Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Aeson]

Society decides what is ethical not by what the majority thinks (since no democracy in history has even gone anywhere near that extreme) it decides what is ethical by what is considered best for the population, a kind of utilitarianism you’ll find in all non-anarchist states. Needless to say, the population will have an input but historically they don’t tend to be small minded bigots, since those with perhaps a broader mind than most are more vocal, hence your hatred of hippie protesters.

I would disagree with this. Historically (and even currently) our societies have been rooted in bigotry, and the bigots have been more vocal. We are progressing towards more open minded society though.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
How does not allowing gays to marry make them second class citizens? Is marriage a right? Why can't blind people get drivers liscenses?

There are irrational laws. To me it seems the gay agenda is asking such questions as "Why are we discriminated against?" "Why don't the laws support us?" when they should be stating "here is how we are discriminated against" "here is why we should be granted the same rights"... I haven't heard those answers within the letter of the law.

Make the case!

The same goes for those who want to legalize MJ

I guess you haven't read past posts in other threads where Boris, Molly, Mindseye, myself, and others have already made clear points on how we are discriminated against.

1) There are hospitals that still deny a gay partner from visiting his sick/injured partner.

2) Gay partners are still denied the same process that applies to straight partners when it comes to adopting children.

3) Gay partners are still denied legal recognition of their marriages that is given to straight marriages.

4) Gay partners are denied the same legal benefits, privileges, and rights that go with marriage that straight married couples take for granted.

5) Gay employees in the majority of corporations are denied equal employment benefits that straight employees have.

6) Gays experience societal pressure to "change" their sexual orientation to such an extent, that gays who are more easily victimized by this unfair pressure submit themselves to the quackery of bigoted psychiatrists and psychologists.

7) Gays are subjected to a double standard of public behavior whereby many people apply different rules for the same behavior based on what the sexual orientation of the person and/or couple is. Not to say that we need government legislation in this regards -- this will have to change through other means -- and soon, I hope.

8) Gays are not entitled to the same equal employment protection that other minority groups can use in cases of discrimination.


I'm sure there are many other examples that I have failed to mention here.

[Japher]

Demanding that someone justify a change/addition to law based on current laws is unrealistic.

No it's not.

IMO, the movement to get homosexuality recognized as a civil right, which is a solid law, is more the route ppl need to be going instead of pushing for a single issue; marriage. Ppl in Boston are trying.

Instead of arguing marriage, argue the definition of the word discrimination.

Civil Rights Act of 1964
To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
SEC. 601. No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
SEC. 602. Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 601 with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken.

Amend according to sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination. Using other definitions within the law to support claims.

Title VII
The terms ''because of sex'' or ''on the basis of sex'' include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions;

One cannot discriminate based on on the ground of race, color, or national origin, and ammended to included sex, as defined above. Ammend it again to include sexual orientation. Using cases and facts such:

American Bar Association EEO recognizes gay discrimination

Murray v. Oceanside Unified School District, San Diego County Superior Court Case No. N71842

Centola also relied upon the Supreme Court's holding in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 532 U.S. 75 (1998). In Oncale, which did not involve sexual orientation discrimination, the Court held that harassment of men by other men could violate Title VII if the discrimination occurred because of the plaintiff's sex.

Price-Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), the plaintiff alleged that her employer, an accounting firm, had refused to promote her to partner because she had failed to conform to traditional gender stereotypes. The plaintiff had been told by partners at her firm that she should take a "course in charm school" and "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." The Court concluded that when an employer makes decisions based on a woman's failure to conform to traditional female stereotypes, it has engaged in unlawful discrimination.

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Title VII Prohibits Same-Sex Harassment

Then conclude that if Harassment is a product of discrimination the highest court of the land has already found that homosexuals are discriminated against based on sexual orientation, which violates their Civil Rights according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Hey, I'm no expert, but it appears to me that the court has already found that sexual harassment based on sexual orientation is legal, which concludes that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong, ergo the civil rights act needs to be ammended to include sexual orientation which will, inturn, give homosexuals the right to marry.

See I used the law to support gay marriage as well as an ammendment to it based on court ruling and general interpretations.

[MrFun]

good post, Japher

[Aeson]

See I used the law to support gay marriage as well as an ammendment to it based on court ruling and general interpretations.

I see what you are saying but disagree on one point.

You are confusing the actual law, and the justifications for the law. The justifications used to create present laws certainly can be used to justify new laws.

The law currently doesn't support that sexual orientation should be protected under Civil Rights laws. It must be changed to support that. The reasoning for the original laws may apply to the new ones, but the laws themselves don't.

[Whaleboy]

I would disagree with this. Historically (and even currently) our societies have been rooted in bigotry, and the bigots have been more vocal. We are progressing towards more open minded society though.

Hmmm perhaps, I'm just thinking about the old addage of yesterdays liberal is tomorrows conservative - slave emancipation, womens rights, civil rights etc were all liberal causes that became accepted etc, but yes you do have a good point. Perhaps it's a bit of both?

I'm sure there are many other examples that I have failed to mention here.

Indeed, though some good examples. Bisexuals as a distinct group are usually seen as oversexed homosexuals or confused heterosexuals . That is a myth that also needs to be addressed.

IMO, the movement to get homosexuality recognized as a civil right, which is a solid law, is more the route ppl need to be going instead of pushing for a single issue; marriage. Ppl in Boston are trying.

I'd argue for non-discrimination in law or statute against homosexuals with all the rights therein, in other words, if homosexuality is seen as race, religion or politic now is, then a gay person has as much right to marry as a liberal, a Catholic or an Indian person .

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Hmmm perhaps, I'm just thinking about the old addage of yesterdays liberal is tomorrows conservative - slave emancipation, womens rights, civil rights etc were all liberal causes that became accepted etc, but yes you do have a good point. Perhaps it's a bit of both?

Maybe it's a difference of scope. By "historically", I was assuming ~6000 years of civilization, including all societies worldwide.

If you are just refering to the US (and/or western culture) over the last 200 years or so, you'd be more correct. Those who have had a strong voice (not just in how loud they are, but who is listening) have usually been fighting for more freedoms than to restrict them.

[Whaleboy]

Precisely. Ultimately, as timescales get bigger, the liberal vs conversative argument becomes increasingly irrelevant.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
The fact is, Whaleboy, any sex or touching/kissing in public between man and man is a perversion.

So any men who kiss each other in public or touch each other in public by your reasoning, are perverted.

Have you told the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church this?

He kisses bishops and archbishops, and cardinals.

In many churches, both Roman Catholic and Anglican, it is customary to exchange a kiss of peace on Sunday at mass. I think it is your bounden duty as a good citizen and guardian of public morals, to let the greater British public know of these hotbeds of perversion and immorality.

Equally, there are quite a few countries in Europe where a customary greeting between males is one kiss, two kisses, or in the Netherlands, three kisses.

In countries with an Arab culture, this is also the case.

In Judaism, both religious leaders and big butch Israeli Defence Force male soldiers exchange a bit of lippy action.

In Greece a lot of their clergy go around kissing each other.

The Russian Federation likewise.

I have a hunch about where all this perversion may have originated in the West, at any rate:

Matthew 26:47-54 :: New International Version (NIV)


Matthew 26


Jesus Arrested

"47

While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people.

48

Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him."

49

Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him. "

I used a modern translation for you P.A.- I thought you might have difficulty with 17th Century English.

[MrFun]

Molly -- excellent post

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Park Avenue

Humans are above animals so trying to defend the perverse behaviours of some of our species through references to monkeys and others is just ridiculous and shows how desperate you are for an argument.

Right. So as well as being a historian, anthropologist, theologian, sexologist and political scientist, you're also now a naturalist?

Please explain to me which animal type behaviours exhibited by humans you disagree with, and why:

monogamy: exhibited by some birds, fish, mammals

promiscuity: birds, fish, mammals

homosexuality or same sex activity: birds, fish, mammals

harems: seals, whales, lions, wolves, gorillas, deer, et cetera

mating for life: some birds, some mammals

waging war: ants, termites

female domination: ants, bees, termites, some mammals, spiders, praying mantises, et cetera.

abandonment of young: insects, fish, some reptiles et cetera.

primary caregiver male: seahorses, some fish, et cetera

extended families: whales, dolphins, primates such as monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas

adoption: some primates, other mammals

infanticide: mammals, reptiles, birds, insects

altruism: baboons, wolves, antelopes

cross species cooperation: ants, termites, hippoes, birds, honey badgers, reptiles, meerkats.

Not that I unduly wish to take issue with your characteristically sloppy use of language, but one definition of 'human', given by the Oxford English Dictionary, is 'man, as opposed to other animals'.

Perhaps you're also an amateur lexicographer, too.

[Whaleboy]

Molly is now my new personal hero!! You also have a M de Montaigne quote in your sig! When I'm 60, I want to be you!

[Whaleboy]

I would have thought there's more people unhappily chained to homosexuality. After all, nobody tends to kill themselves because they are straight.

Nobody kills themselves because they’re gay either. People get depressed because they’re not able to express themselves. In a society that ostracises homosexuality someone who is gay could well get depressed, because they cannot openly be themselves. The same would happen to straight people in a society that ostracises straights. It isn’t their sexuality that makes them depressed, and moreover, that cannot be changed, it’s societies intolerance that is to blame.

Because it is unnatural, and not what society wants to see.

Ie. Not what you want to see. Please differentiate that from what society wants to see. Much of society doesn’t care.

There's no trolling going on here, but I'm leaving this thread. I've said what I came to say and I've spoken for the off-line majority.

Link? Evidence? The majority is pretty split on gay marriage, but moreover, I’m sure the majority don’t particularly care about two men kissing. Public nudity is illegal for anyone, regardless of sexuality. Kissing isn’t.

But suddenly yours and Whaleboy's opinions become an objective norm rather than just your personal opinions?

This is the more logical and humanistic approach in terms of society. Since there are few human societies with metaphysical, meta-ethical or cosmological consequences your strawman appeal to my meta-ethical relativism will cut as much ice as a wet mouse.

And that was correct, at the time in which it was happening, for that is what society decreed.

So you’re saying that lynching of blacks in the US deep south or the massacre of Jews in the holocaust was “correct” because it was what society decreed? Society, being a loaded context, has better and worse courses of action and the liberal movement against the oppression like the NAACP or the Jewish resistance in Poland, for example, were more righteous than their bigoted and popular oppressors.

I haven't yet seen any gays holding hands in public so I'm inclined to agree with you here.

For fear of people like you. You believe that were it not for that fear, they would be any less inclined to display their love than any other couple? And I have seen gay and lesbian couples hold hands and kiss in public, and they always get a nod of approval from me so to speak.

There's no trolling going on here, but I'm leaving this thread. I've said what I came to say and I've spoken for the off-line majority.

For a troll with absolutely no credibility you certainly are capable of humour at your own expense! Such entertainment provides that luminous streak of brown we all need in our lives, so keep it going .

One that doesn't show favoritism to one side or another. (Well, it shows favoritism to non-bigots I suppose...)

I’d go for modern utilitarianism personally, and say the action that causes most direct utility to the people concerned, namely making homosexuals happier, something that does not harm other people on bit.

Stop trying to distort the argument into one of rationality and irrationality

You’ve done a thorough enough job of that

[Odin]

Originally posted by molly bloom
waging war: ants, termites

And chimps

[MrFun]

man . . . . .


when Molly unleashes his intellectual arsenal, bigots beware