable biological child in my future, I worry about talk like this. Does he mean that my Reproductively Disabled Marriage is not worthy?
Of course not.
Nor is he asking that proof of fertility be displayed before the wedding. If that were the case, weddings could only occur at the maternity ward. Bastardization would be the mark of marital legitimazation.
OSC is not suggesting I leave my wife and find a more fertile female more appropriate for my genetic demands.
There are benefits that I recieve from my marriage that are dear to me.
I know that I will have someone in my hospital room if I am ill.
I know that I will have someone sharing my retirement if we both live that long.
I have someone who shares my economic life, allowing us to pull our resources and be a greater whole than either of our parts.
I can check into a hotel with my wife, and get a single bed legally.
We share credit cards. We share tax returns. We share our lives.
We can adopt children.
When we adopt my wife will quit her job to take care of the children, and her health will be covered by my insurance.
We love each other.
Now, there are forms and legal certificates that can allow much of this to be done by a gay couple. Under a "Civil Union" most of the rest of this will be allowed, in certain states, in various degrees, depending on whatever laws pass at any given time.
My marriage gives me the same rights no matter which state I travel too.
Civil Unions will be done by states, so medical coverage gauranteed in New York may disappear during a vacation in Florida. Equal division of assets in law in California my be null and void if one of the couple moves to Arizona with both of their assets. A legal anniversary romantic get away in Hawaii might end up in an arrest if the couple has a 1 day lay-over in Texas, and checks into a hotel room together.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: What is a situation which is fair, but not equal?
Some might argue that the tax code is "fair" in some respects but not equal. For example, one might think it is fair that the rich in the country who control the most amount of money might pay more in terms of taxes than those that have less to contribute. It would be unequal in that the proportion is larger for a person of significant wealth compared to a person with less money.
How is fair measured? Equal can be pretty subjective on its own but at least can have some value that can be measured. Fair seems to be a bit more subjective than that.
quote: Of course. I have a friend who married in the woods without involving the government, but since we are talking about legal implications and social status of having the public recognize gay marriage, self proclaimed marriages aren't really what we are talking about.
I disagree, I think it is what we are talking about, at least in part. When a legally recognized church (or churches) recognizes a marriage in their institution, it isn't some "self-proclaimed" marriage that you are talking about. This was church led, church sanctioned and in all ways meaningful to the couple and those in attendance as any heterosexual union. The only difference is the legal matter. So maybe, as some have pointed out, maybe this is a good time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and recognize civil unions of any sort and let the religious institutions define what in their world view they will accept.
Here is where fairness gets off the bus. The biggest opponents to gay marriage are merely religious wolves in sheep clothing. We know this because there really isn't any non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage. If you take the religious out of it, then you are left with thin and potentially damaging rhetoric.
I really do like Alexa's points as they are at least trying to point out a secular reason, but they really don't stand up to much scrutiny. Fear of how courts might have to set new precedent doesn't work, for me at least. And as noted, OSC's points only work if we assume he is only refering to gay couples with this whole "reproductively dysfunctional" couples thing. If we just take him at face value, then any couple not together for the express purpose of making a baby with each other really isn't a marriage. Which if fine if you want to walk down that road, because that is one of the few roads you can walk down without invoking the Bible. But you are going to anger a bunch of couples without kids due to lack of desire to have kids, lack of ability to have kids or lack of resources to have kids.
But you would have to include those folks, to be fair. If you throw in adoption as an option or artificial insemination, then you legitimize all couples, gay or straight, with the exception of those who don't want kids or don't have the resources to support kids. Is that fair? Is that a road folks want to go down? How can you not if you a) want to be fair and b) want to keep it non-religious.
quote:He thinks this is a bad thing. Personally, I think it means society is advancing.
I'm curious about this statement. I may or may not disagree with you. If you mean to say that it's an indication of cultural advancement that out-of-wedlock parents are no longer insulted, ostracized, shunned, and disrespected, etc., then I agree with you. I think doing such things is rarely, if ever, helpful to parent or child, and is also frequently born of self-righteousness.
But I disagree if you are saying that it's an indication of cultural advancement that out-of-wedlock child-rearing is now viewed as less harmful and more acceptable than it was in the past. (This is one way the part I quoted could be interpreted.)
While it's hard to seperate the two-stigma and ostracizement, and an opinion (I would use the word 'knowledge') that single-parent households are not the ideal, I think it's an important distinction. While I recognize that frequently, it's actually better for the home to have but one parent, by no means do I think it's an improvement that single-parenting lifestyles are more acceptable than they once were.
quote:Homosexual people will always be homosexual.
They will? I am personally on the fence on this issue, and don't see how anyone without an ideological axe to grind could not be. There is not, to my mind, any scientific data remotely uncontested that leads to this conclusion.
As a political matter, that makes little difference to me. Whether or not it's genetic or a matter of choice to some degree, I don't care.
J4
Edit: Looking over that, I was a bit unclear. So to clarify my position: I do not believe that single-parent children are doomed to failure, or that couples should stay together no matter what 'for the sake of the children', or that a single-parent cannot be a dynamic, loving, and powerfully good guide in their child's life.
However, I am sometimes unsettled by the belief (not stated anywhere in this thread) that single-parent and dual-parent households are equally desirable when it comes to the ideal child-rearing situation. It is from this unease that I began this post. Hopefully, I've made myself more and not less clear, heh.
quote: Homosexual people will always be homosexual.
I was not so sure about this argument either. There are plenty of biographies written by people who were gay but became straight, and now have happy marriages with someone of the opposite sex.
I personally know a guy that has gone back and forth between gay and straight, and isn't sure how to classify himself. Maybe he's just confused, but there's nothing to say that a gay person will never be interested in a marriage with someone of the opposite sex.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plenty of biographies? Care to point out some? There is a small population of people who claim to have changed sexual orientation, but it remains exceedingly rare.
Now, there are plenty of gay people who have had marriages with people of the opposite sex, such as Oscar Wilde, but as he engaged in homosexual relationships his entire life its somewhat hard to suggest he switched orientations.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
thank you for the compliment, especially considering that you disagree with me.
I do take exception to
quote: The biggest opponents to gay marriage are merely religious wolves in sheep clothing.
I disagree because later on you talk about the bible. The implication is that the only arguments against gay marriage are found in the bible. Those who believe in the bible's view are religious wolves.
I do not see this as an argument between Christians and anti-Christians or liberals or whatever term people are using these days.
I do not see oriental cultures rushing to sanction gay marriage. The argument really boil down to whether you think it is good for society, and you don't need an opinion of the bible to hold a position for either side.
Whether homosexuality is genetic, a choice, a curse, a blessing, or something to be proud of, it is still fringe. There are a lot of behaviors that are stigmatized with homosexuality that the homosexual community is not condemning.
Lets take for example the newly ordained homosexual priest. We pat ourselves on the back for how tolerant we are becoming, and yet, we place a man in ecclesiastical power who left his wife and kids and committed adultery. Oh, his partner was a man, so we should be place him on a pedestal of social advancement.
My point is that in the homosexual community there is a sense of "anything goes." If it makes you feel good, go for it. I think the biggest reaction to homosexual marriage is the fear of endorsing the fringe. When the fringe becomes the norm and anything goes...well there is a legitimate fear of what that means for our country.
As a thinking adult who believes the morality of laws is based on the idea of consent, I think we should give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. As someone who is concerned about the environment I live in, the anything goes mentality needs to be respected for the damage it can do. And I am not just talking about homosexuality, I am talking about a great deal many things. The homosexual movement is notorious for moving more and more fringe into mainstream. Those who feel this is dangerous have legitimate concerns. I agree with OSC that it is scary to label opposition as hate speech.
How can we ensure same rights without endorsing behavior we disagree with? I like the idea of civil unions with same legal rights, but Dan_raven makes a good point that civil unions are determined on a state by state basis and are inferior.
Maybe it won't make any difference to society if gays marry. Maybe it will help. Maybe it will hurt. Maybe it will be disappointing to homosexuals. Marriage, or the dissolution of marriage, seems to create a lot of heart aches and financial ruin.
But to label opponents as religious wolves is unfair.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes. The homosexual community wants respect for their lifestyle. And there are many not willing to give it, and many who are actively against legitimizing it. And thus we have an impasse.
I think legally legitimizing homosexual marriage will not create the respect for their lifestyles homosexuals are demanding.
I go back to having a new type of union that homosexuals can persuade heterosexual unions to participate in, if they want to expose the bias of traditional marriage. I know of at least one professor who would have a civil union over a traditional marriage. When civil unions become the norm, then homosexuality will achieve its goal.
Too bad civil unions are legally inferior to marriages still.
I am holding off on what laws in family law are built around man-woman unions until I can do research.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm trying to find some information about reparative therapy. It's useful to find stuff about it from first person sources.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lets take for example the newly ordained homosexual priest. We pat ourselves on the back for how tolerant we are becoming, and yet, we place a man in ecclesiastical power who left his wife and kids and committed adultery. Oh, his partner was a man, so we should be place him on a pedestal of social advancement.
Insert appropriate Catholic priest hyprocrisy here. The exception to prove the rule doesn't fly with me. The only reason this is huge is because it is new in this church. There are plenty of open gay clergy in other christian and non-christian churches but those tend to be more liberal ones. The Anglican church worldwide isn't seen as very liberal so this was huge. Unless you are making a point that all gay priests are adulterers, I can't see what this has to do with fairness in marriage laws.
quote: My point is that in the homosexual community there is a sense of "anything goes." If it makes you feel good, go for it. I think the biggest reaction to homosexual marriage is the fear of endorsing the fringe. When the fringe becomes the norm and anything goes...well there is a legitimate fear of what that means for our country.
Really? How so? For any one instance you show me that supports your homosexual "anything goes" stance, I can show you a dozen, a hundred or more instances of "anything goes" in typically heterosexual venues such as television, movies, radio and even literature. One could argue there has been a "legitimate fear" of this sort of attitude since Elvis shook his hips on stage nearly 60 years ago. Or when the flappers had the gall to show a knee or two. Society didn't crumble when Monroe's skirt flew up over the sewer grate.
quote:But to label opponents as religious wolves is unfair.
I agree, it might have been a bit strong. Maybe a more non-offensive metaphor... a fish in duck's clothing? A man in woman's clothing? My point, though, is that if you scratch an opponent to gay marriage, you are much more likely to find folks of a religious and conservative bent than someone coming from a more secular point of view. Why did I bring this up? To bring it back to the point of the original post...is it fair? Is it fair that one aspect of one religion's teachings dictates how society will live. Not all christian churches endorse gay marriage and at the same time, not all christian churches oppose gay marriage. Why the government would take a side on this issue points to the fairness issue. Take the religion out of the discussion and I still don't see much in the way of rational argument left.
Honest, I really do like the discussion around "family law" and OSC's points lead in that secular direction, but this is even more a slippery slope because by omitting the relgion, you are left with vague issues like "reproductive function" being a defining point of marriage and when that happens, you lose your target audience because suddenly straight couples are going to be brought into the mix. That is fair, right? I mean, if we take OSC's basic meaning, and yours Alexa, then we would have to skew to a thin definition of what a marriage is and even more thin, what a family is.
Law has had to set all sorts of new precedents with "what is family" long before gay marriage hit the scene. With donor wombs, donor sperm, donor eggs, open adoption, closed adoption, foster-to-adopt programs, divorce, kinship care, etc. all sorts of things are topsy turvy and society stil has failed to crumble as predicted.
You are far from a wolf! Unless you are a nice, well spoken wolf!
quote: AllI am saying is we should not allow homosexual marriages, as the laws that have developed ragarding different aspects of marriage, like children, has evolved to support the male-famale gender inequalities.
Since when does the fact that we've always done it that way in the past mean that we should keep doing it that way in the future? One of the greatest strengths of a liberal society like the United States is that we constantly critique and question past assumptions. That's how you improve, by looking at what exists and seeing if it's possibly to make it better.
Prior to 1900 the America electoral system had evolved based on the conception that only men could vote. Then the nineteenth amendment came along and changed everything. Women's suffrage flew in the face of established laws and dogmas, and things worked out fine. I challenge anybody to explain to me how the ninenteenth amendment hurt the United States. So why should we be scared to look at the way things are now and try to make them better?
Whatever you feel about gay marriage, the argument that "we've always done it this way, so how can we change now?" just doesn't hold water.
quote:My point is that in the homosexual community there is a sense of "anything goes." If it makes you feel good, go for it. I think the biggest reaction to homosexual marriage is the fear of endorsing the fringe. When the fringe becomes the norm and anything goes...well there is a legitimate fear of what that means for our country.
Careful, you're running the risk of ruining a perfectly good argument with dumb statements like this.
The "gay community" bears as much resemblance to homosexuals in general as the Hollywood community bears to the rest of us. You could just as easily say that in the teenage community there is a sense of anything goes, or that all politicians are crooks... Do not define the group by its extreme members. the people you see wearing black leather in parades are not the same ones as the people living quietly down the road from you.
[ April 06, 2004, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since many may have not read the site Syn pointed to, here's a little summary:
Its the story of a leader in the ex-gay movement; first, he got lots of professional help. Second, he had a very strong faith for most of his life (and still does). Third, he is now openly gay.
Some things of note:
He never stopped having homosexual feelings, except for short periods of time after shock therapy.
He never had heterosexual feelings.
The other people he was with in the ex-gay movement similarly all still felt homosexual feelings, they just worked to suppress them.
He is raising kids, with the full support of his former wife (she did not encourage anything, but she loved him and understood it).
He mentions in passing that a very prominent leader in the ex-gay movement had been exposed as a fraud, having had sexual relationships with several of his male clients throughout his leadership.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alexa, think of it this way. Mormons are far more homogenous than many communities out there, at least in lifestyle. Yet it would still be a gross injustice to characterize the Mormon community in a sentence or two, except possibly in a very narrow way related to a few central tenets of their belief. Certainly impossible to encompass their entire lifestyle.
Well, the homosexual community, insoshort as there is one, is much less homogenous. The Log Cabin Republicans, for instance, are a pretty good sized group considering how few openly practicing homosexual people there are. As I stated earlier, there are homosexual members of every societal group, pretty much.
What occurs, however, is a kind of statistical bias. Certain groups and types of groups tend to drive out homosexual members. Those groups are almost uniformly conservative in nature. Thus, the presence of homosexual people in groups which are not those types of groups will be disproportionately high. This is not a characterization of the homosexual community, its just an explanation why there is a slight bias towards a certain kind of community.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lets take for example the newly ordained homosexual priest.
If you are talking about Rev. Robinson, get your facts straight. He’s been an ordained priest for nearly 30 years, he was recently consecrated Bishop.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
you are right...and this is in general to everyone else on this thread, that I crossed the line. It was an attempt to understand why the majority of peopel (not just christian) oppose gay marriage. I am not just talking about America either. I mean Japan, Korea, China, I am sure Africa, the Middle East, Russia....what is the opposition to. I was tryng to elaborate what people feel and that this upheavel it is not a "Christian" response--altho christianity has certainly been very vocal.
What are people afraid of?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
In my years in the church, I could never imagine anyone saying
quote: Sometimes one of the guys would get so mad about it he would scream, and say that no one is born gay, that gays are faggots and god would not create faggots.
God, I hope this individual made this up. It is so horrible I can not comprehend such a reaction. Shudders. Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sad thing is, I don't think he was making it up... This sort of so-called therapy does a lot of damage to already paper thin self esteems...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: homosexual lifestyle. If that's the only difference, its not an impasse. The Supreme Court of the United States has quite clearly stated that what goes on in the bedroom is Constitutionally no business of government when the only objection is either that it is between people of the same sex or that it is a type of sex commonly undertaken by members of the same sex.
It seems to me that what the supreme court ruled about was outlawing private practices in the bedroom. Having one's homosexual relatinoship legally sanctioned as marriage is not private. I don't see how that applies.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu -- If I understand you, you are saying that although homosexuals tend to be more liberal, it is wrong to assume that they are more liberal? I'm not being facetious -- it really looks to me like you are saying that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A law against homosexual marraiges would not be by nature unconstitutional, under the current court, but it isn't just about what the law says, its about what the intent and reasoning behind the law were. And the Supreme Court has made it quite clear that if the only reasoning is founded around what people do in the bedroom wrt homosexual sex, a law cannot stand.
Now, such a law probably would stand in practice even were that the "real reason", simply because people often state other reasons, regardless of whether they might enact a law based on those reasons alone or not (and the courts do try to stay out of determining intent as much as possible).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm saying that homosexuals are found disproportionately in more liberal groups than conservative ones, but that this will naturally occur simply because more conservative groups make homosexuals feel unwelcome (I certainly wouldn't feel welcome were I advised to try shock therapy).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard of several accounts of this type of reparative therapy, mostly out of Utah, though I was never offered aversion therapy myself. My own experience struggling against homosexual tendencies was while I was in the military. My bishop arranged for me to talk with an LDS therapist "off the record" so as not to endanger my standing in the USAF. The therapist wasn't particularly helpful, not dealing with the issue of homosexual feelings at all, but preferring to explore my disfunctional family situation, which I was already learning to deal with on my own.
I was given some pretty strange advice from other bishops, though. I was advised strongly that what I needed was to get married and the feelings would go away. I was also advised that this wasn't something I should discuss with a prospective wife. I wonder how many other LDS homosexuals have gotten similar advice. I bet that would account in part for the large number of married, gay, LDS men I have met who were either cheating on their spouses or have gotten divorced.
posted
That is, there's no reason to ascribe disproportionate homosexual representation in liberal groups to any "liberal tendency" in homosexuality. It can be readily ascribed to natural group dynamics of feeling welcome. There are plenty of conservative homosexuals out there, they're just less often members of conservative organizations, having left because they did not feel wanted.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a more general important question I have.
Should the law allow people to do whatever they want, as long as they are not taking away the rights of others. I want to branch of from homosexuality and go into the realm of government influence in personal lives. Is there anything you can think of that the government has the right to outlaw that is done in the privacy of your own home and does not affect others?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can think of one...and I see legal debates on the horizen. The implications of of this ever being legal is truely frightening.
What about child pornography where the pornography is computer generated? As CGI gets more advanced, what is the legal code of conduct in your opinion Storm?
Is it freedom of expression or is it a truely sick act that should be illegal?
posted
That's a pretty interesting question in and of itself. You should post that in a thread of its own. (Not that I'm worried about derailing this thread, but you'd probably get interesting opinions from people who aren't reading this thread.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
no harm, no foul, in my opinion. It's like taking a picture of someone with a knife sticking out of their chest versus drawing someone with a knife sticking out of their chest. No different.
in any case, it's already been deemed illegal.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it is illegal, but what I am trying to determine if it is justified to be illegal. If it is justified, then there is precedent for the government to regulated private behavior.
I do find the precendent does exist because the damage spamming that type of porn would be on the public good is overwhelming in my mind.
btw, I am taking both responses, putting them in quotes and will post a new thread.....
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
