News Was the US Supreme Court Right on Homosexual Sex?

[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.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, it isn't.

It isn't?

(a) You made a comment about me.
(b) You were not responding to any argument I was making.

Isn't that, by definition, an ad hominem attack?

You assert that someone should lose freedom, unless they can prove they should have it.

Where did I assert that? Zero, stop posting lies about me.

If you want to take away someone's freedom then you have to provide a good reason to.

Okay. So?

(a) I have not argued that anyone's freedom should be taken away.
(b) Taking away freedom isn't even the topic; it's taking away a restriction.
(c) I have not argued that any restrictions should not be taken away.

 

[Zero]

This is about removing a restriction that has no reason for existyance. Someone needs to show a reason for a restrictive law to exist. Until they do, it needs to be removed.

 

[Hurkyl]

This is about removing a restriction that has no reason for existyance.

And I'm asking you to show there is no reason for it to exist.

Someone needs to show a reason for a restrictive law to exist. Until they do, it needs to be removed.

Apparently someone did once upon a time, because the law exists.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And I'm asking you to show there is no reason for it to exist.




Apparently someone did once upon a time, because the law exists.

Again, I don';tr have to prove that I am not going to kill someone before you allow me freedom to walk the streets; it is understood that we are innocent until proven guiolty. In the same way, you have to prove that homosexuality is negative before it is constitutional to ban it.

And slavery was legal...peple years ago were idiots about all sorts of things. They hated freedom for anyone but themselves.

 

[Hurkyl]

Again, I don';tr have to prove that I am not going to kill someone before you allow me freedom to walk the streets; it is understood that we are innocent until proven guiolty. In the same way, you have to prove that homosexuality is negative before it is constitutional to ban it.

It's not the same way.

(a) There isn't a pre-existing law that says you are not allowed to walk the streets.

(b) We're not talking about whether an individual is innocent or guilty, we're talking about whether an act is a crime or not.

And slavery was legal...peple years ago were idiots about all sorts of things. They hated freedom for anyone but themselves.

Your point? People years ago made some mistakes. People years ago did some things right too.

 

[Zero]

I think we are done here...

 

[Zero]

If I were to speak out against something, I would have a reason. I would not assume it is wrong until someone proves it is ok. For instance, I could say that having sex with children is wrong because it interferes with their development, it traumatizes children, and no child is able to give adult consent, among other reasons. If I couldn't giove reasons such as these, what business would I have saying it was wrong. The answer of 'I find it distateful' or 'I wouldn't do it', or 'my religion says so', are nonsense from a legal standpoint. Especially in the religious case, because by that standard, we could have a push to criminalize eating pork.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Apparently someone did once upon a time, because the law exists.

A simple case: No one can even really remember why the law was in place in the first place, suggesting that it does not really continue to be relavent. The only case given for the continuation that can be stated now is that of scriptural reference - which as has been mentioned, is legally unconstitutional.

IMHO, an argument that is secret and referred to without detail is not a real argument for the continuation of the law. We cannot base the law on reasons unknown or forgotten, but ones that are shown to continue to be relavent. If so, it would be impossible to remove any senseless law. It is only reasonable that laws continue to be revised on whether they continue to be relavent. Faith in the older generation means nothing.

The idea that there are nameless original reasons that must be disproved for reform is not valid logic, as it does not provide a falsifiable argument. You cannot disprove the original reasons, if you do not know the concrete details of whatever should be disproven.

For a better example, let's talk women's rights to vote. For centuries, women were denied electoral representation as a matter of law. Based on your argument, in order to allow the women to vote, it has to be proven that allowing them to vote would not harm the nation. But this cannot be done, as women have never voted before. As a result, if you follow your argument, women will NEVER be allowed to vote. In reality however, it has recognised (albeit with lots of pressure from feminist groups) that the idea behind the orginal law was not a reasonable basis for law, and had no real supporting evidence. Hence the original law was removed.

 

[Hurkyl]

Traditionally, A is considered true.
Nobody has shown me why A is true.
Therefore A is false.

I missed this rule of deduction in school.


Suppose I am unaware of an argument showing law/rules/traditional wisdom correct, but I am also unaware of an argument showing laws/rules/traditional wisdom incorrect (just like our current discussion). Why, then, should we presume that traditional wisdom is incorrect?

In reality however, it has recognised (albeit with lots of pressure from feminist groups) that the idea behind the orginal law was not a reasonable basis for law, and had no real supporting evidence. Hence the original law was removed.

You mean people investigated the why the law exists, and argued that the reasons weren't valid?

Isn't that what I'm asking you and Zero to do? To investigate why such a law would exist and argue that the reasons are unfounded?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl


Isn't that what I'm asking you and Zero to do? To investigate why such a law would exist and argue that the reasons are unfounded? [/B][/QUOTEI've stated the only reasons I know for anti-homosexual bias...religious bigotry, and childish, juvenile ideas about sexuality. Neither of thoise is a solid basis for a law. Do you know another reason, besides that the law exists, so we should continue to accept it? It is about time you put something on the table, Hurkyl, besides complaining that I have to convince you.

 

[Hurkyl]

It is about time you put something on the table, Hurkyl, besides complaining that I have to convince you.

You were presenting your views with the expectation that others should agree with them, right? What makes you think that others should accept your views if you refuse to prove them?


It seems to me that despite the fact I've said it over and over, you don't believe that I am merely objecting to your reasoning. I get the impression that you think I am trying to get you to admit that you don't have an argument, at which point I will pounce and say "Aha! So homosexuality is bad!".

Is my impression correct?



Anyways, I assert your reasoning is of the form:

Traditionally, A is considered true.
I don't know why A should be true.
Therefore A is false.

And furthermore I assert that reasoning of this form is invalid.


Do you agree with either of these two assertions? If you disagree with the first one, will you spell out the logical form which you think you're using?

 

[Zero]

My argument is that inserting a penis into a person for pleasure and a show of love is the same whether the other person is male or female. The courts generally strike down laws against certain acts betwen heterosexuals, therefore those same acts should be legal for homosexuals.

 

[Hurkyl]

Well, it's clearly not literally the same because in one case the other person is male and in the other case the person is female.

Anyways, since I'm getting bored, and I don't think you would ever deign to do the research you should be doing to make your case, I will point out that "love" is one of the topics you should be discussing in-depth.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Well, it's clearly not literally the same because in one case the other person is male and in the other case the person is female.

Anyways, since I'm getting bored, and I don't think you would ever deign to do the research you should be doing to make your case, I will point out that "love" is one of the topics you should be discussing in-depth.

You're a waste of time...don't bother posting here anymore.

 

[Hurkyl]

D'oh! Ad hominem attack and a threat. You should have stuck by last night's decision to be done with it; I was content to stop there too, and at least it would have ended with some class...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
D'oh! Ad hominem attack and a threat. You should have stuck by last night's decision to be done with it; I was content to stop there too, and at least it would have ended with some class...

No threat, you just haven't added a single thing to the discussion.

 

[Hurkyl]

I tend to interpret "don't bother doing X" in general as a threat... though I didn't perceive you as having your moderator hat on at the time.


I was just hoping to see some progress on the issue; it is so rare in these kinds of issues to see one side acknowledge the points of the other side and take an attempt to put them to rest... so that the issue is resolved rationally instead of by whichever side has a better PR campaign. Acknowledging there's more than one side to an issue reduces the brick wall phenomenon too.


I imagine you are (or at least were) curious as to what I really think. I do quite frequently avoid complicating issues with what I think; I think it's necessary to do so in order to seriously consider the ideas of others. I too think homosexuality should be legalized, but there should be a serious drive to help treat homosexuals and help them to quit... kind of like smoking. (and recent reading I've done on the issue due to this thread indicate that this may be a reasonable policy). But, I also see that there could be merit in keeping it illegal, much like the various illegal drugs. And, of course, I can see merit in keeping it fully legal without any pressure on people to change, and (if barred from religious reasoning) I can see merit in the belief that homosexuality really isn't something harmful but is perfectly fine to keep around.

Because I don't see any strong rationale for picking any of these alternatives over any of the others, I have been fishing to see if someone who does strongly believe in one of the alternatives can provide reasons why it's better than any of the others.


To a lesser extent, I think the "Oh, I don't see a reason for rule X, so it's okay to break/change it" to be a gravely misguided philosophy. All other things being equal, it's pretty likely that the way something is now is better than the alternative; it's stood the test of time, and that should count for something. I think I tend to argue this a little too vigorously, though.

 

[Zero]

It is your attitude of trying to guide me somewhere, instead of just stating things, that I find distateful. I am not your student, or a child to be led.

 

[Zero]

And, ummm...your idea that homosexuality is a sickness to be treated shows your bias. It nearly constitutes bigotry, even though I am sure you don't mean it that way. It is common for the majority to assume that it is the default postion, and everyone else is inferiour.That doesn't make it right.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by FZ+
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?

There is no difference between a black and a white person, are you also saying there is no difference between a man and a woman? This is what your example would indicate. If we are attempting to expose the child to all different lifestyles, why not bring them up in a serial killers care, eh?

All I am saying is, if you raise a straight child in a gay home there is GOING TO BE SEXUAL CONFUSION. In this case, the majority should have the final pick.

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?

Well, Zero, I think this is a foolish post, all of it, but this specifically. Yes, of course I think a child should be taken away from a parent that HAD the child? (notice the sarcasm?) How is there ANY relationship between a child with no home (up for adoption) and a child in a parents care?

When a gay couple can have a child, then by all means, let them keep it!


Dissident Dan, read the last sentence of what you quoted, it becomes obvious I don't agree with the argument I posed. This of course doesn't mean it is an argument without merit. Do you really need statistics to tell you two men can't provide the same thing a man and a woman can? Ha ha.

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...

Jesus Christ, nobody noticed that was meant as a joke, ignorance! Bloody ignorance! Do you think I am that stupid to think that they would kill each other?

I mean, damn!