|
Post by goonerboy on Oct 9, 2010 17:23:05 GMT -5
I'm sure some of the people mentioned who find homosexuality disgusting are just straight people who wouldn't want to have sex with another person of the same gender. That's the attitude I take; I find the idea of having sex with another guy repulsive, but I'm all for other people being allowed to do it: about a quarter of my family is gay.
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on Oct 11, 2010 8:21:48 GMT -5
I'm sure some of the people mentioned who find homosexuality disgusting are just straight people who wouldn't want to have sex with another person of the same gender. That's the attitude I take; I find the idea of having sex with another guy repulsive, but I'm all for other people being allowed to do it: about a quarter of my family is gay. Gooner, I am the same way. I find the idea of myself having sex with another guy to be repulsive. However, I understand and accept that others feel differently, and really only want them to find whatever happiness they can. I also have gay family members (one half-sister, 2 cousins, all from different genetic sides). Additionally, I figure that gay men removes some competition from the dating pool, so that works in my favor.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Oct 12, 2010 10:35:48 GMT -5
Rookie, even the point you made about your having the right to eat and sell beef, though contrary to Hindu teachings, is itself a value statement---one I personally agree with. Where did this particular belief we share come from--English common law? Before that---Greco/Roman philosophy and/or Anglo Saxon paganism and/or Christianity? It came from somebody's beliefs. Jlulan, sorry it took me so long to get back to you here. But you asked me a question so let me try to answer it. First of all, the right to sell and eat beef (here in America) is just that, a right. Not a belief, value system, or anything else you want to call it. A text claiming a deity is endorsing or condemning cows is still not a value. Acting on it, that's where we get into values. What sort of beliefs do we share? I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to be content with life. For example, I believe you should be able to pass me every morning on your way to church as I am going home from a series of strip clubs where man, women, and members of the donkey family undress for grubby dollar bills to be shoved in their G strings. I believe I can't stop you and I believe you can't stop me. I believe that a man should be able to marry another man, providing they are both over the age of consent in their jurisdictions. Now, I can point out to you where you said you don't believe that. Point is, we don't have many shared beliefs.
|
|
jlujan69
Full Member
unenlightened, backwoods, no-count fundy
Posts: 113
|
Post by jlujan69 on Oct 12, 2010 22:47:07 GMT -5
And here we get to the crux of both arguments. The fact that you or your religion personally find something offensive does not give you the right to dictate behavior based solely on said religion or personal ick factor. I can think of a hell of a lot of people I do not want to picture having sex or that I think should not breed. That does not give me the right to legislate against that which merely makes me go EEEEEWWWWWW! If constitutional principle should always be the central consideration when forming legislation, then riddle me this: what constitutional principle is at stake with anti-animal cruelty laws? I mean, unless a particular negligent act of mine against "Fido" is proving to be harmful to my neighbor, whose business is it how I otherwise treat my doggie? I'm not attempting to equate dogs and gays, rather I'm trying to show how personal ethics do find their way into our laws and have become at times as important a consideration as any constitutional issue.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 12, 2010 22:59:44 GMT -5
Jlujan, animal cruelty is proven to cause harm. Everyone knows that abuse inflicts needless pain. Gays getting married, on the other hand, does not hurt anyone. Some claim otherwise, but there isn't any evidence backing up their assertions.
Why is being gay immoral? I know that Christians believe this because it says so in the bible, but why does the bible ban homosexuality? Name one proven consequence of homosexuality. We know that animal cruelty causes pain and suffering, but who is harmed by two men getting married? How can something be immoral/unethical if it doesn't harm anyone?
You said it yourself: It's impossible to have a legal system that is value neutral. As such, it is necessary to use whether or not something causes needless suffering as a litmus test to determine what should and shouldn't be banned.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Oct 12, 2010 23:01:49 GMT -5
And here we get to the crux of both arguments. The fact that you or your religion personally find something offensive does not give you the right to dictate behavior based solely on said religion or personal ick factor. I can think of a hell of a lot of people I do not want to picture having sex or that I think should not breed. That does not give me the right to legislate against that which merely makes me go EEEEEWWWWWW! If constitutional principle should always be the central consideration when forming legislation, then riddle me this: what constitutional principle is at stake with anti-animal cruelty laws? I mean, unless a particular negligent act of mine against "Fido" is proving to be harmful to my neighbor, whose business is it how I otherwise treat my doggie? I'm not attempting to equate dogs and gays, rather I'm trying to show how personal ethics do find their way into our laws and have become at times as important a consideration as any constitutional issue. That's a damn crappy analogy. It's late so I won't get into it now; I'll let you think about why on your own.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 12, 2010 23:11:08 GMT -5
To demonstrate the point: I don't like religion. I dislike the 'lifestyle', so to speak. I don't want to see religion banned, though, because it's not my place to dictate how others choose to conduct their lives. I'm content with religion being legal, so long as I'm not forced to partake in or pretend to like it, and I can continue to freely voice my opinion on the matter. Likewise, gays should be allowed to get married, and those who oppose it should be free to refuse to partake in the weddings and express their views on it, but they shouldn't have the power to dictate what others do based on their personal beliefs.
As far as religion goes, shouldn't this be between homosexuals and god? Why is this one victimless 'sin' singled out to be banned, but most of the rest aren't?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2010 2:33:09 GMT -5
As far as religion goes, shouldn't this be between homosexuals and god? Why is this one victimless 'sin' singled out to be banned, but most of the rest aren't? Because attacking the coloreds is unfashionable these days.
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Oct 13, 2010 5:57:25 GMT -5
To demonstrate the point: I don't like religion. I dislike the 'lifestyle', so to speak. I don't want to see religion banned, though, because it's not my place to dictate how others choose to conduct their lives. I'm content with religion being legal, so long as I'm not forced to partake in or pretend to like it, and I can continue to freely voice my opinion on the matter. Likewise, gays should be allowed to get married, and those who oppose it should be free to refuse to partake in the weddings and express their views on it, but they shouldn't have the power to dictate what others do based on their personal beliefs. As far as religion goes, shouldn't this be between homosexuals and god? Why is this one victimless 'sin' singled out to be banned, but most of the rest aren't? This. ALL of this. My mother is, sadly, on the "gay is evil" bandwagon, but she has the common sense to realize that it doesn't actually hurt people and is between the gay man and his/her god/s.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Oct 13, 2010 6:08:15 GMT -5
If constitutional principle should always be the central consideration when forming legislation, then riddle me this: what constitutional principle is at stake with anti-animal cruelty laws? I mean, unless a particular negligent act of mine against "Fido" is proving to be harmful to my neighbor, whose business is it how I otherwise treat my doggie? I'm not attempting to equate dogs and gays, rather I'm trying to show how personal ethics do find their way into our laws and have become at times as important a consideration as any constitutional issue. For this analogy to work, you have to show that homosexuality is harmful by its very nature. Animal abuse causes harm, therefore, forming laws to minimise and punish abuse are created. However, how does homosexuality cause harm? Who does it hurt? Can you show the harm caused by homosexuality? You may have particular 'moral' objections against homosexuality, revolving around particular beliefs, such as sin or whatever. However, you can't go about enforcing said objections on others on the premise of some sort of 'invisible' harm (sin) that it supposedly inflicts. You need to have something more concrete and definite to show that there is real harm being caused before you have any good reason to begin to legislate against homosexuals. Even then, there might be certain activities that other individuals engage in that others might consider 'harmful', however, both parties consent and do so very carefully to ensure consent is maintained throughout said activities. So, even on perceived 'harm', it is not always so clear-cut, particularly when consent is involved. Things like spiritual harm are not good reasons for imposing legislation or restricting the rights of minority groups. You have to have something more definite and concrete before you can start imposing legislation, or at least good reasons for it.
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Oct 13, 2010 6:24:26 GMT -5
If constitutional principle should always be the central consideration when forming legislation, then riddle me this: what constitutional principle is at stake with anti-animal cruelty laws? I mean, unless a particular negligent act of mine against "Fido" is proving to be harmful to my neighbor, whose business is it how I otherwise treat my doggie? I'm not attempting to equate dogs and gays, rather I'm trying to show how personal ethics do find their way into our laws and have become at times as important a consideration as any constitutional issue. For this analogy to work, you have to show that homosexuality is harmful by its very nature. Animal abuse causes harm, therefore, forming laws to minimise and punish abuse are created. However, how does homosexuality cause harm? Who does it hurt? Can you show the harm caused by homosexuality? You may have particular 'moral' objections against homosexuality, revolving around particular beliefs, such as sin or whatever. However, you can't go about enforcing said objections on others on the premise of some sort of 'invisible' harm (sin) that it supposedly inflicts. You need to have something more concrete and definite to show that there is real harm being caused before you have any good reason to begin to legislate against homosexuals. Even then, there might be certain activities that other individuals engage in that others might consider 'harmful', however, both parties consent and do so very carefully to ensure consent is maintained throughout said activities. So, even on perceived 'harm', it is not always so clear-cut, particularly when consent is involved. Things like spiritual harm are not good reasons for imposing legislation or restricting the rights of minority groups. You have to have something more definite and concrete before you can start imposing legislation, or at least good reasons for it. They'll just pull out the rape/divorce/suicide angle to prove their point. It's because of the gays that our divorce rate is so high, gays tend to murder straights more than any other. And homoseuality is the leading cause of suicide. Damn, I got a mirgraine just typing that bull****!
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Oct 13, 2010 16:44:21 GMT -5
In case you haven't figured it out yet the onus is on the wannabe banner to demonstrate that failure to ban a certain activity will cause harm. If you would care to present real peer reviewed scientific data that homosexual marriage causes real harm to people then perhaps we can talk. Even if you do find that data, you are going to have to explain why we should outlaw gay marriage when we don't outlaw peanuts since I'm sure that peanuts have caused a hell of a lot more real harm that homosexuals have.
|
|
jlujan69
Full Member
unenlightened, backwoods, no-count fundy
Posts: 113
|
Post by jlujan69 on Oct 13, 2010 21:52:24 GMT -5
For this analogy to work, you have to show that homosexuality is harmful by its very nature. Animal abuse causes harm, therefore, forming laws to minimise and punish abuse are created. However, how does homosexuality cause harm? Who does it hurt? Can you show the harm caused by homosexuality? What should count when considering animal-related legislation is who, not what, is harmed if personal ethics don't play a part in our laws. If my violent acts against my dog can be demonstrated to have an adverse effect on people, not the dog, then outlawing such an act is warranted. Again, that's if we crafted our laws without giving thought to personal ethics. Since the opposite is actually the case, moral considerations can be a legit. factor when making some laws. FYI, the reason my last few postings took a slightly different direction was that I was belatedly responding to a particular point brought up by another poster sometime ago.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Oct 13, 2010 22:32:17 GMT -5
Bluefinger never said harm to people.
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Oct 14, 2010 2:31:15 GMT -5
I actually believe that homosexuality is wrong for the exact same reasons that fundies do - it's in the Bible. The difference is that I despise theocracies, as history has proven that humans cannot be trusted to enforce the will of G-d. Therefore, I support Western-style egalitarian democracies, whose principles enable the peaceful practice of religion without persecution. However, persecution of homosexuality is incompatible with egalitarianism. Therefore, I support gay rights.
|
|