Was the US Supreme Court Right on Homosexual Sex?

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Let's take the anti-freedom argument to its illogical(and religious right-wing supported) conclusion. If the government has a right to legislate sexual behavior between gay people, then they have a right to do it for heterosexuals. You will only have sex with government sanctioned partners, in the approved positions. Next, they can ban masturbation, because only deviants masturbate. Then, I suppose, they will eliminate sex entirely, and all pregnancies will be by artificial insemination, right?

heheh

1984...Junior Anti-Sex League

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
heheh

1984...Junior Anti-Sex League

Hey, we can also change all dietary information so that the Recommended Daily Allowance is the Mandatory Daily Allowance. I refuse to pay for all the health problems of all those vitamin deficient scumbags out there killing themselves. And my god where is the junk food tax! How many heart attacks do I have to pay for...and these people are killing themselves. Don't you also think that people who feed their kids junk food are unfit parents? They're killing their kids. Also, we need salt police. I and any good physician could rant all day about the evils of salt! These lifestyle choices are costing me money and killing people. How can we endure these great evils in our society? Oh, and all sports must go. They are too dangerous and they are killing people! Oh yes, and all cars also. They kill people - 20,000 kids a year in this country alone. How can we endure this?

What about the extra cost that I must endure to pay for lost productivity due to lack of sleep, and from personal problems interfering with work duties? In fact, isn't it really irresponsible to try to be a parent and to have certain jobs? How can we allow children's lives to be ruined by parents who are constantly working and are absent from home. Isn't this really just another form of neglect? I don't think I can take it any more!

 

[Zero]

I keep hearing how government should butt out, that laws exist to tell teh government what it is not allowed to do...unless it is someone having sex, in which case the government should control every aspect.

 

[Dissident Dan]

A lot of people who are ignorant of the subject think that people choose to be gay, but that is almost universally not the case, I think. Either way, it is irrelevant. This is not an action which adversely affects others. Try to impose laws against homosexuality is an unjustified limit on freedom. It is truly anti-American (with "American" meaning of or relating to the principles upon which this country was founded).

And the absurdity of anti-gay laws is readily apparent to those who break free of their societal/religious assumptions. When you are emotionally trapped by those assumptions, then it may be hard to realize it. 50 years ago, people in the USA were much more emotionally trapped by those assumptions.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
A lot of people who are ignorant of the subject think that people choose to be gay, but that is almost universally not the case, I think. Either way, it is irrelevant. This is not an action which adversely affects others. Try to impose laws against homosexuality is an unjustified limit on freedom. It is truly anti-American (with "American" meaning of or relating to the principles upon which this country was founded).

And the absurdity of anti-gay laws is readily apparent to those who break free of their societal/religious assumptions. When you are emotionally trapped by those assumptions, then it may be hard to realize it. 50 years ago, people in the USA were much more emotionally trapped by those assumptions.

Of course this is hard to prove either way, I agree it is mostly genetics, I believe certain traumas can cause it, and in some cases it is a choice. True, this is irrelevant, but I find it interesting you say the principles America was founded on, because there certainly is a legitamite argument that America was founded on Christian principals Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. This is all for the sake of argument of course.

Break free of their religious assumptions? This is foolish to say, seeing as how their religious assumptions govern their lives, and society is generally accepting of gays, what the major block is the unwillingness to accept in others what you consider a sin. Also their religious assumptions aren't something to be broken free of, you wouldn't be much of a Christian if you thought of the Christian morals were something to be broken free from.

I don't agree with people that take the religious standpoint on laws, because all Americans don't follow a religion. Of course we shouldn't be targetting Christians, the Christians of today are getting bombarded when the Christians of old made the laws. There are certainly many atheists that don't think gays should have the rights they want. I for one don't think they should be allowed to be married because, IMO, marriage implies a family, and gays and lesbians just aren't able to have a family. Let them marry and you completely destroy family values, IMHO.

I think the media plays this up too much. I don't really care if gays have rights or not, it just heats up a national debate and the media loves that. Stupid media

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
I for one don't think they should be allowed to be married because, IMO, marriage implies a family, and gays and lesbians just aren't able to have a family. Let them marry and you completely destroy family values, IMHO.

The problem with this argument is that it also disqualifies men and women who can't or won't have children from getting married.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem with this argument is that it also disqualifies men and women who can't or won't have children from getting married.

Simply, that is where discrimination comes in Heheh

Here is how I would argue this, I mentioned family values, there is a family with a man and a woman who adopted, not with two men. Since the child cannot say yes or no I want/don't want two men to raise me, I think we should do what is natural, put a child in a family with a mother and a father, simply for no other reason but two men cannot provide the female aspect of a family. As for one parent adoptions, I don't think those should happen, I think you should put the child in a family that is 'normal' and 'healthy', and that SHOULD involve a mother and a father.

You would confuse the child and cause arguments between the two dads, the child would say "hey dad" and both would answer, and when the childs first words were dadda they would prolly argue until one killed the other

 

[Zero]

Your arguments make presumptions that have no basis in any facts.

 

[Hurkyl]

That's just as many facts that have supported anything else in this thread.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Simply, that is where discrimination comes in Heheh

Here is how I would argue this, I mentioned family values, there is a family with a man and a woman who adopted, not with two men. Since the child cannot say yes or no I want/don't want two men to raise me, I think we should do what is natural, put a child in a family with a mother and a father, simply for no other reason but two men cannot provide the female aspect of a family. As for one parent adoptions, I don't think those should happen, I think you should put the child in a family that is 'normal' and 'healthy', and that SHOULD involve a mother and a father.

But the child also doesn't have a say as to whether it wants to be adopted by a man and a woman either. And no, I don't buy the "natural" stuff. I mean, try this.

The majority of people in america are white. So, it is natural for the child to be brought up with white parents, as black parents cannot provide the white element in their lives that society is made of. It is only normal and healthy that black people should be excluded from the adoption program. After all, the child doesn't have a say into whether it wants black parents, does it? Though we have no evidence as to whether being adopted by black people is wrong or not, we can say that it is against the traditional values of family that the nation was created in. I mean, shock horror, we can have children who have an attachment to deviant (from normal, healthy whites of course) black culture!

Can you really put a difference between this, and homosexuality?

 

[Zero]

The fact is, some people are bigots who think that their way should be everyone's way. In my mind, someone's sexuality is only important to the person they are sleeping with. It is no one's business otherwise.

 

[Hurkyl]

Am I correct in presuming that "your way" is that sexuality is nobody's business except those involved, and you think that should be "everyone's way"?


Some quick questions on your view: is it a wife's business if her husband is sleeping with another woman? Is it the courts' business if a man rapes a woman? Is it a boyfriend's business if his girlfriend is sleeping around?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Am I correct in presuming that "your way" is that sexuality is nobody's business except those involved, and you think that should be "everyone's way"?


Some quick questions on your view: is it a wife's business if her husband is sleeping with another woman? Is it the courts' business if a man rapes a woman? Is it a boyfriend's business if his girlfriend is sleeping around?

'Everyone's way' is whatever individuals choose to do with other consenting adults...you act as though heterosexuality is somehow in danger, which is ridiculous. If you choose to be celibate or sleep with 2 people at once, so long as you are all consenting adults, it is none of my business.


Irrelevant to the issue at hand...it is not the government's business in cases of consentual sex between adults. Of course, irrelevancy is the main argument against freedom, isn't it? A marriage is a legal contract, and a breach in it is possibly government business. Rape is nonconsentual, therefore not germaine to this discussion. Cheating girlfriends are bad for the boyfriend, but not a place for the law to intervene.

 

[Hurkyl]

It's as if you were consciously trying to avoid answering a single question I posed...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
It's as if you were consciously trying to avoid answering a single question I posed...

I answered your question...try understanding the answer, or rephasing the question? So far, your questions are mostly signs that you equate homosexuality with rape and dishonesty. There is no evidence to support that, therefore I am forced to assume you speak out of bigotry. Care to correct my impression?

 

[Hurkyl]

Do you think that others' sexual behavior is nobody's business but the two directly involved?
Do you think everyone should think that way?
Does this not satisfy your own definition of bigot?


As for the three questions I asked about your point of view, I don't think they can be phrased any clearer... you're trying so hard to read between the lines when there's nothing there.

I did not ask you if the government should care about a breach of legal contract, I asked you if it's the wife's business if her husband is sleeping around.

I asked you if cases of rape are the government's business.

I did not ask you if the law should intervene in the case of cheating girlfriends, I asked you if it's the boyfriend's business.


The point to my questions, if you really need to know where I'm going before answering, is to show that even you don't believe your nice happy politically correct oversimplification of the issue.


And if you haven't caught the main theme of the posts I've made on this topic, I'll spell it out for you: People have deluded themselves that oversimplifications like yours actually carry some meaning behind them.

 

[Zero]

We are talking about LAW. We are not talking about what you find distasteful. We are not talking about the mores of your social group. We are talking about the legal basis for banning someone from loving the adult(s) of their choice, in ways that they mutually agree on.

Your cases are irrelevant, because in each case someone is involved in something they are not consenting to. Being cheated on is a case where your chosen relationship is being misrepresented by the other person, so your consent to remain in that relationship is gotten by fraudulent means. The rape situation needs no clarification.


Try again?

 

[Hurkyl]

Show me where I was discussing what I find distateful, or where I was discussing the mores of my social group. You should stop fighting strawmen sometime.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Show me where I was discussing what I find distateful, or where I was discussing the mores of my social group. You should stop fighting strawmen sometime.

You should try just stating your claim, and showing a reason, instead of bringing up irrelevant issues like infidelity and rape. Just tell me what either of those things have to do with consentual sex between adults, whatever their sexual orientation.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
but I find it interesting you say the principles America was founded on, because there certainly is a legitamite argument that America was founded on Christian principals Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. This is all for the sake of argument of course.

No where in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution does it mention christ, jesus, yahweh, jehovah, moses, or anything like that. Many prominent "founding fathers" were not christians, such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.
While there are certainly some principles that are among the list of christian principles and also principles upon which this country was founded, this country was definitely NOT founded as being a christian nation. There principles that are christian that were not principles of the national foundation. There are principles that exist in many spheres, and one group cannot claim that a nation or body is their group or nation because it happens to share some principles with the founders...otherwise, you could call iran a christian nation because its founding shares some principles with christianity.

There are certainly many atheists that don't think gays should have the rights they want.

That's where the societal part comes in.

Since the child cannot say yes or no I want/don't want two men to raise me,

I think that this was already covered rather well.

I think we should do what is natural, put a child in a family with a mother and a father, simply for no other reason but two men cannot provide the female aspect of a family.

Have you ever looked at research regarding this issue? If not, then I don't think that you are qualified to make such a statement regarding the issue.

You would confuse the child and cause arguments between the two dads, the child would say "hey dad" and both would answer, and when the childs first words were dadda they would prolly argue until one killed the other

I'm sorry, but I find this to be one of the weakest arguments that I've heard in a while. You must not give gay people much credit. I mean, damn! And all this time, we thought that gay people were also civilized member of a modern society...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule


I think we should do what is natural, put a child in a family with a mother and a father, simply for no other reason but two men cannot provide the female aspect of a family. As for one parent adoptions, I don't think those should happen, I think you should put the child in a family that is 'normal' and 'healthy', and that SHOULD involve a mother and a father.

So, you are saying that a child should be taken out of a single parent household, or that parent should be forced to marry? Or that two stable people of the same sex are less 'healthy' than stable people of the opposite sex?

You would confuse the child and cause arguments between the two dads, the child would say "hey dad" and both would answer, and when the childs first words were dadda they would prolly argue until one killed the other

The only confused child here is you, buddy.

 

[Hurkyl]

You should try just stating your claim

See:

The point to my questions, if you really need to know where I'm going before answering, is to show that even you don't believe your nice happy politically correct oversimplification of the issue.

and

People have deluded themselves that oversimplifications like yours actually carry some meaning behind them.

instead of bringing up irrelevant issues like infidelity and rape.

I presume that when you said:

The fact is, some people are bigots who think that their way should be everyone's way. In my mind, someone's sexuality is only important to the person they are sleeping with. It is no one's business otherwise.

You intended this statement to have some bearing on the discussion.

Recall my point, which I shall repeat a third time:

People have deluded themselves that oversimplifications like yours actually carry some meaning behind them.

My primary step towards justifying this assertion is

to show that even you don't believe your nice happy politically correct oversimplification of the issue.

Given my presumption that you intended

In my mind, someone's sexuality is only important to the person they are sleeping with. It is no one's business otherwise.

To have some bearing on the conversation, yet

you don't believe your nice happy politically correct oversimplification of the issue.

I will have provided a concrete example that

People have deluded themselves that oversimplifications like yours actually carry some meaning behind them.

And, hopefully, this will cause people like you to realize the sparsity of their justification, and will either accept the fact they have a weak logical foundation for their beliefs or devise a more sophisticated argument that actually has substance to it.



And I will say, just in case I haven't made it sufficiently clear, that I am not arguing against the ruling, or against homosexuality in general. As I said earlier:

I generally avoid making assertions about what the right thing for a government to do because there are lots of complications at various levels that I simply don't want to bother figuring my way through. The reason I chime in is because I see people ignoring those complications!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl


And, hopefully, this will cause people like you to realize the sparsity of their justification, and will either accept the fact they have a weak logical foundation for their beliefs or devise a more sophisticated argument that actually has substance to it.

Nice...you think you can teach me something? Ha! My absolute justification is, it isn't my business or yours. In any case where something causes no harm, doesn't intrude on others, and is done privately between consenting adults, the government should keep its nose out of it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Nice...you think you can teach me something?

Why the sarcasm? You think you know everything?

My absolute justification is, it isn't my business or yours. In any case where something causes no harm, doesn't intrude on others, and is done privately between consenting adults, the government should keep its nose out of it.

Which is pretty much what I figured it is. This is the only meat to your argument, everything else is meaningless dressing.




Now that we know what your argument really is, we can consider it more intelligently. Your argument starts with the assumption that "[homosexuality] something causes no harm, doesn't intrude on others"; to my knowledge the other side of the argument hotly contests this statement, so we can progress to a more sophisticated argument if you can logically support this statement.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Why the sarcasm? You think you know everything?




Which is pretty much what I figured it is. This is the only meat to your argument, everything else is meaningless dressing.




Now that we know what your argument really is, we can consider it more intelligently. Your argument starts with the assumption that "[homosexuality] something causes no harm, doesn't intrude on others"; to my knowledge the other side of the argument hotly contests this statement, so we can progress to a more sophisticated argument if you can logically support this statement.

Are you affected by a random single man sleeping with a random single woman? If so, how?

 

[Zero]

My idea, in general, is that we are free to do anything at all, except where there is a compelling interest in preventing it. In other words, it is not for government to specifically list each thing we are allowed to do. Its job is to outline those few cases in which our complete freedom would infringe on the freedom of others.We are not free to steal, because it infringes on the right of another to keep what is theirs. Same with murder, rape, speed limits and anti-polution laws. Where is your right to have a family your way infringed on by others allowing to have a family in their way?

 

[Hurkyl]

You're still assuming a priori that there's nothing harmful about homosexuality. The question I'm asking is if you can prove it.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You're still assuming a priori that there's nothing harmful about homosexuality. The question I'm asking is if you can prove it.

I say we don't have to prove it isn't, you have to prove that it [iis[/i] harmful. With lack of evidence to the contrary, the default position is more freedom, not less. You would have to show that one sexual act is inherently different from another, and I don't believe that you can.

 

[FZ+]

Some quick questions on your view: is it a wife's business if her husband is sleeping with another woman? Is it the courts' business if a man rapes a woman? Is it a boyfriend's business if his girlfriend is sleeping around?

I think the big divide here is the issue of consent. Homosexual relations are generally carried out between two consenting adults, in mutual faith. In the examples given, consent is voilated and the person has the right to terminate the relationship, or seek legal aid.

You're still assuming a priori that there's nothing harmful about homosexuality. The question I'm asking is if you can prove it.

I think this is unreasonable. In general, things are acceptable until it is show otherwise, not the other way round. It is perhaps even impossible to prove that anything is completely not harmful. I don't suppose you have to prove PF is not harmful to protect it from legal banning, do you?

The position is simple: there is no evidence that homosexuality is neccessarily harmful, or neccessarily intrusive. There is every evidence of background homosexual activity occurring since roman times without any public alarm. Hence, by default, homosexuality can be seen as not harmful.

It is an assumption of most western justice systems that in general, it is more right to let the guilty go free than arrest the innocent - the assumption of innocence.

 

[Hurkyl]

I think the big divide here is the issue of consent. Homosexual relations are generally carried out between two consenting adults, in mutual faith. In the examples given, consent is voilated and the person has the right to terminate the relationship, or seek legal aid.

Exactly. Just because it's a sexual act between two individuals doesn't mean it's nobody else's business.

I think this is unreasonable. In general, things are acceptable until it is show otherwise, not the other way round. It is perhaps even impossible to prove that anything is completely not harmful. I don't suppose you have to prove PF is not harmful to protect it from legal banning, do you?

The difference here is that there is pre-existing legislation banning homosexuality, not to mention a once strong social stigma against it. Ignoring laws/rules/warnings/traditional wisdom just because you can't see the harm in it is a http://www.darwinawards.com/ .

And, of course, it is just as impossible to prove something is completely harmful as it is to prove it is completely not harmful. But just like any scientific hypothesis you strive to prove it beyond reasonable doubt; you go out and consider the ways it could be harmful, and reason that it is not.

 

[Zero]

Quick, name a way that homosexuality is harmful to society. Just a single way.

 

[Hurkyl]

Quick, name a way that homosexuality is harmful to society. Just a single way.

You're the one trying to assert a claim, I'm not going to do your work for you.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You're the one trying to assert a claim, I'm not going to do your work for you.

Hmmmm...you are anti-freedom, apparently.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hmmmm...you are anti-freedom, apparently.

And this is an ad hominem attack.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And this is an ad hominem attack.

No, it isn't. You assert that someone should lose freedom, unless they can prove they should have it. That isn't freedom in my book. If you want to take away someone's freedom then you have to provide a good reason to.