Hating On Hate Crimes

While African-Americans and Latinos did not cause the Prop 8 result, there could have been better outreach into those communities by Gay activists before the vote. Younger African-Americans and Latinos voted in support of the Gay community.
.
Older voters were less supportive. The religious community is strong among both African-Americans and Latinos, especially in older voters. This type of outreach can only be beneficial.

While I applaud the effort, it is hard to see how this particular divide is going to be healed unless the various churches are willing to meet the gay community at least part way.

Actually a pretty decent post from you for once Amy. Kudos.

The whole concept of hate crimes have some serious flaws. First, there is the problem of selective enforcement. Last winter, a lesbian woman was viciously assaulted and raped in California. One of the evidentiary points that allowed the hate crime enhancement was the fact that the attackers made reference to her sexual preference during the attack. Well, what about references to a victim’s race during a sexual assault? That happens, and a hate crime enhancement is never sought in such cases. And this is in addition to the viewpoint, held by many, that minorities should not be the subject of a hate crime prosecution. Perhaps many of you noticed that the report on prison rape came out this week. One of the glaring omissions in this report was the failure to mention the racial component of many many prison rapes (a few years ago Human Rights Watch put out a report that specifically examined this issue). If comprehensive studies ignore the issue of race in the prison setting, can we really expect that hate crimes are going to be prosecuted evenhandedly?
.
Second, although I am generally in favor of anything that makes a violent crime subject to a harsher penalty, hate crime enhancements for serious crimes are somewhat beside the point. I don’t really care about that, though, since I like harsh penalties for violent criminals. Where hate crime enhancements make sense is for “low-level” crimes. For example, if I love IU and hate UK and burn a “Go Hoosiers” into someone’s lawn, that’s different from burning a “N—- go home” into someone’s lawn.
.
Third, be careful what you wish for. The stereotypical hate crime offenders are those lunatic home-invaders who killed a Hispanic man (they were arrested a couple of days ago). But the DOJ numbers don’t really bear that out. Many gay-bashers are minorities, and you’ll have, in some people’s minds, the incongruity of using hate crimes legislation to prosecute minorities.

So it might have surprised some people…
.
AS,
.
Again, the only thing I find surprising is your surprise.
You know very well that religion and right-wing authoritarianism and bigotry are not synonymous. Why then do you always treat it as such breaking news whenever that simple fact gets illustrated.

AS: Thank you for a new thread. Gays AND religion too. I wonder how long it will take the anti-gay rights people to realize that the only difference between gay and straight is the choice of partners? The same goals and ambitions are shared by everybody. Hating someone solely because of their choice of a sexual partner is just plain ignorance.

Stated another way, I think your efforts at breaking stereotypes have the unfortunate effect of reinforcing them.

I never thought I’d be so happy to see an AS thread.

“Hating someone solely because of their choice of a sexual partner is just plain ignorance.”
.
Finally, something we can all agree on.

You know very well that religion and right-wing authoritarianism and bigotry are not synonymous. Why then do you always treat it as such breaking news whenever that simple fact gets illustrated.
.
PD,
.
Because the Right has always tried to fire up their base by painting that at the liberal position – that those on the left believe that ALL religious people are authoritarians and bigots. Keeps them in line, even if it’s NOT true.
.
And we know that the MSM is always accurate in their portrayal of the left position on everything.

Bigotry? Hatred? These are loaded words. They do not in any way describe the majority of those who are opposed to homosexuality. Not condoning a particular behavior is not synonymous with hating the individual who engages in that behavior.

I never thought I’d be so happy to see an AS thread.
.
Yeah, the smell of “dead steed” was getting a little strong on the last thread.

spob, for once has a legitimate (and topical) point.
From the standpoint of logic and consistency the punishment for any particular crime should be quite independent of the identity of the victim. Of course in the real world there are some serious problems with that assumption. But I’m not convinced that creating a special class of victim is the bast way to deal with the general problem of prejudice.

It’s really a sad statement about religion in America that extremist religious groups are so common here that a document like this is necessary.
.
I’ve thought for a long time that the ‘Hate Crimes’ bill should be renamed to something like the ‘Anti-Terrorism’ bill. It’s not so much about people that commit crimes because of hatred as it is about additional penalties for people who commit crimes to terrorize groups they hate. A name change might make the bill more palatable to some.

PD, I think that you cannot deny that “low-level” crimes like vandalism that are motivated by hate need to be punished more severely. They have a terroristic effect on people. And that needs to be recognized. The criminal law cannot be blind to the plight of a family who has “N …. go home” painted on its lawn.
.
The real issue, in my view, is the selective enforcement problem.

bobcnl: I’ll second the idea of the power in a name. Remember when some people thought the Moral Majority was actually moral and a majority?

But I’m not convinced that creating a special class of victim is the bast way to deal with the general problem of prejudice.
.
Reminds me of the creation of the “civil rights violation” category as a prosecutorial tool because juries in the deep south would refuse to convict someone for killing a black.
.
No, you can’t do away with prejudice in that way. I think they’re just trying to figure out some way to provide punishment for a type of crime that everyone knows is occurring but that clever lawyers can turn into something much less serious due to considerable variations in enforcement.

I can’t pretend to know the Constitutionality of Hate Crime bills but it strikes me that if someone spray paints a peace sign on a synagogue they should be treated differently than someone who spray paints a swastika.
.
They are both acts of vandalism but they hardly have the same impact.

Great thunder, bu’ this thread be a godsend – I be needin’ t’ thank ye, Amy! Perh’aps yer secret rehabilitatin’ be takin’ after all!
.
An’ I don’t mind a hair bein’ wrong regardin’ th’ subject!
.
If all th’ various churches who be havin’ such a problem wi’ gay people would respect th’ division b’tween church an’ state, they could be preachin’ whatever they b’lieved an’ I wouldn’t be havin’ no problem. Bu, they seems to be unable t’ refrain fr’m concernin’ themselves wi’ what be Ceaser’s. Tha’ be one o’ th’ things tha’ be havin’ t’ change.
.
An’ makin’ it clear t’ their congregations tha’ no matter wha’ they be b’lievin’ regardin’ partic’lar individuals’ lifestyles, thar be no tolerance wi’in th’ walls o’ God’s house fer violence o’ any sort wha’soever be a partic’lar burden on th’ shoulders o’ th preachers o’ those sorts o’ churches. They needs t’ be makin’ sure tha message be crystal.
.
Arrgh.

“It’s really a sad statement about religion in America that extremist religious groups are so common here that a document like this is necessary.”
.
This statement shows a lot of ignorance. Right-wing religious people aren’t the ones assaulting gays.

They are both acts of vandalism but they hardly have the same impact.
.
Bingo, Paul.
.
THAT’s the needle that they are trying to thread with this. Without some way to differentiate, graffiti would be just graffiti.

PW obviously has very little understanding of the reality of gay-bashing. There aren’t too many right-wing preachers in urban areas, where many many gays choose to live.

I think the legislation is a necessary tool in the efforts to stop this type of hate crime. As sad as it is to think about, there are some people who hate gays just because they’re gay just like there are some people who hate blacks just because they’re black. If the country ever gets to the point where these kind of crimes aren’t an issue, just repeal the laws. I think they’ll stay on the books for quite awhile.

I think the terrorizing motive is a great way to distinguish between crime and the so-called “hate crime.” If one’s intent is to incite or induce fear into an entire group of people, that needs to be separated from one who targets a specific individual out of hatred. Many murders, beatings, and acts of vandalism stem from hatred of the victim, for numerous reasons. Thus the traditional definition of hate-crimes could be applied in any number of normal crimes. Expanding the clause to include the intention of terrorizing an entire community rather than simply hate induced infliction of harm or pain upon a single individual would lessen the potential for an uneven application of the law.

neorationalist86, Richard Nixon was heard on a recently released tape saying that he understood that abortion should be allowed under circumstances, like when the offspring would be that of a Black and a White. Nixon didn’t condone a particular behavior in that case. Did Nixon consider Black people equal?
.
Were the people who upheld statues that banned marriage between interracial marriage as in Loving vs Virginia, merely not condoning a particular behavior or sending a political message that one group was less than the other?

selective enforcement problem
considerable variations in enforcement
.
Now we’re beginning to see the real problem.
To use spob’s example, burning “Go Hoosiers” in someone’s lawn might warrant a lesser sentence than burning a racial slur but whether either resulted in an arrest in the first place may depend on whether the crime took place in Indiana or Kentucky.
One of the ironies to is that as more communities push for mandatory sentecing rules, the more discretion police might feel the need to apply in order to allow for mitigating circumstances that the courts can’t.

Right-wing religious people aren’t the ones assaulting gays
Unless the name “Phelps” is involved.
You’re right that the Right wing religious types aren’t necessarily leading the charge on assaults. They much prefer their harrassment to flow through existing legal channels.

It’s possible, of course, to equate anti-miscegenation laws and attitudes with opposition to gay marriage. But that doesn’t really wash. Some of us want to withhold society’s imprimatur on homosexual conduct. You may disagree. I liken it to swingers. You know, whatever people want to do, but should we be forced to give societal imprimatur to polyamory?

There aren’t too many right-wing preachers in urban areas, where many many gays choose to live.
.
No, but I’ll be there are a number of TV sets tuned to cable broadcasts of such preachers who are several hundreds of miles away. These televangelists aren’t making their monies solely from people physically sitting in their churches.

RMRD-
I’m not getting your point. If Nixon was advocating abortion of interracial pregnancies that is quite a leap from simply not condoning interracial couples. It is bordering on raw hatred to suggest the abortion of pregnancies related to miscegenation. So, obviously, Nixon would not fall under the category of those I mentioned who do not condone, yet do not hate either….

afguy, right wing religious types are pretty rare in most urban areas (where gays tend to congregate) . . . . violence against gays is not a right-wing issue, for the most part.
.
By the way, in 2004, of known offenders committing bias crimes, whites were underrepresented when it comes to offenders, and blacks were overrepresented. And since Hispanics were lumped into the “white” category, it’s safe to say that whites were even more underrepresented than the stats showed.

I see this will be another troll thread. Peace.

neorationalist86. Nixon would give consent to abort a mixed race fetus, but would prevent the abortion of a White fetus, interesting.
.
The folks who would ban interracial marriage, were they not condoning or were they hating?
.
Should Loving have waited until the majority community decided that interracial marriage was fine, or was the lawsuit the true American way to resolve the issue?

rmrd, the people had already decided the Loving point–it’s called the Equal Protection Clause, ratified by a 3/4s majority of states.

“peace”, that’s interesting coming from your yap, SG, given your glorification of racist violence against Justin Barker.

What is your point, RMRD? Instead of asking rhetorical questions, just come out and say what you want to say. You’re obviously of the mindset that opposing miscegenation on the grounds that one race is inferior is the same as opposing homosexuality, are you not?

Man, you people squeamishly shy from debate. The second the thread deviates from everyone stumbling over one another in utter agreement, you call it a troll thread and make your departures.

More on Sanford.
.
https://twitter.com/stevebruskCNN/status/2331545091
.
Just in– Gov. Sanford will “reimburse the state for the full cost of the Argentina leg” of June trade mission because he saw woman
.
Still “almost admirable”?

If RMRD won’t say it, I will: using the legal system to prevent miscegenation is the same as using it to prevent gay marriage. I’m fine with religious and conservative citizens speaking their mind about the issue, but codifying marriage discrimination is unConstitutional and patently un-American. The government should get out of the marriage business if it can’t provide the service equally.

The issue of people “opposing homosexuality” becomes smaller every year.
Younger people care less and less about the issue. Those that “oppose homosexuality” will certainly always exist but as a political/legal issue those days are shortening.

neorationalist86, I really don’t see the difference. It both cases two consenting adults want to enter into a union. Outside parties are offended because of religious reasons, societal norms etc. These outside parties want to inhibit the rights of a minority group.
.
The opposition to the minority group takes many forms, including deciding that laws aimed at preventing threats against the minority group are in effect giving those minorities special rights.

And yes, neo, declaring a race “inferior” and gays “inferior” are the same thing as well. There’s no rational reason to prevent gay marriage: “it’s icky” isn’t a valid argument.

………….Man, you people squeamishly shy from debate. The second the thread deviates from everyone stumbling over one another in utter agreement, you call it a troll thread and make your departures.
.
It seems that “we people” are still here carrying on a conversation.
.
Are you talking about the one “people” who has since returned?

Not condoning a particular behavior is not synonymous with hating the individual who engages in that behavior.
.
Neo: But failure to condone a particular behavior would not fall under a hate-crimes statute.
.
To paraphrase the Daily Show, you don’t have to like gay people, but you’re still not allowed to punch them.

just come out and say what you want to say. You’re obviously of the mindset that opposing miscegenation on the grounds that one race is inferior is the same as opposing homosexuality, are you not?
.
Kinda prickly there. You got something you want to get off your chest, chief?

Put another way: Hate crimes, the 1st Amendment, and marriage equality are all separate issues.

opposing miscegenation on the grounds that one race is inferior is the same as opposing homosexuality
.
Yes.

Hate crime legislation: a savage hypocrisy.

Commenters:
.
Sorry, normally I wouldn’t comment like this on the unengaged, self-inflicted dullard Amy Sullivan’s posts, but I just couldn’t let this idiotic fabrication of hers stand un-clarified:
.
…progressive think tank Third Way…
.
(sigh) They’re not progressives, they’re not liberals, they’re nothing of the sort whatsoever; Amy Sullivan just doesn’t know what she’s talking about again.
.
They’re not progressive, they’re “progressive”, as in centrists.

A think tank with close ties to the telecommunication industry has been working with a key Democrat in the Senate on a domestic surveillance bill that would provide telecommunications companies with retroactive immunity for possibly violating federal law by spying on American citizens at the behest of the Bush administration.
.
Third Way, a non-profit “progressive” think tank that is funded and controlled by hedge fund managers, corporate lawyers and business executives has advised Sen. Jay Rockefeller on a domestic surveillance bill that includes immunity for telecommunications companies with which Third Way board members have close ties.
.
“We have advised Senator Rockefeller on messaging and have talked to his staff regarding FISA,” Matt Bennett, vice president of Third Way said. “We believe there should be immunity and have been cooperating with [Rockefeller's staff].”
.
“I told him that we thought it would be helpful for [Rockefeller] to talk about the reasons for providing immunity to the telecoms,” Bennett said. “We thought it would be a bad idea to allow these companies to be held legally liable for cooperating with the government … you want to encourage the cooperation of not just the telecom industry, but all other industries in the future.”
.
This talking point stuck, and remains one of the main arguments made by proponents of granting retroactive immunity.

In case you thought that bit about “controlled by hedge fund managers” was hyperbole, think again:

Board of Trustees
.
Dwight Anderson is a principal and portfolio manager of Ospraie Management, LLC, a $8 billion investment firm focused on four investment strategies in the basic industry and commodity sectors – hedge fund, private equity, incubation/seeding and long-only. Ospraie actively invests in basic industry and commodity markets on a global basis from a fundamentally driven, long-term perspective.

Mr. Anderson founded the Ospraie Funds in February 2000 in partnership with Tudor Investment Corporation, where he served from July 1999 until December 2003. In 2004, he left Tudor to form Ospraie Management, LLC. Prior to joining Tudor, Mr. Anderson was an Associate Director and later a Managing Director in charge of the Basic Industries and Commodities Group at Tiger Investment Management from October 1994 to July 1999. Before joining Tiger, Mr. Anderson was an Associate at JP Morgan & Co.
.
Mr. Anderson holds an M.B.A. from the University of North Carolina and an B.A. in History from Princeton University.

This is the most corporatist, most centrist, most Blue Dog-oriented, “progressive think tank” ever.
.
Duh, that’s why they’re called Third Way:

Third Way (centrism)
.
The Third Way is a term that has been used to describe a political position which attempts to transcend left-wing and right-wing politics by advocating a mix of some left-wing and right-wing policies.[1] Third Way approaches are commonly viewed as representing a centrist compromise between capitalism and socialism, or between market liberalism and democratic socialism.

.
Amy Sullivan wouldn’t know this basic fact pertaining to the political identity of the people in whom she’s “interested”, however, because she’s an incompetent journalist whose feeble mental processes are so thoroughly drenched in 1990′s Beltway conventional wisdom that (in her water clock brain) anyone not cheering wildly for Pat Robertson’s presidential candidacy is a “progressive”.
.
They call themselves “…the leading think tank of the moderate wing of the progressive movement. We work with elected officials, candidates, and advocates to develop and advance the next generation of moderate policy ideas.”
.
By “next generation of moderate policy ideas”, I presume that means “whatever we think of next after supporting the Iraq invasion“:

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI, http://www.ppionline.org/ ) is a think-tank associated with the DLC, dedicated to promoting “third-way” policies.
.
PPI is a project of the Third Way Foundation, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. (1)
.
Using language that mirrors that of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in October 2003 PPI hailed the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which warned of the present danger in its founding documents, the Progressive Policy Institute declared that “America is threatened once again” and needs assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. Its observation–“like the cold war, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades”–mirrors both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. In its words, PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq, “because the previous policy of containment was failing,” and Saddam Hussein’s government was “undermining both collective security and international law.” \.
.
The statement, according to the PPI media release, “takes issue with left-wing activists who routinely call for deep cuts in military spending, reflexively oppose the use of force, and embrace an anti-trade, anti-globalization agenda that would damage the U.S. economy and condemn developing nations to perpetual poverty.” According to the report, “Progressive internationalism occupies the vital center between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left, between a view that assumes that our might always makes us right and one that assumes that because America is strong it must be wrong.”

They’re the worst of the worst; they’re centrists who are trying to define themselves as politically popular by adopting the (previously shameful) label “progressive”, because they’re still so terrified of any association with liberalism or “the activist left”. They’re not liberals, they’re not progressives, they’re the dishonest people who are busy developing the messaging for corporatist Democratic Senators to use whilst f*cking you out of real health care reform. They have no interest whatsoever in what you think or want or need, because they don’t like you and think that you’re too stupid to know what’s best for our country.
.
Sorry to interrupt, but this obvious, factual point had to be made clear.

Well, it would appear that the argument for homosexual marriages goes as follows:
.
1) Consenting adults are entitled to do as they please so long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others
.
2) The government does not have the authority to regulate the pursuit of happiness, and as homosexual marriages are undoubtedly as any other marriage, i.e. out of love, happiness, etc, than it stands to reason that the government cannot regulate marriage prerequisites other than adult/child consent issues
.
3) The legal ‘institution’ of marriage cannot rest on any moral/religious definition of one man/one women, therefore legal benefits bestowed upon wedded partners cannot be infringed upon under any historical/traditional/religious arguments as to the natural composition of a marriage
.
Would you agree that this is a fair assessment of the gay-marriage platform?

Mixed feelings about the HC bill. In the end, I’d have to say I’m against it. I admit that the murder of Matthew Shepard or James Byrd outrages me in a way “routine” murders do not, but that shouldn’t impact how our legal system works. Similar to my anti cap. punishment stance (my own violent desires for revenge if something happened to a loved one must remain irrelevant in the face of justice).
~
As for N-R, when you say:
~
“Bigotry? Hatred? These are loaded words. They do not in any way describe the majority of those who are opposed to homosexuality. Not condoning a particular behavior is not synonymous with hating the individual who engages in that behavior.”
~
… do you not recognize that the result might be:
~
“Man, you people squeamishly shy from debate. The second the thread deviates from everyone stumbling over one another in utter agreement, you call it a troll thread and make your departures.”
~
Not clear if you’re a youthful exception to PNNTO’s observation above, but engaging homophobes is, for many of us humanists, akin to going to a pedophiles’, errr priests’, convention. It’s distasteful.

Vastwastelander –
.
I be agreein’ wi’ ye – I’ve been thinkin’ fer a long time tha’ as far as the govt be concerned, either everyone be gettin’ married, or everyone be gettin’ civil unions. Churches can be doin’ wha’ever they wants, bu all o’ us ‘ave th’ ri’ t’ equal treatment under th’ law.
.
O’ course, th’ nutjobs who be behind preventin’ gays fr’m bein’ married aren’t about t’ be givin’ up their own civil title wi’out a fight – they just can’t be stoppin’ themselves fr’m meddlin’ wi’ Ceasar’s things!
.
Arrgh!

JC:
I see, I am a homophobe now. Excellent. Thank you for enlightening me.
.
…pedophiles’, errr priests’, convention… Are you serious? You want to stand by that grossly disingenuous and utterly bigoted statement? I wonder if Pirate Wench will take exception to that statement, as any good Catholic wench worth her salt be obliged to do….

Ahhhh…if only all o’ those who’re so “opposed to homosexuality” would be contentin’ themselves wi’ not bein’ homosexuals an’ leave th’ rest o’ us alone, wha’ a bright world this would be!
.
Arrgh!

neo
.
Are you talking about two adults or more?
.
I might opt for the government approving civil unions for everyone and marriage being left to churches.

rmrd –
.
It be a trap man! Don’t be fallin’ in – ‘e learned this trick fr’m spongy!
.
YARR!

Polygamy an’ bein’ allowed t’ marry yer cat be comin out o’ th’ bag o’ tricks next!
.
YARR!

Bigotry? Hatred? These are loaded words. They do not in any way describe the majority of those who are opposed to homosexuality.
.
neo, so I’m guessing you feel that hating Catholicism isn’t bigoted. And I would have to disagree with you there. Although I am not a Catholic I would adamantly oppose any effort to deny Catholics the right to marry.

An marryin’ underage puppies fer th’ purposes o’ violatin’ ‘em an’ beginnin’ a evil master race o’ mixed puppy-men who be roundin’ up all th’ good moral defense o’ marriage folks an’ forcin’ ‘em t’ engage in every depravity known an’ havin’ th’ special ri’s under th’ constitution fr’m havin’ same-sex marriage codified so there’s no recourse t’ combat their perverted desires no more!
.
SAVE US, defense o’ marriage heroes, SAVE US!!!
.
YARR!

It be a trap man! Don’t be fallin’ in – ‘e learned this trick fr’m spongy!
.
Probably, but when NR86 comes here to debate in good faith, as I feel he does, it’s impolite to let him just sit there.

Cliff –
.
Okay, matey, if tha’ be wha’ ye be thinkin’, bu’ don’t say I wasn’t warnin’ ye.
.
Arrgh!

RMRD-
.
Yes, by those tenets I listed, which appears to me at least to be the pro-gay marriage platform, than there is no legitimate argument to ban polygamy. I am not speaking to situations whereby a man has multiple wives, multiple families and they do not co-exist or are unaware of one another. That would reasonably be construed as an infringement upon the rights of the various wives, as it violates their understanding of fidelity and openness upon which their marriage was framed. I am referring to multiple (3+) consenting adults joining in matrimony, gaining tax-exemption status, and raising a family.
.
The traditional/religious/moral argument of the institution of marriage consisting of a man and a women has been rejected by the pro-gay marriage agenda, therefore what acceptably legal framework is there to deny this ‘basic right’ of happiness and equal protection to any other group of consenting adults?

I will let the article and clip speak for itself…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31528426/?GT1=43001

Cliff –
.
SEE? I tol’ ye!
.
Arrgh!

I am not suggesting this to be combative. I am simply examining exactly where your principles lie. If you say that you do indeed support polygamy on the grounds that you support consenting adults being free of government encroachment, pursuing their happiness, and not infringing on the rights of others, than so be it. You stick to your principles, for that I applaud you. However, if you reject my notion that marriage is between one man/one women to fit your views on homosexuality, yet than you turn around and define marriage as between TWO consenting adults, that reeks of hypocrisy.

I am not equating homosexuality with adult/relationships or bestiality. You can check that absurdity at the door Pirate.
.
And I am still waiting, PW, do you not take offense at JC likening Catholic priests to pedophiles?

*That should read adult/child relationships…

I’m not bothered by polygamy either – again, so long as all parties are informed and consenting.

1 man + 1 woman = 2 consenting adults

1 woman + 1 woman = 2 consenting adults

1 man + 1 man = 2 consenting adults

If you don’t allow for 2-20 consenting adults, you are a hypocrite, is that really your point?

Ok, then Cliff, you stick to your principles and I accept that. But, you are proof that I am not some ranting lunatic by bringing up polygamy in a discussion of homosexuality, as PW suggests….

Cliff –
.
So all we needs t’ be doin’ is gettin’ the polygamy statutes o’erturned, an’ this whole gay marriage thing be solved!
.
Yay!
.
I bet we could count on some wingnut LDS (as opposed t’ mainstream LDS) support, fer starters…
.
Arrgh!

My point, RMRD, is that proponents of gay marriage reject the traditional/religious idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. They conclude that the legality of gay-marriage has nothing to do with antiquated moral/historic definitions. Yet, they have no qualms with their own definitional limitations in that it must be TWO consenting adults. So, my definition takes it one step further and suggests that it is two, consenting adults, one man, one woman. Yet I am a homophobic bigot. So are you not a bigot against those who would seek multiple spouses?

“I see, I am a homophobe now. Excellent. Thank you for enlightening me.”
~
You’re welcome.
~
“…pedophiles’, errr priests’, convention… Are you serious? You want to stand by that grossly disingenuous and utterly bigoted statement?”
~
Stand by, proudly, drunken smirk on my face.
~
Didn’t you mention libertarian tendencies at one point–they don’t extend to tolerance for gays, clearly. Given the moral illegitimacy of the catholic church, among many others, given the “moral” failings of those who most vehemently defend the institution of marriage, just what threat is it that gays pose to you and yours?
~
And as someone who taught people your age in very white, very christian Florida, you do realize that as far as your generation goes, you’re a flippin’ neanderthal?

Well, you sir, JC, are an intolerant bigot who has not the slightest comprehension of Catholic dogma nor the realities of the sex-abuse ‘scandal.’ Your vehemently prejudiced rant is an insult to me, as it should be to all Catholics, including Pirate. Your view is absurd, baseless, antiquated and dismissible. You would fit in quite well with the 1800s No-Nothing Party, maybe not neanderthal, but certainly lacking in contemporary tolerance.

The traditional/religious/moral argument of the institution of marriage consisting of a man and a women has been rejected by the pro-gay marriage agenda,
.
It’s a little more complex than that. We think marriage inequality is immoral. So when people ask us to support marriage inequality they are asking us to disregard our own moral convictions.
.
Marriage equality isn’t some necessary evil. It’s not equivalent to allowing people to disseminate racist rhetoric to protect a greater good: free speech. It’s about allowing two people to express their love for each other and gain all the legal and economic benefits that go along with marriage.
.
However, if you reject my notion that marriage is between one man/one women to fit your views on homosexuality, yet than you turn around and define marriage as between TWO consenting adults, that reeks of hypocrisy.
.
See if you reject my notion that marriage is between two consenting adults to fit your views on homosexuality, and then you claim that acceptance of homosexuality is equivalent to acceptance of polygamy, than that reeks of homophobia.
.
We’re both offering competing definitions of marriage. Neither is more hypocritical than the other. And neither has anything to do with polygamy. You think it’s one man and one woman. We (well except for Cliff) think it’s two consenting adults. Other people still think it’s one man and one woman of the same race. The traditional way of resolving these conflicts has been to simply allow people to make the personal choice in their own lives.
.
They conclude that the legality of gay-marriage has nothing to do with antiquated moral/historic definitions.
.
But you essentially except that too. Otherwise you would support the “traditional” anti-miscegenation laws that are still on the books in some states. And you wouldn’t have a problem with child marriages and what many people today would see as incest (e.g. first cousins in families that had already interbred for generations).

rose –
.
neo appears t’ be = a sort o’ softer, kinder, more rational-soundin’ spongy – leave ‘im be, lassie, leave ‘im be.
.
arrgh.

Well, you sir, JC, are an intolerant bigot who has not the slightest comprehension of Catholic dogma nor the realities of the sex-abuse ‘scandal.’ Your vehemently prejudiced rant is an insult to me, as it should be to all Catholics, including Pirate. Your view is absurd, baseless, antiquated and dismissible. You would fit in quite well with the 1800s No-Nothing Party, maybe not neanderthal, but certainly lacking in contemporary tolerance.
.
neo, oh so you do think anti-Catholicism is bigoted. Please do explain why that is the case but opposing homosexuality isn’t bigoted.

And JC,
Setting me aside from my nonsensical disgraceful excuse for a generation is quite an honor and a compliment. I thank you for that.

neorationalist86 Says:
Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Well, you sir, JC, are an intolerant bigot who has not the slightest comprehension of Catholic dogma nor the realities of the sex-abuse ‘scandal.’ Your vehemently prejudiced rant is an insult to me, as it should be to all Catholics, including Pirate. Your view is absurd, baseless, antiquated and dismissible. You would fit in quite well with the 1800s No-Nothing Party, maybe not neanderthal, but certainly lacking in contemporary tolerance.
……………………

What I really admire is this sort of courteous, insightful and witty contribution to the thread. It just makes me feel hope for western civilization.

jcapan,
.
Bein’ o’ th’ Catholic persuasion, I be thinkin’ yer statement be just a wee bit broad brush…bu’ all o’ us be guilty o’ tha’ on occasion. Bu’ easy, me hearty, easy thar!
.
On th’ other hand, those who be li’ tha’ ALL th’ time an’ blind (not namin’ names, but they can go f themselves!) an’ deliberate blind t’ th’ plank in their own eyes – they be a diff’rent story! ‘ave at ‘em!
.
Arrgh!

Rose-
That is a red herring argument. To suggest that to be tolerant and accepting of religion, e.g. Catholicism, means that one must also be accepting of any conceivable human behavior lest they be hypocritical is disingenuous. There is a vast difference between opposing a person based on their religious convictions and opposing a particular behavior which one finds immoral. We will never agree as to the acceptability of homosexuality, however, to equate freedom of sexuality with freedom of religion is simply fallible reasoning.

junius –
.
I were just gettin’ t’ tha’ -
.
Funny how ‘e were just so self-righteous scornful just yesterday, bu’ it didn’t take much t’ knock ‘im into th’ muck wi’ everyone else…
.
An ‘e was talkin’ ’bout hypocrites? Appears ‘e knows o’ whom ‘e be speakin’!
.
Arrgh!

Give i’ up rose…just give i’ up.
.
‘e’s spongy in neo clothin’.
.
Arrgh!

JR.

Do you find this equally “courteous, insightful and witty?”
.
JC says:
…pedophiles’, errr priests’, convention…
.
I say:
Are you serious? You want to stand by that grossly disingenuous and utterly bigoted statement?”
~
JC says:
Stand by, proudly, drunken smirk on my face…you do realize that as far as your generation goes, you’re a flippin’ neanderthal?

To suggest that to be tolerant and accepting of religion, e.g. Catholicism, means that one must also be accepting of any conceivable human behavior lest they be hypocritical is disingenuous.
.
neo, well let’s look at the particular human behavior in question. First, it’s innate in the sense that one is born homosexual. Unlike say being a murderer. Or a Catholic for that matter – I know many people who converted as adults and others who left the church. Second, again unlike being a murderer, it harms no one.
.
Can you think of other human behaviors which meet those criteria that you would also refuse to tolerate?
.
BTW, I didn’t say “hypocritical.” I certainly implied inconsistency but bigotry is what I’m getting at.
.
We will never agree as to the acceptability of homosexuality, however, to equate freedom of sexuality with freedom of religion is simply fallible reasoning.
.
Well if my reasoning is so poor you should be able to reveal its weaknesses. Surely you can do more than merely announce that my reasoning is “fallible.”

Indeed, neo, I think it is a match for your own high standards, although it dispenses with the superfluous adjectives that slightly marr your own sapient and prudent discourse. Infatuated by your gorgeous rhetoric, I have committed it to memory, and shall cherish it forever.

Pirate:
I called JC out for what he is. I did not tell him to go f*ck himself, as that doesn’t adequately describe my feelings towards him. It was in the context of substantive analysis of his views based on what he said rather than a purely combative and vulgar insult.

Give i’ up rose…just give i’ up.
.
‘e’s spongy in neo clothin’.
.
I should be working but I’m genuinely curious to see how homophobes claim to not be bigoted. The prejudice doesn’t intrigue me – that’s routine unfortunately – but the justifications do. And neo is not spob: he’s smart, knowledgeable and aims for logic. Spob wouldn’t bother to try to resolve the contradictions.
.
But I will bet that within 10 years neo will “tolerate” homosexuality and perhaps even support marriage equality. I won’t be the one to change his mind but I don’t get the impression he wants to be a dinosaur clinging to contradictory prejudices.

We (well except for Cliff) think it’s two consenting adults.
.
Out of curiousity, what’s the argument against polygamy?

rose –
.
Actual, thar do be an equivalent…ye can’t be denyin’ Catholics th’ ri’s guaranteed by th’ Constitution an’ th’ law because o’ their religion – even if ye be happenin’ t’ be b’lievin’ th’ Pope be th’ antichrist an’ th’ Catholics themselves be spawn o’ th’ devil, an’ ye shouldn’a be able t’ deny homosexuals their ri’s under th’ Constitution an’ th’ law – no matter wha’ ye be b’lievin’ ’bout them an’ their moral depravity, neither.
.
Sheesh – why can these people not understand tha’ their own personal b’liefs, individual ‘r organized, be not havin’ th’ ri’ t’ deny any American Citizen th’ ri’s th’ Constitution an’ th’ law be guaranteein’ fer all American citizens???
.
I think it be b’cause they be brine-brained cretins, meself!
.
Arrgh!

Rose:
First, it’s innate in the sense that one is born homosexual.
.
According to UNM’s Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer, rape is innate as well, as the ‘rape gene’ has been passed on from Neanderthal times by the more dominant male individuals weeding out those males who would not mate by force if necessary. Does this suggest that rape is acceptable because it is innate?
.
Well if my reasoning is so poor you should be able to reveal its weaknesses. Surely you can do more than merely announce that my reasoning is “fallible.”
.
Because you are equating a belief system with a behavior. There is no correlation.

Ah, the old “equating homosexuality to rape” stratagem.
.
Well played, sir.

Doubling down, proud of my anti-catholic bigotry. I loathe the church, plain and simple. I loathe the pope and his hierarchical & hypocritical ring-kissing courtiers. “His” faithful worshippers are irrelevant to this loathing, IMO. Do I deny the existence of good priests, certainly not, do I deny that the church does some good, no, but weighing the good vs. the bad, the vatican has and continues to be a force against progress in the world. Listening to the church speak of morality after their recent history is akin to listening to Sanford preaching about committed marriages.
~
I’d add however, given that I’m attacking a religious institution and one of the wealthiest empires on the planet, that my scorn for the church is not bigotry–it’s not at all different from those who hate a government or a gov’t's leading power brokers. The US senate is a force operating against Americans’ interests–that said, I like Russ Feingold, among a few others. Nevertheless, our senate is otherwise mostly worthy of, you guessed it, loathing.

Ah, Pirate, while there is an unwavering Constitutional right to freedom of religion, there is no such explicitly stated right to sexual persuasion or even to marriage. The state routinely intervenes on matters of the family where it deems someone unfit. Social Service do more damage to families in today’s society than any other group, entity, or ideal. They have the authority to steal your children because you may have slapped your son in the face for telling you to go f*ck yourself. That is acceptable. They routinely turn down adoption requests because something seems amiss about the couple. That is acceptable. But it is utterly unheard of for the state to regulate who may marry, who may create a family in the first place? It seems a little reform in state intervention over family affairs is in order before we begin reforming its stance on marriage.

According to UNM’s Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer, rape is innate as well, as the ‘rape gene’ has been passed on from Neanderthal times by the more dominant male individuals weeding out those males who would not mate by force if necessary. Does this suggest that rape is acceptable because it is innate?
.
Did I say that homosexuality is acceptable because it is innate? No, I didn’t. In fact the rape argument is a great argument – one I’ve used in fact – for why homophobia shouldn’t be legally enshrined even though it has a long history.
.
Because you are equating a belief system with a behavior. There is no correlation.
.
Well a belief system isn’t worth much if it doesn’t impact behavior. But does that mean one could oppose someone for practicing Catholicism – obviously a behavior – without being a bigot? And you must be able to say why you oppose homosexuality as a behavior.

rose -
.
Sorry, I be disagreein’. Neo be smoother than spongy be, bu’ ‘is aim be th’ same – t’ tie up th’ thread wi’ twistin’ an’ shiftin’ an’ lurin’ folks into attemptin’ t’ engage ‘im, an’ then wrappin’ ‘em up like a spider wi’ a fly.
.
Tha’ be why I quit readin’ ‘im.
.
Granted, on occasion ‘e can be seemin’ above boards, but th’ facade slips quick once ‘e’s got someone in ‘is clutches.
.
Keep entertainin’ yerself wi’ ‘im if ye like – I be knowin’ sometimes I just can’t be resistin’ puttin’ spongy down on th’ floor an’ givin’ ‘im a kick. Bu’ watch yerself, lass, watch yerself!
.
Arrgh!

Out of curiousity, what’s the argument against polygamy?
.
Cliff, can I answer that another time? I honestly should go back to my work.
.
But if I’m going to momentarily abandon it the homosexuality/rape comparisons have priority!

If not rose, then someone else, perhaps?
.
How is this distaste for polygamy anything more than a cultural reflex?

Cliff-
I am not equating homosexuality to rape. I am noting that allegedly they are both innate, thus to use the innate argument, as Rose did, is troublesome.
.
Rose-
Practicing Catholicism falls under freedom of religion, not really behavior. If you do not practice your religion, there is no need for it to be protected. While individuals such as JC are free to hold whatever views they hold regarding Catholics, however misguided and uninformed, it is still bigotry in that it is based solely on one’s identity as a Catholic. Opposing homosexuality, at least in reference to me, however, speaks not to any personal hatred, antagonistic attitude towards the individuals themselves, but towards their conduct in a manner that I see as immoral. I do not oppose the individual or their identity, just their actions. Anti-Catholic bigotry, despite what JC has said, is generally aimed at more than just the institution, but its members as well, especially its priests. Categorizing priests as pedophiles is a direct slight against each individual priest and his identity as a priest or a Catholic, and as such, is bigotry.

Pirate-
I have no ulterior motives other than debate and exchange of ideas, minus of course any further discourse with the incorrigible JC and his views. He refuses to speak to me because I am a ‘homophobe’ therefore I will refuse to speak with him based on his anti-Catholic prejudice.
.
I am not attempting to tie up the debate. This thread is on hate-crimes aimed at homosexuals. We are discussing homosexuality and marriage. Not exactly irrelevant to the original thread. I think you give me too much credit. I read, I respond. My views. Your views. Debate. Discourse. Why does that frighten you so?

Opposing homosexuality, at least in reference to me, however, speaks not to any personal hatred, antagonistic attitude towards the individuals themselves, but towards their conduct in a manner that I see as immoral. I do not oppose the individual or their identity, just their actions.
.
neo, so you don’t see heterosexuality as a component of a heterosexual person’s identity. Interesting.
.
But what I’m really getting at here is why you think homosexuality is immoral. It’s innate. It doesn’t harm anyone. So please explain your perspective.
.
Practicing Catholicism falls under freedom of religion, not really behavior.
.
Just saying that isn’t enough.

The same person who said this “.pedophiles’, errr priests’, convention… Are you serious? You want to stand by that grossly disingenuous and utterly bigoted statement?”
compares gay people with rapists?
.
Going to your fainting (feign?) couch one minute and then that.

There is one blindingly obvious difference between rape and homosexuality, which renders the comparison imbecilic:

Rape is an act of force

Homosexual love is consensual, shared and mutually enhancing

Anyone who thinks they are analogous really does need some basic logic courses and more time spent in the real world.

“minus of course any further discourse with the incorrigible JC and his views”
~
INCORRIGIBLE, THY NAME IS JC! Smiling ear to ear baby. Come one, N-R, you know you love me. If you come just come to terms with your attraction for me, all would go so much easier.
~
But seriously, clearing my voice, done stirring the pot for today. I’ll leave you with 2 words: Greg Marmalard. You’ll figure it out.

“Yes, by those tenets I listed, which appears to me at least to be the pro-gay marriage platform, than there is no legitimate argument to ban polygamy”
.
Ahh, the “slippery slope” argument. And then the gay= rapist argument. Fabulous.
.
Off Topic- The King of Pop is dead. http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson/index.html . I must say, though, that if anyone would fake his own death…

JC, I fear that neo and spob have parted brass rags, and that neo is in mourning for The One. You might have to wait a while before he opens up to you.

juniusredivivus, yeah that “rape is for procreation” position is an odd one to use to support any argument.

The definition of immorality is not limited to whether or not another individual is harmed. I disagree that homosexuality is unequivocally innate. Generally speaking this may be the case. But, contrary to what many of you may believe, I have several gay acquaintances/friends who were heterosexual most of their lives, were attracted to the opposite sex, and then by way of personal experiences either experimented and liked what they encountered or endured specific experiences which led them to seek sexual/romantic solace elsewhere. This was clearly choice in sexual preference.
.
In my mind, homosexuality is immoral for reasons that are very hard to articulate properly. Chiefly there are religious, moral values which I subscribe to which lead me to that conclusion. However, I cannot suggest that you should accept my argument based on my belief system, as I would not necessarily accept yours. Logic and laws of nature suggest that homosexuality is contrary to the rational human nature. Simply put, were everyone homosexual the human race would be extinct. Speaking of innate behaviors, the survival of one’s species certainly should be ingrained in the psyche of all species, humans included. Thus reproduction is inherently natural. To engage in sexual conduct with an individual you can never naturally reproduce with is therefore contrary to the nature of instincts. Then there are societal norms, cultural norms, historical norms. While these in and of themselves certainly should not prevent homosexuals from living their lives, it does not suggest that society as a whole must condone, accept, and allow marriage in this case.
.
I liken it to my own experiences with drugs. Many friends found my indulgence in drugs to be immoral or offensive. While they did not approve of my conduct in this regard, they did not shun me as a person or as a friend. I take the same approach towards homosexuality, I find it offensive and immoral, yet I do not attack the individual and I accept those who do engage in homosexuality and no lesser than me and I thus try to not let my views on their sexuality influence my treatment of them on an individual level.

“The definition of immorality is not limited to whether or not another individual is harmed. ”
.
Which helps explain your lack of concern over waterboarding.

I never equated rape with homosexuality. Man you people do not read. I was discrediting the argument that we cannot oppose homosexuality because it is innate with a study that suggests that rape too is innate. Innateness in and of itself is not enough that we must approve. Be honest in your discourse, people. Do not misrepresent my views.

neo-own your words. You went crazy over JC’s “joke” which was tangental now you get rapist=homosexual.

Neo, you made a very clear analogy, suggesting that they were both natural, and therefore morally equivalent. It’s a trivial argument at best, and deeply flawed, not to mention repellent at worst. Added to which, your basis for it is purely theoretical. There is no proof of the theory you cite on rape and evolution.

Piper1-
What is wrong with polygam? Polygamy in the sense of three or more individuals marrying as a group, not as one man with several wives leading different lives and thus leading a life of infidelity which would infringe upon the rights of the wives.
.
So what is wrong with it?
.
Consenting adults. Check.
No harm to anyone else. Check.
Government stop regulating my happiness. Check.
Rejection of traditional view of marriage. Check.
.
While of course there is an immense difference between homosexuality and polygamy, I see no difference between the arguments that would legalize them, yet the same people (minus principled Cliff) who support gay marriage would deny this ‘fundamental right’ to polygamists. Tisk, tisk, tisk….

Is it true that part of the legislation that is being proposed that pedophilia is protected as a sexual orientation among other things? I am just looking for clarification to a rumor. I am not trying to start a fight.

That rumor is false lostepic. Not protected, subsidized.

To engage in sexual conduct with an individual you can never naturally reproduce with is therefore contrary to the nature of instincts.
.
Except that it’s obviously not.
.
So your basic thinking is that it’s okay for infertile heterosexual couples to marry because some pairings of people who share their respective genders could reproduce. You have to admit it’s not exactly elegant reasoning.
.
The core issue here is that people have opposing belief systems on the issue of marriage equality and you want to impose yours on everyone else, even though yours provides no options for people who disagree with you while ours does: people don’t have to marry someone of the same gender if they don’t want to.
.
I was discrediting the argument that we cannot oppose homosexuality because it is innate
.
Which again is an argument no one here made.
.
No harm to anyone else. Check.
.
That’s the weak point for polygamy. I can cite evidence but I don’t have time now. I’m just pointing out the grounds for my opposition to polygamy.

JR:
I cited a study by UNM’s Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer, look it up.
.
JR and PNNTO:
I used the rape analogy simply to discredit Rose in that innateness in itself warrants acceptance. Just because something is innate doesn’t mean we must accept it. I absolutely did not intend to actually equate homosexuality with rape. I apologize if the perception was contrary.

NR86 – I accept your argument that you weren’t equating rape with homosexuality.
.
But the point of the “innate quality” argument is that we, as a society, no longer oppose black people for being black. We don’t oppose tall people for being tall, and so on and so forth.
.
In that same sense, we cannot oppose homosexuality.
.
The reason we can oppose rape, even though it has its roots in male biology, is because it always harms someone. 100% of the time.
.
The same cannot be said for homosexuality.

I used the rape analogy simply to discredit Rose in that innateness in itself warrants acceptance.
.
Okay once again here is what I said: neo, well let’s look at the particular human behavior in question. First, it’s innate in the sense that one is born homosexual. Unlike say being a murderer. Or a Catholic for that matter – I know many people who converted as adults and others who left the church. Second, again unlike being a murderer, it harms no one.
.
Can you think of other human behaviors which meet those criteria that you would also refuse to tolerate?
.
Citing the innateness of homosexuality as one factor in judging its worthiness of toleration is not the same as arguing that all innate behaviors merit toleration. Otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered to make the second point.

neo do you subscribe to Thornhill and Palmer’s thesis?

Rose,
To the contrary your standpoint on homosexuality seeks to impose itself on me by forcing me, as a taxpaying citizen, to condone, accept, and support the legal sanctioning of homosexual marriages. The tax-breaks and marital status benefits come from my tax dollars. SO I have as much a right as anyone to oppose the government’s consent to homosexual marriages. Again, the conduct can exist absent of marriage, but I shouldn’t be forced to accept or condone which is what legalization of gay marriage would force me to do. Simple as that.

Neo, you seem to be admitting to arguing in bad faith, and not believing your own case. What precisely is your personal position on homosexuality and gay marriage?

Ahh it’s a dollar and cents issue for neo. Taxes -and tax benefits- should only be used for things an individual taxpayer has no moral issue with.

JR
Can you explain how I have argued in bad faith?
.
As for my personal views, you cannot and should not regulate homosexuality. Well, I suppose you could, but enforcement would be as rare as anti-sodomy or anti-oral laws. Its simply not practical, and it is invasive on people’s personal lives to the extreme. However, regulating marriage along society/traditional norms, I have no qualms about.

neo
.
Let us suppose that in the 1940s there existed a group of African-American men in Mississippi who loved blonde women. From a pure point of survival, it would be suicidal to express those urges.
.
After facing bullets in Europe during WWII, some of those men may have come back to the states, realized that life was too short, pursued the object of their desire. Let us suppose that some White women appreciated the pursuit. A consensual, but illegal relationship would have resulted.
.
In the context of the times, the Black men were practicing immoral, degenerate behavior. Proof of the immoral behavior would have included the observation that all prior relationships that the African-Americans had were natural ones,i.e with Black women.
.
It seems to me that people will conform to societal norms. It does not mean that your friends were born heterosexual. They were satisfying a sexual urge with the best means available. It did not serve the women in the relationship, or the men themselves well.

To the contrary your standpoint on homosexuality seeks to impose itself on me by forcing me, as a taxpaying citizen, to condone, accept, and support the legal sanctioning of homosexual marriages.
.
In the same way that our standpoint on civil rights forces the KKK, as taxpaying citizens, to accept the equality of all races under the law.
.
Logic and laws of nature suggest that homosexuality is contrary to the rational human nature. Simply put, were everyone homosexual the human race would be extinct. Speaking of innate behaviors, the survival of one’s species certainly should be ingrained in the psyche of all species, humans included. Thus reproduction is inherently natural.
.
Wtih 6 billion plus people on the planet, I think we have the reproduction of the species covered. It’s ingrained in us.
.
Why begrudge those few who are unable to reproduce?

PNNTO-

The taxing issue is not the sole base of my opposition. I was merely noting that contrary to what Rose said about her views not imposing on me, the pro-gay marriage stance absolutely imposes itself onto every tax payer, including the millions who oppose it. Homosexuality does not impose on anyone, legalized gay marriage, unequivocally does.

Its simply not practical, and it is invasive on people’s personal lives to the extreme. However, regulating marriage along society/traditional norms, I have no qualms about.
…………………………………………..

So you don’t see regulating people’s relationships as invasive? What else do you imagine that regulating marriage would be? And who decides societal or traditional norms? In Classical Athens, committed homosexual relationships were normal. In 10th century France, not so much. Which tradition do you see as more valid? Given that the states are moving towards accepting gay marriage – do you accept their verdict?

Cliff-
There are indeed times when it is necessary for society to impose its will on those who are opposed to freedom. Ensuring that African-Americans enjoy the rights expressed for all citizens is certainly one of those times. There is a vast difference between a race of people having access to all the facets of societal rights and a group of individuals who are of a particular sexual persuasion having access to marriage. To equate the two is far more insulting to the civil rights struggles of blacks in America than my innate rape comment could have been construed by homosexuals. Easy there slugger.

So if I may recap-Neo you are against gay marriage for moral reasons which isn’t enough to support your civic position so to bring it out of the religious arena you tie it into taxes.
.
Can that be used for other issues?

JR-
I oppose regulation of relationships at large. More specifically I condone regulation of marriage. Not contradictory.

“I oppose regulation of relationships at large. More specifically I condone regulation of marriage”
.
Wait a minute-weren’t you trying to taunt people about “principles” earlier?

To equate the two is far more insulting to the civil rights struggles of blacks in America than my innate rape comment could have been construed by homosexuals. Easy there slugger.
.
Turnabout is fair play, I suppose, but I wasn’t trying to equate them.
.
My point was that as a society we do force people to accept certain facts that they would accept on their own – so while you may not want society to accept gay marriage, I don’t see it as a barrier to legalizing gay marriage.
.
The fact that you cannot precisely verbalize your opposition to homosexuals makes it difficult to argue with you but easy to dismiss your stance.

neorationalist86 Says:
Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Man, you people squeamishly shy from debate. The second the thread deviates from everyone stumbling over one another in utter agreement, you call it a troll thread and make your departures.
.
Feel better about “us people” now?

. There is a vast difference between a race of people having access to all the facets of societal rights and a group of individuals who are of a particular sexual persuasion having access to marriage.
………………………………………..

Really? Looks mightily like an unargued and rather ludicrous assertion there, Neo. Specify the difference. Why should we see one as a case of rights, and the other as not? It is no insult to say that a struggle for gay rights is the same qualitatively as the struggle for African-American rights. both involve freedom, justice, the right of people to live their lives happily and with equal rights to the rest of the community.

There is a vast difference between a race of people having access to all the facets of societal rights and a group of individuals who are of a particular sexual persuasion having access to marriage.
.
Before I sign off I have to point out that there is no such vast difference. BTW, you mean “races” not “race.” All races were impacted by anti-miscegenation laws. Which I am well aware of as the product of such a marriage.

As a single woman, the marriage tax break imposes it’s self on me. That (tax) point is not valid in my universe.

Rose:
No, no, no Rose. I am not speaking of miscegenation. I am talking about the broader civil rights struggle for African-Americans. Voting, transportation, employment, access to facilities, ect. This encompasses such a sheer massive volume of denied rights, that to equate it with homosexuals’ embattlement for marriage is dismissive of the importance and vastness of the civil rights struggle.
.
PNNTO:
I feel much better now. I appreciate the discussion, even though the sheer volume of responses has been difficult for me to address point by point in an expedient manner.
.
JR:
How is that an absurd assertions. Voting, dining, transportation, access to healthcare, access to facilities, co-existence, holding public office, etc, versus marriage. I say again. VAST DIFFERENCE.

I’m an atheist and pay taxes. Churches do no pay taxes. Tax paying citizens are forced to sudsidize churches and religious people by making up for the taxes that churches do not pay. Gay people who are not churches pay taxes. If any group isn’t pulling their weight and contributing to the financial health of their communities, it is the churches. Looking at it from viewpoint of atheists and agnostics and those who don’t care about religion, why should a group of freeloaders have ANY say in what tax paying citizens do?

Why should a church pay taxes? Do schools pay taxes? Do homeless shelters pay taxes? Soup kitchens? And by the way, that group of ‘freeloaders’ is a tax-paying group as well. The individuals who make up a church are all tax-payers. They have as much say as anyone on what their money is spent on.

Neo, think about the word “qualitative” before you try replying with a “quantitative” argument. Both issues and groups are concerned with rights. Now, do you understand this point, or do I have to use short, simple words to help you?

To be honest, JR, I barely read your post. I skimmed. I stand humbly in absolute sincere apology.

I still have yet to hear any arguments against polygamy. What separates this from gay-marriage, other than the obvious difference inherent in it being a different action?

Neo-so you are anti gay marriage for moral reasons are you anti any recognized same sex partnerships?

PNNTO:
In response to post #132, there is no violation of principle in what I said. I oppose government regulation of homosexual relations. That is to say, sexual relations, public displays of affection, e.g holding hands, kissing, and cohabitation are off-limits. People can choose to do as they want in those regards. However, regulation of marriage is entirely different. As we already allow government the authority to issue marriage licenses it is not irrational that government be allowed to regulate who receives it.

The juxtaposition: A clean, articulate, bright young republican (Joe Biden’s words, I think) vs. Spob & co. (i.e. drooling right-wing gay smear peddlers)
~
The verdict, as my pappy once said: you can put shellac on a turd but it’s still a turd. And I’m as guilty as anyone for engaging the homophobe.

PNNTO:
No, while I myself do not condone homosexual relations in any form, I do not oppose the legality of civil-unions, partnerships, and relationships. I simply stand firm on my definition of marriage.

Apan, JC, the bane of my cyber existence.

I didn’t say you wouldn’t rationalize your position Neo I said it was unprincipled. I believe the State has no standing, other than contractual, in marriage. Gay or straight.
Religions conduct marriages, the State contracts.
.
Your position is that the State can (should?) regulate what is inherently a religious ceremony.

neo: My entire point was that people who want to deny other people their rights as human beings based on their religious (or non-religious) beliefs are violating the basic right to be treated equal which is guaranteed under the constitution. Gays being allowed to marry may be in violation or your religious beliefs, but does any religious group have the right to decide what freedoms other groups have? Either everyone is free or else no one is free. When we allow one group to deny the rights/freedoms that they themselves enjoy to another group, aren’t we creating or perpetuating a second class of citizens?

neorationalist86 Says:
Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 8:59 pm
PNNTO:
No, while I myself do not condone homosexual relations in any form, I do not oppose the legality of civil-unions, partnerships, and relationships. I simply stand firm on my definition of marriage.
…………………………………………………………

In sum, Neo doesn’t have a rational argument worth a bucket of rancid cat-p*ss, so falls back on bedrock prejudice when people point out the ludicrous inconsistencies in his attempt to smear gay people and gay marriage. Personally, I don’t condone homophobia, bigotry and dishonesty, but that’s just me.

I mean this respectfully Neo-who cares what you condone? Who cares what I condone? This is a matter of law not personal feelings.
.
I do respect that you make a distinction between marriage and legal agreements. My gay friends don’t but as I say I don’t think the State should have standing.

PNNTO:
The government already has the right to deny contract on marriages, for example not recognizing particular modern fringe
‘religious’ sects in their ceremonies. Why else would you have to go to the court-house and get the state to sanction your marriage if you were not married in a church? The state, in the absence of a religious rite, acts as conductor and contractor.

Neo I think I am slow. After all this I am embarrassed to have to ask this but…
.
What exactly is your rationale for denying same sex marriage? Not as a personal issue for you but as a legal issue.

neo: A couple might go to a courthouse because they don’t believe in a god. We have the highest percentage of the population that doesn’t believe in a higher power in our nation’s history right now and it is the fastest growing group. By the end of your life, it might even be a majority. When they do reach majority status, the believers should hope that the non-believers are more tolerant than they were.

So if the state sanctions secular marriages, then what quality do homosexual marriages possess such that the state should refuse to sanction them?

Let me get this straight. By me personally not supporting the extension of marriage privileges to homosexuals, while accepting the legality of other arrangements I have morphed into a homophobe? Phobia implies a fear. I have demonstrated no fear during this discussion, simply an adherence to my views on what constitutes a marriage. This make be a gay-bashing homophobe. You’ll have to clarify, JR, lest you continue to present yourself as ignorant of the definition of ‘phobia.’

PNNTO:
What exactly is your rationale for deny polygamy?

*denying

Is that the response you want to go with Neo?

Listen, there need not be an argument as to why the government should disavow homosexual marriages. The notion that anyone is entitled to marry whom they please, regardless of gender is a recent phenomenon; there is no Constitutional argument suggesting that two men or two women are eligible to receive the status of marriage considering the legality of homosexual marriages has never been accepted under any society until the 20th century.

So your argument is historical?

Again, can anyone clarify the differences between legalization of polygamy and legalization of gay-marriage? If so, by all means, enlighten me. Maybe my opinions will begin to lose traction within my own rationale. I have yet to see any response on the matter.

I oppose government regulation of homosexual relations.
.
Oh, well … THAT’S a relief!

PNNTO:
My argument is religious, moral, law of nature, tradition, historical, and Constitutional.

Is there ANYTHING in the constitution that says ONLY a man and a woman can marry? Isn’t it just based on religious traditon and not constitutional law?

Art:
You and others tend to do this alot and its entirely out of line.
.
I was asked a question as to my opinions on regulation, legality of marriage, and legality of other arrangements. I answered it.
.
Now you belittle my response in that my views don’t matter in the grand scheme of things. I am well aware of this. However, when asked, I will reply as to my personal views. No one really cares about your particular views on anything either, ok.

Sacred:
There is nothing on the matter, therefore States can do as they please in banning or allowing homosexual weddings. That is my point.

What about churches that recognize same-sex marriage? Why are the marriages they perform invalid? And how is that not an establishment clause issue?
.
Also: Suppose there is no constitutionally protected right to marriage. That’s not an argument against marriage equality per se. (cf ME, NH, MA, VT, CT)

I was asked a question as to my opinions on regulation, legality of marriage, and legality of other arrangements. I answered it.
.
Fair enough.

“Again, can anyone clarify the differences between legalization of polygamy and legalization of gay-marriage?”
.
This has been asked and answered, but one more time: (all individuals involved assumed to be of the legal age of consent and not incestuous)
.
man and woman- ok
woman and woman- ok
man and man- ok
.
man and man and man- not ok
man and woman and man- not ok
woman and dog and woman- not ok
woman and ostrich and dog- not ok
.
I won’t speak for anyone else, but my belief is that two consenting adults should be allowed to marry and have the same legal rights as any other married couple.
.
Neo, what is your “Constitutional” argument against gay marriage? If there was such a thing, wouldn’t the Defense of Marriage act be unnecessary?
.
As for laws of nature, many animal species form homosexual relationships, and their species have somehow managed to survive: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Okay I will assume it is my denseness but I still can’t understand your legal argument for denying same sex marriage.
.
I read “what about polygamy?” and “It has always been so” and “My argument is religious, moral, law of nature, tradition, historical, and Constitutional.”
.
Maybe someone else can explain Neo’s legal argument for me because despite Neo’s patience with me I just don’t get it.

What makes Neo a homophobe?
.
Well, there is the fact that he compared homosexuality to rape. There is the fact that he considers a comparison to homosexual rights issues to be insulting to the Civil Rights Movement. There is the fact that he wants the state to stay out all relationships except one: gay marriage. There is the fact that he does not “condone” homosexuality. Now, I look at this repellent combination, and I conclude that I am dealing with a homophobe. That’s the logical if regrettable conclusion, and it’s one that others reached earlier on less evidence. Nonetheless, they were right.
.
Why is Neo a homophobe? Bad upbringing? Refusal to face the facts of human sexuality? Adherence to the hate-filled policies and views of movement Republicans? No, the key fact is that Neo cannot recognize that the struggle for gay rights is a struggle for human rights, a struggle which is the same in quality as the Civil Rights struggle, as the struggle for female suffrage, as the struggle for decent treatment of workers. The issue is whether one group shall be mistreated by a form of legal apartheid, or whether they should enjoy the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. On that point, the situation is clear, and it is bad faith to try and conceal the truth behind evasions involving money, tradition, or religion.

Regardless of our personal positions, the gay marriage boat has already set sail. It’s only a matter of time. Even 10 years ago I would never have believed that the northeast would have legalized gay marriage. Ten years from now the landscape will have changed even more dramatically.

Art,
Your first point is valid, and very insightful. I do not see how the government could reconcile its opposition to gay-marriage with upholding the establishment clause in the event of a church sanctioned marriage in a state whereby gay-marriage is banned.
.
As to your second point, you are correct. I am simply supporting the views that States have the right to ban same-sex marriages. I have not contended that they must do this, however. It is state by state. And thus the argument that it is unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriages is unfounded.

“I am simply supporting the views that States have the right to ban same-sex marriages. I have not contended that they must do this, however. It is state by state.”
.
So it is a states rights issue?

Piper-
Incorrect.
Everyone keeps saying that gay-marriage is ok, but not polygamy. But on what grounds? You can’t just say its not ok. What grounds? What if I don’t adhere to your definition of marriage being TWO consenting adults? Just as you apparently do not accept my definition of it being a man and a woman. What legally separates the two? NOTHING!

JR,
I’m actually going to defend Neo on this one. He’s right that “phobia” is fear of, and he does not appear to be afraid of them (omg I’ll catch teh gay!).
.
What he is is a bigot, who wants to make sure that homosexuals are 2nd class citizens. His is a dying breed, and within a generation he will be embarrassed by his position on this issue, just as those who opposed “miscegenation” are or should be embarrassed by their opposition.
.
JR and Rose and anyone else who brought it up is absolutely right that this is a civil rights issue. Homosexuals are the last group in America who can be openly discriminated against, and I am confident that that will end within my lifetime.

I contend that the states do not have a right to ban same sex marriage because of the constitutional equal protection clause. A strict reading of the constitution will uphold the right of gays to marriage and the states cannot pass a law that violates the constitution.

Neo I have to say you are the one making the (sort of confusing) case against gay marriage so to keep throwing up polygamy (a case that no one is discussing) really feels like a dodge. Not a spob dodge but not that far away.
.
Make. Your. Case.

“Incorrect.”
.
Huh? What is “incorrect?” An assertion or belief cannot be incorrect, so what precisely are you referring to?
.
Your argument that polygamy should be legal if gay marriage is legal is a non-sequitor. If that is your argument against gay marriage, the same argument could be used against heterosexual marriage.

Ah, JR, the grand discreditor!
~
Well, there is the fact that he compared homosexuality to rape. No I did not. I suggested that arguing that homosexuality is innate, and thus we must accept it, holds no water because studies show rape is innate and we do not accept that. I was not equating the two, I was demonstrating a weakness in an argument.
~
There is the fact that he considers a comparison to homosexual rights issues to be insulting to the Civil Rights Movement. The two are not equal. One deals with one issue for one group. The other deals with all rights for an entire group. To equate them is to belittle the African-American struggle.
~
There is the fact that he wants the state to stay out all relationships except one: gay marriage. No, I said that I want to state to stay out of regulating HOMOSEXUAL relationships, however, with the exception of keeping marriage between a man and a woman. Staying out of relationships referred to homosexuals.
~
There is the fact that he does not “condone” homosexuality. So because I do not condone, I therefore fear or hate homosexuals? That is the implication of the word ‘homophobia’ isn’t it? That is absurd, JR, really.
~
As for the last portion of your post, you are speculating as to my upbringing, influences, and motives, therefore I have no need to respond to mere baseless assertions.

Piper-
That is not a non-sequitor. I have been on the hotseat all day, defending and explaining under a rain of fire from all sides on a host of aspects. Is it too much to ask that you distinguish between the argument for same-sex marriage and polygamy. The arguments are identical:
~
1) Consenting adults are entitled to do as they please so long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others
.
2) The government does not have the authority to regulate the pursuit of happiness, and as homosexual marriages are undoubtedly as any other marriage, i.e. out of love, happiness, etc, than it stands to reason that the government cannot regulate marriage prerequisites other than adult/child consent issues
.
3) The legal ‘institution’ of marriage cannot rest on any moral/religious definition of one man/one women, therefore legal benefits bestowed upon wedded partners cannot be infringed upon under any historical/traditional/religious arguments as to the natural composition of a marriage

neorationalist86:
.
I truly can’t stand contributing the dunce Amy Sullivan’s threads, but I’m curious, and I’d like to ask you a few questions, in order to help perfect my understanding of your views.
.
First, do you condone homosexual expressions of sexuality, i.e. have the same regard as you would for heterosexual expressions?

Dear me, Neo is still trying to pretend not to be a homophobe, while advancing the standard homophobic arguments? It’s a bit like listening to one of those old-fashioned “nice white people” explaining that while they have lots of black friends, it just wouldn’t be right for them to live in a “good” neighborhood. Stinking, mealymouthed hypocrisy, matched by an astoundingly crude variety of argument. One prime example:

the fact that he considers a comparison to homosexual rights issues to be insulting to the Civil Rights Movement. The two are not equal. One deals with one issue for one group. The other deals with all rights for an entire group. To equate them is to belittle the African-American struggle.

The difference between Neo and more logically capable human beings is that we can recognize that gay people constitute an entire group, just as much as African-Americans do. But then, why should Neo actually start to think through what he says? Logic and bigotry really don’t go well together.

SZ:
I personally find sexual expression of homosexuality to be contrary to nature; however I concede that the right of expression certainly exists and therefore government cannot and should not intervene in this matter, other than to define marriage as between man and woman. I have no qualms with other homosexual unions as sanctioned by law.

neorationalist86:
.
Thanks so much for your response.
.
I personally find sexual expression of homosexuality to be contrary to nature
.
How so?

Maverick:
Homophobia, no.
Opposition to homosexuality, yes.

“Setting me aside from my nonsensical disgraceful excuse for a generation is quite an honor and a compliment. I thank you for that.”
.
Neo- I hear that! (Born in 1988)

Any idea what Neo was referring to apollyon?

Neo, everything you’ve written about gay rights and gay marriage suggests an irrational fear of homosexuality, coupled with some active bigotry. That makes you a homophobe by any reasonable measure. You may not actually attack people physically, but you share attitudes with those that do.

This has been helpful. I have no idea whether anyone is a homophobe and I won’t make the charge.
.
What I have learned is that those advocating an anti same sex marriage point of view are unable to make a legal argument to support their position.

SZ:
There are several layers to this mindset.
~
The primary reason being that the end result of sexual relations is in fact offspring. That is its purpose. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Now, while certainly heterosexuals can skirt this by way of abortion, contraception, oral sex, ect, the fact remains that unbridled sexual relations result in pregnancy. Also, while there are infertile heterosexuals, they are the exception not the rule. In the case of homosexual relationships it is the rule, without exception, that offspring is not a possibility. Of course there are medical alternatives, but this is not natural, of course. In this regard homosexuality rejects the natural order of sexually active species.
~
Based on these grounds, the institution of marriage is traditionally defined as a focal environment through which adults may raise their offspring. Linked to the ability of heterosexuals to reproduce it is historically accepted that a marriage be between a heterosexual couple. While there are certainly examples of polygamy and of homosexual relationships, the traditional view of marriage is between one man and one woman. I see this as a rational progression.
~
With this said, there should be no obstacle to homosexually inclined individuals engaging in sexual conduct to their desires. However, the notion that they are entitled to the status of marriage, to me, is based purely on emotions and without any substantive argument as to how there is an unalienable right to marriage that would, however, ironically preclude polygamous relationships. This appears to be a glaring hypocrisy in the argument. The same arguments that I would apply to homosexuals, in that it is not socially acceptable for them to be married, is in turn applied by many pro-gay marriage groups who find polygamy socially unacceptable in that their definition is limited to two consenting adults. Well, if they can have their limiting definition, so can I.

Listen, there need not be an argument as to why the government should disavow homosexual marriages.
.
Uh, that’s the central issue of the discussion. So I say there does need to be an argument about it.
.
Why should the government disavow homosexual marriages?
.
Also, I’m sorry everyone about the whole polygamy thing, I didn’t realize it would end up being used as a continual red herring.

PNNTO:
The argument is based on a host of issues. The legality is simply that in light of a lack of specificity on the matter in the Constitution, the states have the right to ban same-sex marriages. Do you not see any need for advocates such as yourself to reconcile the pro-gay marriage with that of polygamy, legally speaking?

I’m sorry, Neo, but there just is no connection between homosexual marriage and polygamy. That you keep trying to make one is a valant attempt to defend your position, but it is, ultimately, a non-sequitor. And I feel absolutely no sympathy for your taking fire from all sides. One of the reasons that is is that you have yet to make a compelling argument against gay marriage that doesn’t rest on your personal moral beliefs.
.
“My argument is religious, moral, law of nature, tradition, historical, and Constitutional.” Well, your religious argument is unConstitutional, moral in this context is the same as religious (there is a pretty strong moral argument against mass discrimination, and my morality does not see how my life is improved by denying others rights), traditional/ historical is the only quasi-legitimate secular argument you’ve made but the same argument could be used to have supported anti-miscegenation laws (do you support anti-miscegenation laws based on tradition/ history, or religion?), law of nature is scientifically false, and your Constitutional argument rests on state’s rights which I thought we settled around 1865 and denies sacred’s sounder argument of Equal Protection.

Piper-
How are gay marriage and polygamy not related. Who are you to say I am a bigot for defining marriage as between one man and one woman? But at the same time, you are comfortable defining marriage as between two consenting adults. Why is two people the catch-all definition that no one can disregard, yet my definition is perfectly acceptable to reject?

neorationalist86:
.
I’m sorry for not addressing each of your arguments at once, but I need to make certain that I understand what you’re saying, and I may be a little slow.
.
I’m going to assume that the simple answer to my question:
.
do you condone homosexual expressions of sexuality
.
would be “no”, the primary reason being:
.
I personally find sexual expression of homosexuality to be contrary to nature
.
If that’s not an accurate restatement of your view, then I apologize. If that is accurate, then this
.
The primary reason being that the end result of sexual relations is in fact offspring. That is its purpose.
.
is by way of explaining what you mean by the statement “contrary to nature“.
.
If that’s the case, and I understand you correctly so far, I’ll need to ask you to clarify a little bit.
.
The end result of sexual relations, as evident by the result obtained by individuals in many (even, perhaps, a majority of cases) does not seem to always be offspring, so perhaps you could help me understand what you mean by “end result”. I think it may be related in your mind, or perhaps synonymous with “purpose”, but I could be making an assumption.
.
But if I am correct in interpreting the meaning of “end result” as being somehow related to “purpose”, I’ll just need to ask this:
.
How do you know that the purpose of sexual relations is the resulting offspring?

“The legality is simply that in light of a lack of specificity on the matter in the Constitution, the states have the right to ban same-sex marriages”
.
Legally (not morally, culturally or historically) explain the difference between that and
.
“The legality is simply that in light of a lack of specificity on the matter in the Constitution, the states have the right to ban mixed-race marriages”
.
or
.
“”The legality is simply that in light of a lack of specificity on the matter in the Constitution, the states have the right to ban desegregation”

I don’t feel the biological argument holds any weight because:
.
1) We have more than enough people already.
.
2) Gay marriage harms no one.
.
3) We have a 50% divorce rate for straight marriages, so it is not anything like the sacrosanct institution you claim.

Cliff-
Don’t apologize. Its not a red herring. Its entirely rational for me to ask proponents of same-sex to justify a stance to which they adhere (a limiting definition of marriage) while discrediting me as a homophobic gaybasher for the partaking in the same.

are several layers to this mindset.
~
The primary reason being that the end result of sexual relations is in fact offspring. That is its purpose

What a hoot! Can we have more of this pompous nonsense? Don’t you realize that adults f*ck for f*n? Or is this expression of love about to be banned in GOPistan?

this regard homosexuality rejects the natural order of sexually active species.

Except that homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom, to which human beings belong. Or do you want us to make worms the standard of conduct?

on these grounds, the institution of marriage is traditionally defined as a focal environment through which adults may raise their offspring.

Traditions change. Or do you think that 1776 was mistake?

to the ability of heterosexuals to reproduce it is historically accepted that a marriage be between a heterosexual couple.

But again, human society and history are not frozen in time. The Constitution was incomplete and flawed – and was thus amended. Not so long ago there was slavery in the USA. By your arguments, the Constitution should never change, and slavery should be alive today. Similarly with our understanding of sexuality and relationships.

same arguments that I would apply to homosexuals, in that it is not socially acceptable for them to be married

But you never explain why it should be socially unacceptable. Presumably because there is no good reason. Your arguments would be equally applicable to mixed-race marriages. Do you reject those? And since we are on the subject, it was once “socially acceptable” to lynch black men.

The major problem in all of this is that you keep glossing over the basic fact underlying your position. You simply don’t like gay marriage, even though you try and wrap it up in pseudo-science and ludicrously inappropriate appeals to tradition, social acceptability and so forth.

Except it seems like you use it to keep the others distracted.
.
Nobody here is truly concerned about polygamy at this point. The core of the discussion is about the legality of gay marriage.

What if I don’t adhere to your definition of marriage being TWO consenting adults? Just as you apparently do not accept my definition of it being a man and a woman. What legally separates the two? NOTHING!
.
neo, well what legally separates marriage between a man and a woman from polygamy? As it happens my opposition to polygamy is based on my concerns about it harming other people (and yes I have some evidence to support this but I don’t have time to link to it now). But even if it just didn’t correspond to my definition of marriage, how would that be different than polygamy’s failure to meet your definition of marriage? You seem to think that marriage equality supporters reject moral arguments except with respect to informed consent (i.e. no children), so polygamy is the inevitable result of our thinking. But as I pointed out earlier, most of us support marriage equality on moral grounds so that argument doesn’t make sense.
.
Again, why does restricting marriage to being between a man and a woman prevent polygamy anymore than restricting marriage to two consenting adults?
.
Also, while there are infertile heterosexuals, they are the exception not the rule.
.
Just have to point out that when you take into account age they are the rule.
.
I personally find sexual expression of homosexuality to be contrary to nature;
.
I still don’t understand that. Obvious they are not contrary to nature, or this wouldn’t be an issue. You seem to mean they should be contrary to nature, which is actually quite different.

Ah, I see Cliff. So we are only pushing for legality of same-sex marriages because people are vocal about it? So, screw equal rights, so long as no one is complaining. Is that the stance?

PNNTO- I read through this and the person that mentioned his generation before him was referring to “our” generation’s attitude on civil rights. However, my interpretation was that Neo disregarded that and instead would be glad to not be considered part of “our” generation in general. I guess I should’ve clarified. I think the generation I’m part of has more people than the generations before it did that lack principles, good character, good work ethic, and respect for elders, and a lack of knowledge about the government/politics (there’s lots more, but I’ll stick with some highlights for now). I also think that the generation I’m a part of is made up of lots of crybabies who feel entitled to much more than they deserve.
.
Sorry that was off-topic. I guess I should comment on the issue of the post. I’ve said before that I feel like this is a state’s issue, and should remain one. However, my libertarian instincts are moving me more and more to the position that the government shouldn’t have a say in marriage at all, gay or straight.

And I think the same-sex marriage thing vs polygamy, while I certainly do not equate the two, I think it’s just a matter of where you draw the line. SO, I think it is a reasonable position to think same-sex marriage is okay but polygamy is not.

I confess I’ve been avoiding this thread like the plague, mostly because I’d be opening a can of worms that would be rather complicated to shut again. I have to admit though I’ve found both sides of the argument fascinating.
-
I’ve seen polygamy and rape brought up. I’ve seen equal protection and separation of church of state. The simple fact is marriage boils down to simple contract law. Marriage is and always has been a contract related to property and inheritance rights. By that right the state has a right to regulate that contract law. What the state cannot do because of the Fourteenth Amendment is deny a contract for a certain class of citizens without a compelling state interest. To me this is where the argument against gay marriage falls flat. N-R, here is what I think you should do. Prove there is a compelling state interest in barring gay marriage. You might get a bit more traction. It can’t be based on your personal feelings or your personal sense of morals, but rather the interests of a state in barring two people who wish to contract into marriage for them to do so. You’ll be going a lot further in proving your handle is not a huge misnomer.
-
And in case you’re wondering I just gave you a very tough assignment.

And Neo, if I were you I wouldn’t bother responding to anyone here who says you equated homosexuality to rape. If someone wants to lie about your position in order to win a debate, nothing you can do will stop them.

Rose:
I have no problem with banning polygamy. I am of the opinion that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. But when I am called a bigot for such a limiting definition, no one cares to notice that the pro-same sex marriage advocates adhere to a limiting definition as well. As such, they are hypocritical if they continue to demonize me for my views. If you can accept that I have my definition, you have yours, than there is no problem. But when you engage in ad hominem attacks against me on the grounds of my lack of inclusion, than you need to stick to your principles on that, such as Cliff has done. While I disagree with Cliff, I respect his acknowledgment that his point of view on gay-marriage would conflict with the notion that polygamy should be banned.
.
Furthermore, when you speak of people getting hurt through polygamy are you referencing the situation whereby a man has multiple wives and multiple families? If so, I acknowledged on several occasions that would result in an injury to the wives and thus would not be hypocritical to oppose. I am referring to polygamy in the sense of more than two individuals engaging in a group marriage. You cannot tell me that the state has a right to regulate that two people will be more emotionally connected than three, and as such hurt could result in a threesome or greater marriage.

Oh, and Neo, I meant not responding to lies about your positions at this point, not initially.

SO, I think it is a reasonable position to think same-sex marriage is okay but polygamy is not.
-
DING DING DING!!!
-
Polygamy is not okay because there is no way you can EVER treat two spouses equally. By its very nature it creates a superior (the singular component) and inferior (the other members of the marriage) components. No matter how you treat your two (or more) spouses, they can never be honored as total equals in a polygamous marriage. So there is indeed a compelling state interest in outlawing polygamous marriage. Polygamy is by its very definition a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You can argue that polygamy should be permitted, provided that stringent legal protections are put in place to ensure non-coercion of minors, divorce to be available to both parties equally, and that in general the rights of individuals are protected. Historically, it seems that polygamy frequently served as an excuse for abuse (and still does in some cults), so there is a rationale for banning it to protect vulnerable individuals. This is a completely different situation from gay marriage, and the two do not compare by any rational calculus.

Ah, I see Cliff. So we are only pushing for legality of same-sex marriages because people are vocal about it? So, screw equal rights, so long as no one is complaining. Is that the stance?
.
Wait, suddenly I’m some anti-polygamy assh*le who wants to toss equal rights out the window?
.
That’s why I was apologizing for opening my big yap about it – this topic is being used to distract anyone who gets close to pinning you down.
.
Let me second yutsano’s request:
.
Prove there is a compelling state interest in barring gay marriage. It can’t be based on your personal feelings or your personal sense of morals, but rather the interests of a state in barring two people who wish to contract into marriage for them to do so.

SZ-
Um, I’m a bit taken aback by your question. Other than going into graphic detail, I will simply say that reproduction comes strictly from the sexual organs of male and female, and as such the end-result/purpose/intent of sexual relations is offspring, assuming everything is working correctly and there is not a preventative measure.

I can almost sense where neo is coming from re: polygamy. I have two observations.
1: Unlike gay marriage, polygamy is not actually victimless. Independent of how ‘consenting’ the relationship is, the property rights of the first spouse are diluted by the presence of the second.
2: Serial marriage as is currently practiced in the USA IS polygamy. But again, our laws are specifically designed to account for the dilution of property rights under the circumstance.

Polygamy is not okay because there is no way you can EVER treat two spouses equally.
.
But there are countless examples where one spouse of a traditional marriage is not treated equally, and the state has no say in that.
.
If the individuals in question enter into the relationship of their own free will, then the consequences are theirs to own.
.
In other words, what basilbrush said.

I have no problem with banning polygamy. I am of the opinion that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. But when I am called a bigot for such a limiting definition, no one cares to notice that the pro-same sex marriage advocates adhere to a limiting definition as well.
.
neo, I wish I had more time to reply…
.
I will explain however that you were called a bigot because you oppose homosexuality. No one is opposing group relationships, or deeming them immoral or unnatural. That’s the key distinction.
.
So would it be fair to say that you do not in fact think it’s anymore difficult to prohibit polygamy when defining marriage as between two consenting adults then when defining it as between a man and a woman? And your focus on polygamy is solely related to the accusations of bigotry and actually has nothing to do with the subject of marriage equality for two consenting adults?

I have to say that after reading Neo’s hilarious nonsense about “the purpose” of sex, I feel deep sympathy for Mr or Mrs Neo. No orgasms for you, baby. It’s all about procreation. Yes sirree!

I have to say that after reading Neo’s hilarious nonsense about “the purpose” of sex, I feel deep sympathy for Mr or Mrs Neo. No orgasms for you, baby. It’s all about procreation. Yes sirree!
-
I sincerely hope, if he ever wants children, that enough of his boys come out before the act is completed, because if there’s no orgasm on either side (especially his) the whole impregnation cycle is gonna get really tough!

Ow, basilbrush, low blow. Remind me not to get into arguments with you.

Ow, basilbrush, low blow. Remind me not to get into arguments with you.
-
Oh I dunno Cliff, I kinda giggled at that. Especially since N-R has confessed to not being married yet.

BTW has an AS thread EVER gone on this long before?

Two more contributions:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
.
The word ‘natural’ is among the most abused in the Enlish language.
I once said:
A better illustration of what I mean is the misuse of the term “natural.” Human society is a part of nature. Therefore strip-mines, auto-assembly plants and breast implants are every bit as ‘natural’ as beaver-dams and coral reefs.
.
Not only is human society a part of nature and therefore natural but so is everything in the universe. We can no more claim that gay sex is unnatural than we can claim that exceeding the speed of light is a moral issue.

neorationalist86:
.
I’m so sorry that I’ve made you uncomfortable. I wasn’t aware that there was any need for graphic detail of anything involved in the answer to this simple question
.
How do you know that the purpose of sexual relations is the resulting offspring?
.
, because I was actually trying to determine the source of your knowledge of the purpose of human sexual relations.
.
When you say
.
as such the end-result/purpose/intent of sexual relations is offspring
.
, I think it may be best –for clarity’s sake– if we confined ourselves to one of those pieces of knowledge at a time.
.
I understand that you are relating in your mind the terms “end-result” and “purpose” and “intent”, but to my knowledge, those are distinctly different concepts.
.
The end result of something is that which occurs as a physical matter of causation, e.g. when plants are exposed to sunlight, they will photosynthesize. These phenomena have nothing do do with any design, nor any intent on the part of the mechanical elements that make up the cause or the effect. A moving rock strikes another rock, and the end result is that energy is transferred; this is a matter of mechanics.
.
The purpose of something is another matter entirely, and is also distinct from an individual’s intent.
.
Since it is evident that on many, many occasions individuals’ intentions are exactly opposite of procreation, I am going to assume that you don’t really mean individual intentions, but are really using the term synonymously with “purpose”.
.
And so I come back to my simple question, neorationalist86:
.
How do you know that the purpose of sexual relations is the resulting offspring? What is the source of that knowledge?
.
If it’s any help to my comprehension, perhaps you could also define “purpose” for me, as in “whose purpose” or “what purpose“. It seems that you mean by this term somehow “by design”, but of course you’ll clarify. It seems that you are able to assert this knowledge very confidently, so I’m sure that you’ll be able to manage a simple answer.

How do you know that the purpose of sexual relations is the resulting offspring? What is the source of that knowledge?
-
Just out of curiosity SZ, is LB monitoring this conversation?

Technically, I would say it’s an “in the middle” kind of blow, rather than being low…. Mind you, one assumes that Neo would rather use some sort of artificial procedure, rather than engaging in the distracting activities that take so much away from the all-important reproductive moment. I mean, why have sex, when you can just cut to the chase and starting syringing babies? It’s the reason for the process anyway. It really doesn’t make any sense to be physical and risk enjoyment – from his/her viewpoint. Much better to avoid the unprofitable ickiness and keep oneself focused! Eyes shut! Sperm donation process beginning! Left right left right! Fall in there at the back!

Technically, I would say it’s an “in the middle” kind of blow, rather than being low…. Mind you, one assumes that Neo would rather use some sort of artificial procedure, rather than engaging in the distracting activities that take so much away from the all-important reproductive moment. I mean, why have sex, when you can just cut to the chase and starting syringing babies? It’s the reason for the process anyway. It really doesn’t make any sense to be physical and risk enjoyment – from his/her viewpoint. Much better to avoid the unprofitable ickiness and keep oneself focused! Eyes shut! Sperm donation process beginning! Left right left right! Fall in there at the back!
-
The only thing I could think of after that is lesbians and turkey basters. Yes it happens and from what I understand it’s quite successful. Kinda takes that whole sex thing out of the mix entirely too. So apparently you can produce children with no sexual relations required. What does that do to N-R’s argument?

Yutsano, I am just trying to help Neo be as rational as possible. I’d hate to think that he might be distracted by something as terrible as enjoying sex. I simply want to spare him this terrible fate, which is, as he points out, contrary to nature’s majestic course, as well as being socially unacceptable and likely to lead to polygamy.

“Apan, JC, the bane of my cyber existence”
~
A lot to live up to, that, given the multipronged assaults going on in this train wreck of a thread (but can any of us bear to look away?)
~
Per the he’s a homophobe/he’s not a homophobe subtext, I’d say this: True, there is no evidence that Neo is personally afraid of gays (or, I’d add, is in any way compensating). But it is possible, just as if it’s possible that I’m a woman living in Nebraska and stroking a turtle’s genitals (woops, did I type that?)
~
Nevertheless, homophobia applies regardless: he and his ilk look at gays and all that they represent as barbarians at the gates, assaulting all that they perceive is decent in their shallow end of the gene pool. You may not fear buggery, N-R, but fear of gay equality is also homophobia. You may not fear the individual, but you clearly fear what they represent (i.e. homosexuality). Why are they a threat to you, to your future marriage, to the fabric of society.
~
Wiki: Overcompensation, characterized by a superiority goal, leads to striving for power, dominance, self-esteem and self-devaluation.
~
Go look at videos from McCain’s rallies–that narrow segment of the population, it’s shrinking by the day. Someday, you can whisper behind closed doors about the sodomites, like unrepentant bigots today hide their racism behind closed doors, at family reunions etc.

yutsano:
.
Just out of curiosity SZ, is LB monitoring this conversation?
.
Lovely Bride is in Europe for the next week, as she has been all month.
.
I’m sure that if she were here, she would find this epistemological inquiry extraordinarily tedious, though, and would put her attention to more explicitly utilitarian endeavors.

Jcapan, well said. And I think anyone living in Nebraska deserves their turtles. Just remember what comrade Neo taught us – you can do anything sexual, so long as you don’t enjoy it!

And I’d add that at 230 comments and counting–this seals the deal, we’re all N-R’s “b!tches” now!

“and as such the end-result/purpose/intent of sexual relations is offspring”
.
I can assure you that the intent and purpose of many people’s sexual relations is not always or usually offspring. That may be the end result, but maybe you’ve heard of this new-fangled technology called “birth control?”

end-result/purpose/intent of sexual relations is offspring”
.
And the end-result/purpose/intent of concealed fertility is the need to have sex all the time or as close as you can manage. So that must be moral too.

Lovely Bride is in Europe for the next week, as she has been all month.
-
Must…not…get…jealous…must…not…get…jealous….
-
It’s okay though, I’m gonna be hiding out at a cattle ranch in Wyoming and pretty much disconnecting from reality for two weeks. I hope she’s having a great time.

yutsano:
.
She and her mom went to the Greek Isle of Rhodes for a couple of weeks before she returned to her family’s home of Trnava, Slovakia –the “Florence of Central Europe” (a title which I can certainly verify is apt).
.
She sent me pictures of her on Grecian beaches; she’s insanely hot.
.
I can’t wait to have sushi with her upon her return to Manhattan.
.
Enjoy your vacation at the cattle ranch, yutsano; sounds interesting!

What do you want, jcapan? We’ve had five pages of varied and in-depth discussion on the topic, and it’s remained civil for the most part.
.
We could go back to tsk-tsking over Sanford if you would like.

Also, I caught your reply about southern Utah back on Tuesday.
.
I grew up in Colorado, about fifty miles east of Moab. Not -quite- the country you were talking about, but I was surrounded by mountains, aspen forests, and red sandstone canyons in all directions.

There is only ONE solution to the issue of gay marriage that satisfies all conditions: That the “institution of marriage” be defined by religions. That the civil rights and responsibilities conferred by the government upon ‘married’ individuals be given to all legal, consenting adults.
.
Yes, there IS a solution, but the religious types will NOT like it.
.
GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE!
.
First of all, we’ll call ‘marriage’ ‘Unions’ for the moment when speaking of the governments role. Assuming this miraculously common-sense outcome happens, things will settle out in the following manner:
.
Marriages are religious ceremonies, lacking ANY legal, financial or other civil responsibilities or duties in the eyes of the government. The government has no say as to what constitutes a religious ceremony and marriages are chief among them. Any religion can define any state as a marriage. Since it has no legal or civil ramifications, that’s strictly a matter for the religions to hammer out – if they so choose.
.
Unions are civil contracts. They can be ‘stock’ (meaning the government has them already drawn up, non-gender-based, non-number-based, and ready for signing delineating the civil responsibilities, rights and obligations any currently ‘married’ couple have) or they can be created by a lawyer drawn up as part contract, part pre-nup. They can have limits on the terms as well as ANY other legal civil obligation those signing it desire.
.
The government has no legal right to limit the terms of such a contract between consenting adults. It just has to ensure that all the signers of such a contract of Union are legally able to sign a civil contract (mentally competent, of legal age, not under duress, not under coersion and of their own free will).
.
Once a contract of union is signed by all parties and witnessed and filed with the state, those involved are entitled to all of the civil rights, oblighations and responsibilities delineated in the contract. No ceremonies, no rites, no trappings of religion. It’s a civil process. The trappings are up to the religions to perform.
.
From a legal point of view, a married couple has no civil rights of a unionized couple unless they, too, sign a contract of union. Couples who have a contract of union can’t call themselves ‘married’ unless they have had a religious marriage ceremony.
.
This FIRMLY separates church and state as 231 years of judicial precedent has decided. There is NO other constitutionally acceptable alternative that the religions will ever agree with. As long as religions have a say in what defines a marriage and as long as there are civil rights involved in being married, the two positions are irreconcilable.
.

Christ, I leave for just a little while and the discussions digresses into my sexual modus operandi. Insane. I find it a rather hilarious that my recognition that sexual relations between heterosexual, in the absence of birth control and such, leads to off-spring has been perceived as my utter disgust at sex and my lack of pleasure in it. Haha. Au contraire!
~
SZ:
Purpose: the cognitive awareness in cause and effect linking for achieving a goal in a given system, whether human or machine…
~
Cause= sexual interactions between heterosexual couples
Effect= offspring
Goal in given system= reproduction of the species
~
Now, while clearly the cause does not always equal the effect, this particular effect can only be attained by way of said cause, and thus it is entirely dependent on that cause, therefore it is the purpose of that cause….

Carpevis:
I see your plan as rational and equitable. Regardless of my personal views on homosexuality itself, the only social action I seek is the safe-guarding of marriage as a union between man and woman. I care not what else goes on in society regarding homosexuality and unions.

Where is all this polygamy rhetoric coming from? Abuse? Minor coercion? Property rights? What the…
~
I am referring not to a man with several wives. I am referring to, lets say, three consenting adults marrying one another, sharing a home, sharing a sexual relationship, possibly adopting children and raising a family. In this caricature, polygamy resembles that which pro-same sex advocates are looking for:
1) Allowance of consenting adults to engage in activities that do not infringe upon the rights of others
2) Government not interfering with the pursuit of happiness of those who would seek marriage in a relationship based on love and consent
3) Nullification of the traditional/religious definition of a marriage between a man and a woman
~
The version of polygamy to which I speak adheres to these principles. These principles which the pro-same sex lobby fights for daily. So, why should these principles be applied to the lives of homosexuals, but not to others?

neorationalist86:
.
I thought that I understood you up until this:
.
therefore it is the purpose of that cause
.
From what necessary connection do you infer the purpose that cause?
.
The full paragraph from which you quote actually reads:

Purpose is the cognitive awareness in cause and effect linking for achieving a goal in a given system, whether human or machine. Its most general sense is the anticipated result which guides decision making in choosing appropriate actions within a range of strategies in the process (a conceptual scheme) based on varying degrees of ambiguity about the knowledge that creates the contextualisation for the action. Purpose serves to change the state of conditions in a given environment, usually to one with a perceived better set of conditions or parameters from the previous state. This change is the motivation that serves the locus of control and goal orientation. In psychology and psychiatry, the experience of lacking a purpose in one’s life is known as accidy.

.
Whose purpose are you describing?
.
When you say
.
while clearly the cause does not always equal the effect
.
, you mean “sometimes when this phenomenon occurs, it doesn’t achieve the same result”
.
When you say
.
this particular effect can only be attained by way of said cause
, this is a false statement, a fact to which the practitioners of in vitro fertilization can attest, but even if it were true, when you then state
.
therefore it is the purpose of that cause
.
, that is a non sequitur.
.
I’m sure that if you thought about these statements for a few extra moments, you will see that there is no rational necessary connection whatsoever between an event that sometimes produces an outcome, and somebody’s purpose, i.e. some unspecified person’s “goal in a given system”.
.
How does one logically imply the other? You’ve simply lined these statements up sequentially, and said the word “therefore”, as if this were of the same certainty as saying “All grandfathers are men, therefore my grandfather is a man”.
.
How does an event that sometimes produces a desired outcome for certain individuals in certain situations therefore reveal a purpose somehow applicable to every person in every situation?
.
It seems as if you believe that your conclusion is somehow self-evident, but it obviously is not.
.
Sometimes people vomit after they eat. The purpose of eating can’t logically be construed to be nausea –in fact, it can’t be construed at all from a simple description of a cause and a result.
.
The purpose of something must be derived from factual knowledge an individual’s intent in a given situation…or it must be derived from knowledge of the designer’s intent in creating a system.
.
If there is any other way of determining purpose the purpose of phenomena, please help me understand what that is.
.
If not, then please help me understand how exactly you know with certainty the purpose of sexual relations. Actually, perhaps you could first tell me how you know there is a purpose, i.e. a designer’s intent associated with human sexual activity.
.
When you say “Goal in given system= reproduction of the species“, whose goal is it? Who designed the system?
.
How did you come by this information, neorationalist86?

Cliff: “What do you want, jcapan? We’ve had five pages of varied and in-depth discussion on the topic, and it’s remained civil for the most part.”
~
No, this time I was being ironic–given my participation, I can’t play the scold today. But I also thought, jesus, I’ve not even been to GG’s yet, I’ve not learned anything new or been challenged, I’ve not advanced anyone’s ideas an inch. Everyone comes away from this sh!t with their positions as rock solid as ever. But I guess it’s like leaving a particularly brutal boxing/gladiator match–one feels unclean, tainted, but possibly euphoric in some primeval way, particularly if their fighter/team etc. won.
~
As well, today’s posts included: MJ, the “Goracle,” Bachmann and Sanford. I went with Joe’s meaty post first, but it was me & the crickets in there.
~
So, I guess that puts you in Grand Junction or thereabouts? I’ve done that stretch of I-70 a number of times. Honestly from Vegas to Denver it’s nonstop eye candy. Some kind of wonderful. Was in the CO Nat. Monument just a few years ago with my dad. That 4-state quadrant (S end of the upper pair/N end of the lower) is at the top of my retirement list. Hope to buy some land in the coming years. What my urbane Asian spouse thinks about that…

SZ:
First, we are speaking of natural, or shall I say fundamental, reproduction. In that sense in vitro doesn’t even hit the radar. I reject any arguments based on technology or medical advancements as that is wholly inaccurate in describing the historical context of sex and reproduction. If the purpose of sex is to produce offspring, that purpose does not change with the development of man-made artificial insemination and its equivalences.
~
So, if you accept that, than you need to acknowledge that naturally speaking, offspring is dependent on heterosexual sex, yes?
~
Its actually very simple, Stuart. Man and woman are created with different sexual organs, which undoubtedly compliment each other perfectly, resulting in the creation of offspring. It is through this, and only this in natural existence, that the species reproduces. The pleasure aspects are to ensure that we actually continue to indulge in this activity; were we to despise or lack enthusiasm in sex, we would not engage in sex, and thus the human race would vanish. It seems perfectly clear that this is the intent of sexual organs and the purpose of sexual relations. Of course, if you seek a designer of this system, you can choose between God, if you will, or the logical order of the world in relation to self-preservation, not only individually, but collectively as a common species.
~
This is certainly not to say that all sex which does not result in offspring is wrong or bad, it is simply contrary to its purpose. Heterosexuals engage in this form of sex often. Homosexuals engage in this form of sex always. Homosexual sex is therefore, in my opinion, contrary to the natural design of the sexual organ.
~
All this is digressive, however, in that it simply relates to my personal view of homosexuality being unnatural. It speaks not one iota to the real issue which I have attempted to discuss, which is the status of marriage and where homosexuals should, or can, fit into that structure.

Enjoy your vacation at the cattle ranch, yutsano; sounds interesting!
-
Anything that has JC-san mad and spitting at me can’t be all bad I say!
-
The friend I’m going to visit is the owner of the ranch (he purchased the land partially from his parents and the other parcel from his grandparents so the lands are all contingent), he also rides bulls semi-professionally. Oh yeah and he’s gay. He is one tough cookie to be a gay man in the middle of nowhere Wyoming, fortunately he knows how to fight well.

Shaking my fist atcha Yuts!
~
“Oh yeah and he’s gay. He is one tough cookie to be a gay man in the middle of nowhere Wyoming, fortunately he knows how to fight well.”
~
A perfectly elliptical return to the beginning, gay men, WY, Jack Twist, Matthew Shephard, ignorance, hate crime bills…

neorationalist86:
.
…were we to despise or lack enthusiasm in sex, we would not engage in sex, and thus the human race would vanish. It seems perfectly clear that this is the intent of sexual organs and the purpose of sexual relations.
.
Undoubtedly as it seems to you, that is not a purpose.
.
The purpose of rocks communicating kinetic energy to one another can’t simply be assumed to be “the logical order of the world” –at least to a rational mind.
.
I don’t “seek a designer of this system” at all, it is your claim that implies one.
.
It seems as if you are supplying “the logical order of the world in relation to self-preservation” as a connection between events and results, not that some kind of overarching goal can reasonably be established to explain some sort of purpose.
.
What does collectively as a common species mean?
.
Is there some sort of collective will which exists independently of individuals of which I am unaware?
.
Individual humans at times have sexual urges –even reproductive urges– and in that there is a common characteristic, certainly. But that aggregate behavior doesn’t have a will or a goal, it is only a collection of events to be observed.
.
If you were to insert a phrase or two into this statement, such that it read:
.
Man and woman are created [by a purposeful creator] with different sexual organs, which undoubtedly compliment each other perfectly [according to the designer's specifications], resulting in the creation of offspring.
.
and then
.
It seems perfectly clear that this is the intent [of the designer] of sexual organs and the purpose [of the creator] of sexual relations.
.
, then what you’ve stated would be rational.
.
When you try to substitute the ambiguous term “the logical order of the world” for the will of a designer, your claim becomes tautological again. Again we’re confronted by the question of whose logic, since natural phenomena don’t have logical order corresponding to some external sentience, they simply exist as they are.
.
It isn’t due to some “logical order of the world” that plants photosynthesize, it is due to a series of developments that took place with no relation to reason whatsoever. Lightning does not strike at the various times and places that it does because of some “logical order of the world”, as explainable and knowable as those occurrences are.
.
“Nature” doesn’t do or will anything. Things are “natural” only in relation to a mental construction that assumes that people are somehow “above” natural events, and so their creations are “artificial”. In this construction, what people do sometimes is somehow different than what animals or plants or rocks do all of the time, even though there’s no logical necessity to make such a distinction. When someone creates a sculpture from copper, it is as “natural” an occurrence as a lunar eclipse, because it happened. There is nothing unnatural about what humans do in any case. There is nothing contrary to some kind of external “way things should be”, because there is no external order.
.
People over the years have come to use these distinctions commonly, but they have usually done so to justify their traditions or assumptions about the world. “Nature” doesn’t actually exist as an independent entity that punishes some behaviors and rewards others through the gift of continued existence. Neither does “Liberty”, even though there’s a statue of her in a harbor near the island on which I live with my wife.
.
When you say
.
my personal view of homosexuality being unnatural
.
, you aren’t explaining how you know with certainty that there is such a thing as a “natural order” of things, you are simply asserting that there is one. When you refer to “natural existence”, to what type of human existence is that opposed? How does the “natural existence” in which the “species reproduces” differ from the “natural existence” in which we utilize in vitro fertilization?
.
What does “naturally speaking” mean? Do you mean “if we all lived in the woods as gibbons with limited intelligence and capabilities forever”? We don’t live that way, though, and that is just as natural as the other primates, neorationalist86.
.
When you “reject any arguments based on technology or medical advancements as that is wholly inaccurate in describing the historical context of sex and reproduction“, I must ask “Who cares whether or not you reject human advancement?” Human advancement is as natural as cellular advancement, is it not? What does “historical context” have to do with anything? Things are as they are now, and that is just as natural as things were one hundred years ago. A human development development that is recent is no less natural than a human development thirty thousand years ago, surely you can see that…
.
If the purpose of sex is to produce offspring, that purpose does not change with the development of man-made artificial insemination and its equivalences.
.
Well, how do you know? How do you know that the purpose hasn’t changed? Have you spoken with whoever created sexual reproduction to be certain of what they had in mind at the time?
.
I ask these obvious questions because it is only when an external, objective designer with explicit goals is superimposed upon the aggregate of all human urges, decisions, behaviors and events that your “naturally speaking” makes any rational sense at all.
.
Look, I’ll try to make this very simple:
.
When human beings design airplanes, the purpose of building wings on the airplane is so that it flies. When birds are born with wings, they fly. They aren’t made with wings by somebody else so that they can fly, they just do. And when birds are born without wings, as happens occasionally, they die without purpose. There is no purpose without will, neorationalist86, because the concept of sentient will is inherent in the meaning of the word “purpose” –that’s what’s meant by “cognitive awareness in cause and effect linking for achieving a goal”. Obviously there can be no will without an identity to which it could be attached, which implies somebody’s existence.
.
When you clearly identify who or what designed and built human sexual relations with which humans are meant to reproduce, then you will have made some sense. Otherwise you will probably need to think about conceding that, in the case of sexuality as much as in the cases of many other human activities, humans just do.
.
This is certainly a digression; I’m just interested as to how you go the idea that certain sexual acts are “natural” and some are “unnatural”, and therefore some sex is “better” than others. I’d understand it if this were a conversation taking place during the Victorian era, but it seems a rather curious notion to hear from a purportedly rational individual today.
.
Thanks so much for trying to explain what you meant, neorationalist86, but I’m afraid that it still makes very little sense to me. I’d certainly be interested to know how my reasoning has been faulty, or how I’ve misunderstood your arguments, if you would care to enlighten me.

N-R, here’s where you crossed the line: “Its actually very simple, Stuart”
~
I just knew a whopper was coming your way, and SZ, I’m not sure, but this may exceed your all time word count!
~
A kid who can hardly grow a beard condescending to a rock star. Worse, a rhetorical rock star whose wife has left him to fend for himself. Dangerous f’ing combination son.

N-R, if you’re going to say something like “Its actually very simple, Stuart. Man and woman are created with different sexual organs”, might I recommend you don’t do it when his wife has gone “to the Greek Isle of Rhodes for a couple of weeks…”
~
When left to fend for himself by LB, he tends to get cranky and open up a special bag of rhetorical rock-star whoop as$. In other words, when you can barely sprout facial hair, keep a check on the condescension. SZ, BTW, I do believe this is an all time word count for you! Bravo.

Wonderful, the comment disappears, I’m forced to write it again, submit, and it reappears. I’m done! Cheers you night owls

neo will be disappointed to learn that not only are the sex organs not designed to be a perfect fit, but that they are cobbled together with several imperfect compromises due to their evolved nature. The clitoris is definitely in the wrong place and the compromise between the width of the birth canal and the size of a babies head is clear evidence that the design perfection that neo’s hanging his argument upon is a myth.

Marriage is a SOCIAL contract between human beings, normally two. It is NOT a reproductive contract. Since homosexual relationships are just as natural as hetrosexual relationships, as shown by the animal kingdom – (the higher up the food chain you go, the more social and sexual issues become entwined, and homosexual behaviour is just as common in social matters as hetrosexual behaviour – (as shown in monkeys/dolphins etc.). And yes, homosexual behaviour is common at even lower levels in the food chain, though generally more for physical reasons than social).

In short, if there were no human homosexuals, it would/should be considered unnatural, and any discrimination against them for what they are is a denial of humanity itself, and the truth of what we are as a species. Unfortunately for the human race, a lot of religions have done exactly that for a lot of people.

In fact, for humanity, homosexual behaviour is probably just as important for it, socially, as hetrosexual behaviour, and it wouldn’t surprise me that humanity’s recent reluctance to embrace itself fully has in some way held it back…

Thankfully, there are some signs that we seem to be growing up at last, and starting to accept what we are. But, as always, there are some who refuse to do so. Time, hopefully is all it will take to marginalise their numbers until we can safely ignore them, for our own sake and future.

The marriage discussion points out the problems when one considers Gay unions as being different. There are economic perks that go along with marriage that includes tax and health care benefits. Can the denial of these benefits be justified on the basis of sexual orientation?
.
Amy Sullivan’s post began with the issue of hate crimes. The election of Barack Obama resulted in a spike in activity among White Supremacist groups according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Members of these groups blame the “other” for their plight. African-Americans, Latinos, Jews, Arabs, Gays and women are all at fault. The ability of Gays to marry would likely cause another spike in activity among these groups. What measures should the US take to confront those who hate and turn to violence against individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation?

Oregon JC:
.
As much as I appreciate your (or anybody’s, actually) enthusiasm for what I write, I must correct one tiny thing:
.
he tends to get cranky and open up a special bag of rhetorical rock-star whoop as$
.
It’s not rhetorical, it’s dialectical, since I’m employing the Socratic method to question neorationalist86′s premises, in order to discover if they have a real rational basis, or are merely prejudices and comfort-producing assumptions.

Very good stuff. I enjoy these long back and forths for a number of reasons, in particular that each one that I have had about this issue ends pretty much the same way- opponents of gay marriage fall back on all kinds of “facts” that just aren’t facts, and cannot articulate in a secular way why their view of marriage should trump others. They just “know,” and will use any device available to rationalize this knowledge.
.
I particularly love the counter-factual assertion that homosexuality is somehow “unnatural” as this can be factually disproven.
.
Homosexuals are the last group in America who can be openly discriminated against. I very much believe that within the next generation and certainly within my lifetime, that will no longer be the case.

SZ:
I hardly believe that were I to inject into my commentary my belief that what I have said is based on my faith that the purpose of which I speak is per the intent of God or another higher power that you would suddenly find the argument rational. That would have opened yet another diatribe by you on how I can be so positive that there is a God. Its a lose, lose for me in that none of you see the nature of sex as I do. Thus any argument based on God or rational observation of the output of sex, which coupled lead to the notion of a purpose, will be condescended by you. I care not what you find natural or what you find unnatural about my viewpoints. I find it especially irrelevant in that I have not advocated for any socially sanctioned prejudices or oppression against homosexuals due to my views on the matter. My views lead me, personally, to simply find homosexuality unnatural. That is not to say that I advocate or condone any attempts to enact second-class citizenry status upon homosexuals.
~
It is not an irrational notion to seek that by definition, marriage continue to be considered between a man and a women in keeping with the historical understanding of the institution. Just as we would not expand the definition of marriage to three persons. If that is an entirely acceptable viewpoint, which in light of the responses to polygamy on this thread appears to be true, than what is so utterly absurd about not supporting the expansion of the definition to include same-sex partners? I’m failing to see where this sudden inalienable right for any two adults to marry one another is stemming from. I have not seen it and no one here has provided it for me other than to suggest pursuit of happiness, Equal Protection, and tolerance. All three of which could reasonably be extended to polygamous relationships, yet no one here is willing to do so. I understand why. Its because that notion does not conform view their views of marriage. Just as same-sex partnerships do not conform to my well-entrenched views on marriage. Why must tolerance of homosexuality hinge solely on the term marriage? Can anyone explain this?

piper –
.
Tha’ be exact why I were beginnin’ t’ call ‘im “neoRATIONALIZATIONIST” shortly after ‘e began postin’!
.
YARR!

Stuart -
.
Nice job, laddie!
.
In vain, bu’ very nice.
.
Arrgh!

Piper-
The majority of the world’s population operates on the assumption of moral absolutes. Their is stringent agreement on morality, upon which eastern and some western societies base their norms. That the U.S. society is so utterly incapable of coming to terms with anything that cannot be scientifically proven is but a symptom of its lack of faith, morality, and basic human reasoning and an indication of its inevitable decline in the international realm.

Neo
.
Do you think that the moral absolutes of the Mullahs based on faith or the moral absolutes of the Chinese government based on political philosophy will fall before western civilization does?

@neo,
You are absolutely correct that we find your appeals to authority unconvincing. If that were the only basis for morality then slavery and stoning would still be the order of the day and it would all seem perfectly natural. Fortunately humanity has shown itself capable of growing. We are continuously widening the set of those we include as deserving the rights and protections that we take for granted. Many people here measure their moral choices by evaluating harm to people measured against the precept that all people are created equal. That you are unwilling to think in those terms is unfortunate. Perhaps one day you grow out of it.

Western civilization has already fallen. While power may be massed in the west, currently, the eastern bloc is making a rapid ascent, evident through the growing influence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and their drive to replace the dollar as an international trading measure. Socially Asia, Africa, South America, Eastern Europe, and some Western European nations are rejecting the moral relativism of the west and distancing themselves from the cultural bankruptcy of American society.

The majority of the world’s population operates on the assumption of moral absolutes
.
Now you’re just making stuff up.
.
A far more accurate statement would be a majority of the world’s population operates on the assumption of moral absolutes unless they’re dealing with their own behavior at which point the universal hypocrisy factor comes to the fore.
.
It is a thoroughly studied topic. I’d suggest further reading. You could begin with Jesus’s response to the Pharisees concerning labor on the Sabbath or (my favorite) washing your hands before eating.

PD
To the contrary, while all people are created equal, rights are applied equitably. That is, not all rights are enjoyed equally, but it is necessary to apply them fairly. Such is the basis for any regulations, such as restricting the sale of legal commodities, e.g. alcohol, to minors. This is certainly not equal treatment, but it is equitable in that the law takes into account the social and physical harm that could be done by way of allowing minors to indulge in alcoholic beverages.
.
To define marriage as between man and woman is in no way a denial of a right to homosexuals, nor is it inequitable. The rights which are inalienable, homosexuals still enjoy. The equitable solution to this dilemma is to allow civil-unions of other legally sanctioned partnerships, without watering down the name of marriage.

I will admit. I can be convinced against allowing homosexual marraige. Heres all it will take:

I must be convinced of a good reason to deny an American Citizen, that has commited no crimes and pays his taxes, the same rights and privledges under American Law as another citizen.

Marriage is no longer just a tradition. Inheritance Law, Tax Law, Rights of Visitation in Medical Centers and numerous other Laws are associated with Marriage. To deny Marriage to somebody in its current state in America is to deny rights and privledges under American Law to that person.

There ya go New Rationalist. Make the arguement that honest citizens don’t deserve the same rights under American Law that the rest of us enjoy. In the end, that is what you are arguing against and not a single one of your arguements thus far has convinced me on this point.

exiled
.
In which more moral country would you prefer to reside?

Slaps-
Again, equitable application, not equal. You claim that there is an inherent wrong in not applying marriage equally among all consenting adults. However, how can you reconcile this with the unequal progressive tax system of the United States? For example, one would pay 15% in income tax if he makes between $8,026 to $32,550, yet another would pay 28% when making between $78,851 to $164,550, and the another pays 35% when making $357,701 and above. This is clearly not equal, yet it is argued that it is fair and equitable. If America applied rights/obligations equally, than by making $10,000 you pay lets say 20% or $2,000 and when making $100,000 you pay 20% or $20,000. This is equal. But that is not the system in which we reside, therefore any claim that we should apply equal standards to marriage falls on deaf ears when witnessed in the context of an equitable society.

neorationalist86:
.
First of all, thanks so much for engaging in this dialog, the purpose of which was to aid my comprehension of your thought processes, and not simply to cause you to refute your own claims.
.
I hardly believe that were I to inject into my commentary my belief that what I have said is based on my faith that the purpose of which I speak is per the intent of God or another higher power that you would suddenly find the argument rational.
.
Actually, if you were to go back and read my post, you would find:

If you were to insert a phrase or two into this statement, such that it read:
.
Man and woman are created [by a purposeful creator] with different sexual organs, which undoubtedly compliment each other perfectly [according to the designer's specifications], resulting in the creation of offspring.
.
and then
.
It seems perfectly clear that this is the intent [of the designer] of sexual organs and the purpose [of the creator] of sexual relations.
.
, then what you’ve stated would be rational.

, so (as with a number of your beliefs) I’m not sure wher the source of your belief about my finding your argument rational or not originates.
.
I am now aware, though, that your ideas on what is “natural” or “not natural” about human behavior is, in fact, determined by your “belief that what I have said is based on my faith that the purpose of which I speak is per the intent of God or another higher power” (as you put it), and so my understanding has been greatly clarified.
.
That would have opened yet another diatribe by you on how I can be so positive that there is a God.
.
I’d like to sincerely apologize for the length of my responses. I am honestly working on my posts becoming more concise and cogent. Your criticism is quite valid, and I will do my best in the future.
.
I do take slight issue with your predictions about what the content of my response would have been, if you were to have simply conceded in the first place that your belief in the purpose of human sexuality was religious, and not the inevitable conclusions of logical reasoning and empirical observation. In fact, I would have probably launched into another tedious diatribe in which I ad nauseum restated this question “Surely you must then consider your belief that homosexuality is unnatural to be similar to other religious beliefs, e.g. Seventh Day Adventists’ view of shellfish as being unclean, or some Wahhabists’ belief that the Jewish religion is abominable?“, and not questioned whether your belief in God and His Order was rational or not.
.
Its a lose, lose for me in that none of you see the nature of sex as I do.
.
I am not speaking for anyone else or their arguments; I am only curious for myself as to the nature of your views. I have now discovered from you that they are based on faith in the supernatural, so that’s a little more clear.
.
Thus any argument based on God or rational observation of the output of sex, which coupled lead to the notion of a purpose, will be condescended by you.
.
Well, I’m sorry to have given you the impression of condescension, it just seemed as if you were denying the correlation to a designer (God) whilst simultaneously asserting a purpose — which is absurd, as I’ve pointed out.
.
I care not what you find natural or what you find unnatural about my viewpoints.
.
Good to know, although I’m just asking questions, so your disregard of my reactions to your answers is a beneficial aspect to the dialog.
.
I find it especially irrelevant in that I have not advocated for any socially sanctioned prejudices or oppression against homosexuals due to my views on the matter.
.
It may be that a deeply held religious prejudice against the sexuality of an entire group of other humans is influencing your thoughts, then again it may not. Some here argue that your advocacy of the denial of marriage equality to gay people has something to do with this deeply held religious prejudice against homosexuality, but I have not. I think that’s a question for you to answer honestly after a bit of reflection, perhaps.
.
My views lead me, personally, to simply find homosexuality unnatural. That is not to say that I advocate or condone any attempts to enact second-class citizenry status upon homosexuals.
.
Gay people themselves are telling you and I that denial of equal access to the fundamental right to marry (at least as found by the Supreme Court in Loving v VA, 1967), is a de facto consignment to unequal status, but that is a different question, as you rightly note.
.
I guess I’ll end with an observation:
.
Don’t you find it the least bit odd or significant, neorationalist86, that it just so happens to be that your deeply held religious beliefs are that gay people’s identities are “unnatural”, and that you also “seek that by definition, marriage continue to be considered between a man and a women in keeping with the historical understanding of the institution“?
.
Isn’t that a strange coincidence to you?
.
Doesn’t it raise any doubts or questions to you about any relationship between the two ideas in your mind, neorationalist86?
.
Thanks so much for reading and considering this.

SZ:
I should probably begin by informing you that this is neo, in case there was confusion. In my opinion it is a more relevant moniker.
~
I said:
“I hardly believe that were I to inject into my commentary my belief that what I have said is based on my faith that the purpose of which I speak is per the intent of God or another higher power that you would suddenly find the argument rational.”
.
This was in direct response to your suggestion that if I were to reform my statement you would find it rational:
“Man and woman are created [by a purposeful creator] with different sexual organs, which undoubtedly compliment each other perfectly [according to the designer's specifications], resulting in the creation of offspring.

.
It seems perfectly clear that this is the intent [of the designer] of sexual organs and the purpose [of the creator] of sexual relations.
.
then what you’ve stated would be rational.”
.
I suppose my comment was out of skepticism as to your sincerity in finding my argument based on the existence of God to be rational. If I misjudged your veracity, I apologize.
~
“Don’t you find it the least bit odd or significant, neorationalist86, that it just so happens to be that your deeply held religious beliefs are that gay people’s identities are “unnatural”, and that you also “seek that by definition, marriage continue to be considered between a man and a women in keeping with the historical understanding of the institution”?
.
Isn’t that a strange coincidence to you?
.
Doesn’t it raise any doubts or questions to you about any relationship between the two ideas in your mind, neorationalist86?”
.
Well, indeed, I do not find it odd. There are those who find homosexuality to be entirely normal and innocent who also define marriage as between man and woman. While, in my case the two are certainly linked, that does not disqualify my stance on marriage. The institution of marriage has never been considered an inalienable right to be bestowed upon all, there have always been preconditions in the definition. Same-sex marriage is a recent phenomenon that suddenly purports to make my views an abomination. In reality, however, as I stated above American society is not based on equality, but on equitability. Rights and privileges are applied with fairness, but certainly not always equally. Thus, unions or partnerships would be the reasonable application of fairness, without equalizing the marriage of traditional couples with that of homosexual couples.
~
In any case, I appreciate your general civility in attempting discourse with the likes of me. It speaks volumes as to your character to refrain from insulting me, in light of my very intolerable and irrationally offensive view points.

When, even in th’ midst o’ a “democracy”, ye be havin’ an’ entire “classification” o’ citizens who be defined, based on a partic’lar group o’ citizens’ partic’lar interpretation o’ their partic’lar sacred book, as deficient, ‘r somehows inherently “less” than th’ rest o’ th’ citizens, so’s th’ best this classification o’ citizens may be permitted t’ be hopin’ fer be “tolerance” fr’m th’ much larger group, th’ stage fer hate crimes an’ discrimination be set. Whenever one group o’ citizens be classified as “less than” th’ rest, an’ denied ri’s an’ protection under th’ law, ‘r treated different under th’ law, democracy be failin’.
.
An’ tha’ classification as “less than”, tha’ foundation fer denyin’ an’ keepin’ apart, be justified, as we be seein’ ‘ere from neorationalizationist an’ ‘is pals, wi’ all sorts o’ logical-soundin constructs, an’ ridiculous slippery-slope an’ false equivalents tha’ can never be penetrated.
.
They pretend they be discussin’ an’ debatin’ – they assure and insist they be discussin’ an’ debatin’, bu’ wha’ they really be doin’ is hopin’ t’ “convert” an’ infect others wi’ their bloody, reasonable-soundin’ bigotry. Ye can discuss reasonable til th’ fleet returns t’ port – It be accomplishin’ nothin’ bu’ providin’ a respectful, reasonable-soundin’ platform fr’m which th’ likes o neo launch an’ spread further bigotry.
.
Neo be havin’ no questions ‘r doubts – not a single one – ‘e be rock-solid convinced o’ th’ rightness o’ ‘is beliefs an’ th’ wrongness in others, an’ ‘is only goal be t’ try, as ‘e be glory-bound t’ do, t’ “convert” th’ rest o’ th’ lost souls t’ ‘is way o’ seein’ things.
.
I be ri’ sick neo an’ ‘is friends been provided such a nice, long “discussion” ‘ere t’ take advantage o’ fer spreadin’ their oh-so-logical-soundin’ fear an’ bigotry.
.
Me only consolation be me own sure hope an’ faith tha’ they an’ their ilk be a dyin’ breed, an’ we’ll prob’ly see justice fer all our citizens occur a’ last in me lifetime.
.
An’ I be not tryin’ t’ use this forum t’ be convincin’ ‘r convertin’ anyone else t’ me own position – I just be workin’ li’ hell in me life every day t’ be sure me hope an’ faith be fulfilled!
.
ARRGH!

“I suppose my comment was out of skepticism as to your sincerity in finding my argument based on the existence of God to be rational.”
.
There is no rational argument based on the existence of a god. It is simply a belief, a feeling you and some others have and is the precise opposite of rational.
.
That is not to denigrate your faith. If it helps make you a good person (though your open disdain for a segment of the human population isn’t a good start), all the better. But that faith is simply not rational, nor does it have any innate relation to morality.
.
Pirate Wench(Demwoman),
I want to read your posts and used to enjoy your writing as Demwoman, but I speak for myself only when I say I absolutely cannot read Pirate Wench. Hurts my brain, I scroll past it immediately.

PR
~
I do not view homosexuals as lesser or deficient to be clear. I am of the opinion that their rights to exercise their sexual expression cannot be infringed upon. However, there is quite a difference between tolerating and accepting homosexuals and expanding marriage to include same-sex couples. Equitability in application of the law is the norm in America. Not equality.
~
I am not attempting to convince anyone of my view points. I am merely defending my position from endless assaults by those who would try to convince me, or discredit me. There is a difference. Your position appears to be that so long as one agrees with you they are mere players in a greater dialogue expressing there views sincerely and without agenda, yet the moment someone disagrees with you, they are attempting to proselytize the masses with their own self-righteous propaganda. You’re bordering on hysteria in your paranoia and blatant double-standards.
~
You claim to be an advocate of freedom and equality, while you consistently slander and misrepresent the views of those you oppose. You’re tactics are dictatorial and disgraceful.

Piper –
.
Sorry…scroll away then, matey! It be yer ri’ t’ do so!
.
Arrgh!

piper1:
.
Just to be clear, this claim:

Man and woman are created with different sexual organs, which undoubtedly compliment each other perfectly, resulting in the creation of offspring.
.
It seems perfectly clear that this is the intent of sexual organs and the purpose of sexual relations.

is irrational, because intent can’t be reasoned from creation with out a creator to whom intent can be assigned, whilst

“Man and woman are created [by a purposeful creator] with different sexual organs, which undoubtedly compliment each other perfectly [according to the designer's specifications], resulting in the creation of offspring.
.
It seems perfectly clear that this is the intent [of the designer] of sexual organs and the purpose [of the creator] of sexual relations.

is rational, because (even though the perfect clarity of the creators’ intent is debatable) premises of both intent and designer are declared.
.
If there’s an intent anywhere, it must be someone’s or a claim with respect to purpose would be irrational. It would be somewhat like saying that there is a father who never had children.

“However, there is quite a difference between tolerating and accepting homosexuals and expanding marriage to include same-sex couples. Equitability in application of the law is the norm in America. Not equality.”
.
Would you then support full civil union rights for same-sex couples that are identical to the marriage rights for heterosexual couples?

exiled,
.
Maybe this is just my own failure of imagination but I can’t understand how something can be innate yet unnatural. I won’t attribute words to you that you haven’t written, but can I suggest that perhaps the word you’re looking for is immoral?
.
I also can’t understand how sexuality can be so peripheral to someone’s identity that it’s possible to oppose homosexuality and not be prejudiced against homosexuals – i.e. to not be bigoted – and yet be so central to marriage. I’ve never been married, but surely marriage is more about the union of two people with all the complications and character quirks that accompany their identities than it is about a sexual contract to reproduce children.
.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you, but it seems that you’re saying homosexual behavior is irrelevant to an individual’s identity, yet heterosexual behavior is essential to what is at its core a union of two individuals. I can’t reconcile the contradiction there.

Piper
~
In fact I would support such, as I have stated on more than one occasion here.
~
Now, in light of this statement some may be inclined to jump on the hypocrisy band-wagon bringing up my tax argument earlier where I suggested that allowing marriage benefits to same-sex couples would in fact have an affect on the populace. My argument in that context was not that we should disallow gay-marriage because tax payer money would be used to fund the benefits. My argument was in response to Rose who suggested that the gay-marriage movement would not impose itself on others. I was simply pointing out that considering tax-payer money would be used, there would in fact be an effect on the population at large. That in and of itself is not reason enough to ban gay-marriage altogether.
~
What I do advocate, however, is an alternative to marriage, whereby couples may be joined in union receiving the benefits that are provided for married couples. This in no way affects my views on homosexuality, but is seems the best compromise I can envision. Homosexual couples get their benefits. The rest of society can keep intact the traditional view of ‘marriage.’

Rose
~
I am not sure to which post you are referring. However, I believe, if I understand your observation correctly than I do not think there would necessarily be a contradiction. Lets take drug use for example. Drug use, in and of itself, is not necessarily central to the identity of a user. People may oppose this indulgence, without necessarily being prejudiced towards the user for his/her weakness. In the same sense, lack of drug use is central to an individual’s health.
~
While this may seem unrelated, jumping from drug use and identity to non-drug use as central to health, I would contend that your observation is equally unrelated, in attempting to jump from homosexuality and identity to heterosexuality as central to marriage.

exiled (neo)
.
Do you really believe that other countries are morally superior to the US? Could you name those countries?

A slight clarification is in order:
.
The rest of [those individuals in] society [who are determined to prevent gay people from achieving the equally applied right to marry] can keep intact the traditional view of ‘marriage.’ [at the expense of equal application of the law]
.
This is a correct statement:
American society is not based on equality, but on equitability. Rights and privileges are applied with fairness, but certainly not always equally.
.
However, this claim strangely omits the finding by the Court in Loving V Virginia that there must be a compelling reason why equal application of the law must be withheld in a case such that equality is denied.
.
As the Court found:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
.
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

So while it is true that the right of equal protection may be withheld from individuals by the state, the Court must find that there be a legitimate overriding purpose independent of…discrimination which justifies this classification, in other words, something more compelling than the notion that a discriminatory system is valuable in and of itself.
.
So in order for the state to constitutionally withhold the right to marry from two individuals, the Court must find that something other than the desire on the part of some that “society can keep intact the traditional view of ‘marriage.’” would justify unequal application of the Fourteenth Amendment.
.
Relatively soon this justification will be tested in the Supreme Court, and we will see whether some peoples’ desires to keep things as they have been override others’ right to equal protection.
.
I believe that it’s very possible that the Court will not find some folks’ devotion to their own “traditional view of marriage” compelling enough of a reason to deny Fourteenth Amendment protections to a minority class of citizens, but that is, of course, educated conjecture.

RMRD
~
I do not contend that other nations, i.e. governments, are morally superior to that of the US. I suggest that socially speaking, American society is quite possibly the most immoral on earth. I would have to examine the fundamentals of each and every nation’s social structure to come to an exact conclusion on this, though, so I will simply go with American society certainly being outdone by many other societies in way of morality.

While this may seem unrelated, jumping from drug use and identity to non-drug use as central to health, I would contend that your observation is equally unrelated, in attempting to jump from homosexuality and identity to heterosexuality as central to marriage.
.
I think you misunderstood me: my argument is nothing if not related! And I’m definitely not understanding you. I’ll try to be more eloquent…
.
First, are you suggesting that drug use is as central to an individual’s identity as their sexuality? And just to clarify, I’m not talking about heterosexuality (or homosexuality) and marriage. I’m talking about identity and marriage and sexuality.
.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you are maintaining that an individual’s homosexual – and presumably heterosexual – behavior is peripheral to their identity: While individuals such as JC are free to hold whatever views they hold regarding Catholics, however misguided and uninformed, it is still bigotry in that it is based solely on one’s identity as a Catholic. Opposing homosexuality, at least in reference to me, however, speaks not to any personal hatred, antagonistic attitude towards the individuals themselves, but towards their conduct in a manner that I see as immoral. I do not oppose the individual or their identity, just their actions.
.
And clearly you are also maintaining that sexuality is central to marriage: Based on these grounds, the institution of marriage is traditionally defined as a focal environment through which adults may raise their offspring. Linked to the ability of heterosexuals to reproduce it is historically accepted that a marriage be between a heterosexual couple.
.
The contrast is confusing. I don’t understand how sexuality can be central to marriage but irrelevant to someone’s identity. Frankly, that seems to be a rather cynical view of the institution. Or… are you saying that sexuality is in fact irrelevant in heterosexual marriage too? Are you completely separating sexuality and reproduction with respect to marriage, but not with respect to whether homosexuality is “natural”?
.
Homosexual couples get their benefits. The rest of society can keep intact the traditional view of ‘marriage.’
.
If you prefer to keep conversations civil, which I’m assuming you do, distinguishing “the rest of society” from homosexuals on this issue is not a great way to achieve that aim. 40% of Americans, and a solid majority of those under 30, are for marriage equality.
.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-contine-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx

SZ
~
And the onslaught continues.
~
First, Loving v Virginia spoke directly to race. While the grounds upon which it stands could be reasonably construed as pertaining to sexual orientation as well, it is clear that the intention of the court in this case was narrowly aimed at preventing anti-miscegenation laws. It is therefore, by no means a certainty that this precedent protects same-sex marriage.
~
Furthermore, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.. Given that the law is legislative enactments, if the legislature deems marriage to be between man and woman, than equal protection of the law would consist of no one being allowed to enter into same-sex marriages and everyone having the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. This is not one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for another. A ban on same-sex marriages is applied equally across the board.

“And the onslaught continues”
~
No, I’d say it’s groundhog day, new names, same positions. As Janis said, “it’s the same f’ing day man”
~
But at this pt. this beast simply has to go to 300, and I’m wagering SZ is going to produce a thesis length treatise before it’s all done…

neorationalist86:
.
American society is quite possibly the most immoral on earth
.
As a proud American, profoundly grateful for a heritage that includes the Bill of Rights, and as a liberal, confident that the promise of a just, meritocratic and moral culture is ours to be realized more and more as we work toward progress, I am somewhat astounded by that declaration.
.
On what basis could you possibly make such an assertion?
.
“the most immoral on earth”?
.
Comparatively speaking, how so?

exiled
.
Could you name one of those societies?

neorationalist86:
.
Just quickly, this:
.
it is clear that the intention of the court in this case was narrowly aimed at preventing anti-miscegenation laws
.
is false as a matter of fact.
.
The intention of the Court was aimed at the total elimination of the injustice perpetrated by state-sanctioned discrimination commensurate with the proscription of unequal treatment by the Fourteenth Amendment, not narrowly at the injustice of miscegenation law. The Court makes this apparent in its decision when it writes:

There can be no question but that Virginia’s miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated “[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry” as being “odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the “most rigid scrutiny,” Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate…
.
…The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. 11 We have consistently denied [388 U.S. 1, 12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race.

.
The intention of the Court was to broadly promote equality through the explicit affirmation of its constitutionality, as well as the explicit rejection of the constitutionality of inequality. The striking of the Virginia law was intended to (and did) widely apply across all states in the union, because the court explicitly declared its interest that “the Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination“.
.
As for
.
This is not one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for another. A ban on same-sex marriages is applied equally across the board.
.
, read the full text of the case of Loving v Va, and you will see that relatively similar logic was applied in Pace v Alabama, which was then explicitly rejected by the Court:

The State finds support for its “equal application” theory in the decision of the Court in Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883). In that case, the Court upheld a conviction under an Alabama statute forbidding adultery or fornication between a white person and a Negro which imposed a greater penalty than that of a statute proscribing similar conduct by members of the same race. The Court reasoned that the statute could not be said to discriminate against Negroes because the punishment for each participant in the offense was the same. However, as recently as the 1964 Term, in rejecting the reasoning of that case, we stated “Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court.”

It’s essentially the same argument, that since an unequal application of the Fourteenth generally applied equally to the individuals in a case, the Fourteenth was not violated, and so was dismissed. States can’t legislate greater consequences for a minority of persons of a certain classification than others, even if those consequences are applied equally in a given case.
.
In this second point I’m not prepared to say that you are wrong as a matter of fact, neorationalist86, but as a legal matter it sure looks like you might not be on the winning side of the upcoming case.

Oregon JC:
.
But at this pt. this beast simply has to go to 300, and I’m wagering SZ is going to produce a thesis length treatise before it’s all done…
.
At least I managed to keep the conversation off of the Michael Jackson thread, didn’t I? Now there aren’t nearly 300 comments in that piece of tabloid garbage, right?

You’ll have to give me some time to respond, my dear friends. Be back shortly.

Rose
~
First, are you suggesting that drug use is as central to an individual’s identity as their sexuality?
No, I am suggesting that neither drug use nor sexual persuasion is inherently an identity in and of itself. It may make up a small aspects of one’s identity, but it certainly is not central.
~
I do not oppose the individual or their identity, just their actions.
I made this comment in reference to repeated claims that I was attacking homosexuals’ identity. That is why I used that term. I do not visualize sexual orientation as one’s identity, though, so this comment does not adequately relate my views of identity relating to homosexuals, or heterosexuals for that matter.
~
Or… are you saying that sexuality is in fact irrelevant in heterosexual marriage too? Are you completely separating sexuality and reproduction with respect to marriage, but not with respect to whether homosexuality is “natural”?
No, I am say that one’s sexuality is central to marriage, based on my definition of marriage between man and woman. Obviously central to that premise would be that the man and woman are heterosexual. On an individual level, however, sexuality is not, in my humble opinion, central to one’s identity. That includes myself. When I wake up each day and look into the mirror I do not see heterosexual. I see many things, but my sexual preferences certainly does not identify me as a person.
~
In reference to civil-unions with equal benefits, I apologize for this, Homosexual couples get their benefits. The rest of society can keep intact the traditional view of ‘marriage.’
It should state, “homosexual couples get their benefits. Society as a whole can keep intact the traditional view of ‘marriage’.”
~

neoexile –
.
I may be dictatorial – bu’ I don’t be thinkin’ I be nearly as disgraceful as a worm who be comin’ up wi’ an alias in order t’ be makin’ it look like someone else be havin’ th’ same twisted outlook as ye be, after it be obvious ye were on yer own ‘ere fer th’ most part…
.
Kind o’ makes yer own claim on th’ high ground shakier than it were when ye were only attemptin’ t’ promulgate yer bigotry under yer own moniker. Ye be a downri’ sneaky devil – ‘r be ye b’lievin’ tha’ th’ end be juistifyin th’ means?
.
Tha’ be ri’ deservin’ o’ a loud
.
go f yerself, exile/neo!

Ah, SZ, my friend
~
If the Court, in Loving v Virginia, intended its decision to have more expansive implications than why did it not say so? Each passage you highlighted refers to race, miscegenation, ancestry, racial classifications, and racial discrimination. A simple sentence declaring that the application of the decision was not tied directly to simply racial matters, but to the larger context of discriminatory marital issues.
~
Now, of course, simply because the court failed to explicitly state the broader context to which its decision could be applied does not necessitate its limited interpretation. However, to declare, as you have, that this decision was not tailored specifically to race is grossly misinterpretive.
~
I suggested that the Equal Protection clause does not extend to same-sex marriages under two premises:
1) If the law, as per legislation, bans same-sex marriages, than the context of “equal protection under the law” would suggest that the law need be applied equally
2) Since under a same-sex ban no-one could enter into a same-sex marriage, yet everyone has the right to enter into a heterosexual marriage there is no unequal treatment. One group may not receive what they wanted, but they are still held to the same standards as all of society in this regard
…To which you replied, “In this second point I’m not prepared to say that you are wrong as a matter of fact, neorationalist86, but as a legal matter it sure looks like you might not be on the winning side of the upcoming case.”
.
I would simply add to this that not being on the winning side of a legal dispute in no way speaks to the legitimacy of the argument. If losing a legal battle were indicative of an unsound position, than the pro-gay-marriage movement would have ceased years ago, as would civil rights, women’s suffrage and many other legal struggles that took years to finally achieve jurisprudential victory.

Pirate my dear,
I didn’t change my moniker to attempt to hide my identity. I did it to accurately reflect my standing amongst you and others. However, this change in moniker came with a full disclosure to SZ when I responded to his first post after I had changed my moniker. The only reason I did not announce it in the two earlier posts of mine was because I had forgot that I had changed my moniker last night before going to bed. Chill thyself.

If the Court, in Loving v Virginia, intended its decision to have more expansive implications than why did it not say so? Each passage you highlighted refers to race, miscegenation, ancestry, racial classifications, and racial discrimination.
.
exiled, right and this is what stuart was replying to: “it is clear that the intention of the court in this case was narrowly aimed at preventing anti-miscegenation laws.”
.
Given that the law is legislative enactments, if the legislature deems marriage to be between man and woman, than equal protection of the law would consist of no one being allowed to enter into same-sex marriages and everyone having the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. This is not one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for another. A ban on same-sex marriages is applied equally across the board.
.
Similarly anti-miscegenation laws were applied equally across the board in this respect.
.
And thanks for addressing (some of) my questions. However I admit I still fail to understand how one’s sexuality is not a central part of an individual’s identity while their religion is. And I’m pretty sure you’re in a very small minority on the issue of sexuality’s irrelevance to identity.
.
And I’m curious to understand why you deem innate instincts unnatural. I am genuinely curious about that one.

Rose-
~
Actually that was only part of SZ’s reply. He also contended that my statement that the decision was narrowly tailored was false. Yet in his rebuttal he highlighted several passages which supported my claim that the decision was explicitly referring to racial matters.
~
Innateness does not always constitute a natural occurrence. Among many potential definitions, natural means “in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional” while innate is “originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience”
.
So, while homosexuality is arguably innate in persons of that persuasion and thus natural to the individual, it is certainly not usual or unexceptional in terms of broader mankind, and thus it is unnatural in the context of the universe.

Come on people, only one more now!
~
Rose, BTW, did you see that link I posted for ya? Was hard to track you down after I boycotted the Sanford stuff.

neorationalist86:
.
Yet in his rebuttal he highlighted several passages which supported my claim that the decision was explicitly referring to racial matters.
.
I did not, actually, but that’s due either poor elucidation on my part or poor comprehension on yours…I’ll let you have the last word, however, until such time as the topic may arise again.

Actually that was only part of SZ’s reply. He also contended that my statement that the decision was narrowly tailored was false.
.
exiled, sorry I thought my implication was clear. You said “it is clear that the intention of the court in this case was narrowly aimed at preventing anti-miscegenation laws.” Which you then admitted was not actually the case when you wrote this: “Each passage you highlighted refers to race, miscegenation, ancestry, racial classifications, and racial discrimination.”
.
Thus your previous statement that the decision was narrowly tailored was indeed false, even according to your own comments.
.
So, while homosexuality is arguably innate in persons of that persuasion and thus natural to the individual, it is certainly not usual or unexceptional in terms of broader mankind, and thus it is unnatural in the context of the universe.
.
Yeah it’s not like that logic is consistent with anti-miscegenation laws or anything.
.
Seriously exceptional and unusual = unnatural? And thus not worthy of tolerance? I don’t have the time or ability to match stuart’s triumph of dialectical yesterday, but that is some twisted and very dangerous logic.
.
However it may help explain your conviction that American society is perhaps the most immoral in the world: all that emphasis on civil liberties and inalienable rights tends to foster the exceptional.
.
Come on people, only one more now!
.
jcapan, that was all for you. I actually have more to say about the SCO meeting – and thanks for the link – at some other saner hour. Do you have the impression it’s getting significantly more coverage in Japan than in the west?

SZ and Rose
~
I thought it was quite clear, however, I will explain further. Race, ancestry, racial discrimination are all in the context of anti-miscegenation. Is that understandable? When bringing up these explicit references in the court’s reasoning it only adds to my argument that the court’s decision was narrowly tailored to anti-miscegenation, not to any greater potentially discriminating aspects of marriage, e.g. same-sex couples.
~
Rose
Seriously exceptional and unusual = unnatural? And thus not worthy of tolerance? Are you seriously implying that homosexuality is usual? And will you please cease with the intolerance argument? I am not advocating intolerance, nor have I. I am very simply, very plainly, very civilly suggesting that marriage remain between man and woman, while homosexuals be bestowed the same benefits as marriage in their civil unions.
~
Well, it’s done JC, 300 and counting…

“I am very simply, very plainly, very civilly suggesting that marriage remain between man and woman, while homosexuals be bestowed the same benefits as marriage in their civil unions.”
.
Exiled (nee neo) -So after all this it comes down to semantics.

Exiled
.
Could you name those societies that are morally superior to United States society?

“Seriously exceptional and unusual = unnatural? And thus not worthy of tolerance?” Are you seriously implying that homosexuality is usual? And will you please cease with the intolerance argument?
.
exiled,
.
Wow you actually quoted what I said and then completely misunderstood it. This is actually quite weird! Obviously we are communicating so badly that this is completely pointless.
.
Anyway I’ll try to spell out each step of my logic so at least you can understand the last argument I’m making on this thread. You said: So, while homosexuality is arguably innate in persons of that persuasion and thus natural to the individual, it is certainly not usual or unexceptional in terms of broader mankind, and thus it is unnatural in the context of the universe.
.
Which lead to this interpretation of your argument: Seriously exceptional and unusual = unnatural? As you can see, I am saying absolutely nothing about homosexuality being usual. My point is that unusual = unnatural is a very dangerous logic. I’m assuming that you have heard something about the history of the 20th century – the Nazis, the Soviets, the Cultural Revolution, etc. – so you can understand why I would strongly criticize thinking that is so similar to the kind these violent regimes used.
.
Are we clear now?
.
And now about the tolerance thing. You’ve said you oppose homosexuality because it is unnatural. Well, opposition and intolerance are closely related. But if you’d prefer I can say this: “And thus merits opposition?”
.
I also second rmrd’s question. But don’t worry I won’t be replying to any more posts by you on this topic. Judging from our posts, we both appear to be reasonably well-educated and intelligent people but even Dee and I (inside joke for Swampland veterans) understand each other way better than this.

Rose-
Whether or not you choose respond is entirely up to you. I need to clarify though. Given that SZ was so intent on tearing my arguments apart based on semantical definitions of intent and purpose, I see no problem with my assumption that innate does not imply natural, given the specific definitions of the words.
~
As for tolerance and opposition, I am personally opposed to homosexuality, while I have recognized tirelessly that society must accept and tolerate homosexuality. With that said, tolerance is entirely separate from allowing marriage, when civil-unions with equal benefits will undoubtedly suffice.
~
RMRD, Rose:
~
In pure terms of social morality based on code of values and ethics, adherence to traditional aspects of culture, respect for one’s fellow citizens and especially elders, basic virtue and justifiable sense of righteousness I see American culture as inherently failed. With each generation, while we may seek to become more open and liberty driven, the unintended consequence is that society has strayed from internationally and historically recognized norms of morality as we become more willing to allow individuality to express itself in whatever form that may be. This leads to society no longer acting as a constraint against questionably immoral behavior. With bountiful freedom there is consequently a departure from socially acceptable norms other than legal restrictions. Society no longer holds sway over people’s conduct and as such people wander farther from moral codes.

Since the United States is morally flawed, and since you mentioned other societies rejecting the immorality of the United States, which society is morally superior to the United States?
.
I do not see debates in the United States about torture as signs of a society that has failed morally. I do not see debates about minority rights as a failed society.
.
What society has a superior moral record?

RMRD
~
I have several observations that I must address.
~
First, it would appear that you are speaking in terms of government morality, in that the two items you mention are torture and civil rights. These are actions conducted by the government. Debate, socially or legislatively, speaks to no great moral aptitude. It simply illustrates disagreement. Every nation on earth has a population that disagrees on various subjects, regardless of whether public discourse on the matter is evident.
~
I am speaking to social behavior and morality amidst the American populace. If you are referring to government action, I must say that American government is certainly no shining beacon of justice and morality. It is a self-serving egotistic entity.
~
Next, you said “superior moral record.” By record, I conclude that you are implying historical progression. If so, that is irrelevant to my discourse, as I suggested that contemporary social morality in America has failed. American society, in my opinion, is at a point that ranks it lower than many societies of the world in regard to its values and moral conduct. Western society, chiefly America, is based on liberal relativism. This inherently implies a less absolutist set of principles and values, which inevitably leads to obfuscation of moral and ethical conduct. It would appear that you are of the Darwin mindset that “western nations of Europe immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization” and hence you envision western society as synonymous with moral progress. I would disagree.

So as decadent as United States society may be, you cannot point to one that is superior. If western society has declined, who is the new shining moral beacon?
.
You stated that Asia, African and some eastern European societies are rejecting the immorality of the West. I am merely asking which of these societies is the new moral compass?
.
If no society is superior to our society, how can the West (US) be inferior?

There is no evident superiority of any nation in terms of moral conduct. What is morally superior, however, is seen through culture. Eastern society, based largely on the universal tenets of morality through such major religions as Islam, Buddhism, and Christian orthodoxy adheres to a code of ethical, moral conduct ignored by Western civilizations. While Christianity provides the necessary means by which the West can regain its morality, western society inherently rejects the notion that Christianity should guide social action. While the West has certainly not rejected Christianity, it has circumvented its absolutism in terms of socially condoned actions, opting more for individualism which inevitably leads to a decline in moral standards. Societies based on the moral code of religion and willing to recognize its benefit to society, even those societies which would not base their governing structure upon religion, will always surpass, in terms of moral direction, those societies which view religion as something to be entirely privatized.

Okay I said I wasn’t going to comment again but I’m going to offer yet another clarification that you probably will misinterpret…
.
In most of your comments about morality there appears to be an implicit assumption that those of us who don’t oppose homosexuality (the specific topic of this thread) and by extension support other causes that violate “traditional” (a loaded and imprecise term but I’ll use it anyway) moral standards such as feminism are rejecting morality. You even included moral-based definitions of marriage as something marriage equality proponents reject.
.
This could not be further from the case. Many of us – probably a majority here on Swampland – believe that some of the core moral standards imposed by mainstream Christianity are in fact immoral: the restriction of marriage to one man and one women; male dominance of the Church and family; prohibition of contraception (in Catholicism); forbidding divorce (in Catholicism); the prohibition of premarital sex; and the basic concept of legitimate/illegitimate children.
.
My aim here isn’t to convince you that these “moral” precepts are immoral, or to offend you. My aim is to explain that the moral decline you see is actually a shift to new conceptions of morality, which you will probably agree is a common historical process. It’s very rare to see static conceptions of morality for any significant length of time in any historical period or place. It’s also a reflection of those minority rights rmrd referred to: as both actual and effective minorities (i.e. women) have increased our influence on society, old moral standards that marginalized us have been weakened and replaced with new more egalitarian moral standards.
.
Obviously you will disagree with my characterization of these shifts. But I hope you can agree that what’s going on here is a shift in moral standards, not an abandonment of morality.

Rose
~
I agree that it is a misguided shift in moral standards, not an abandonment of morality per se.

Exiled
.
Christian values are often in the eyes of the beholder. The Bible was used to justify the enslavement of African-Americans. For example, 1 Corinthians says that a person who finds God while a slave, should remain a slave. However there is a following statement that says that if a slave can find freedom, one should not hesitate to seize freedom. The full passage actually states that a slave should not let another man stand in the way of freedom. where one person sees endorsement of slavery, another sees justification for killing the slave-owner if he impedes a slave’s escape. Which position is moral? Both are Bible based.
.
Christians also used the curse of Ham as justification for slavery. The overwhelming Christian thought was that God had cursed Ham and therefore all people of African descent. Yet, if one searches the Bible, one cannot find a statement where God curses Ham or African people. It was Black ministers that pointed out the lie. Black ministers were also told by Christian leaders, that they (the Black preachers) should not delve into secular problems like Jim Crow.
.
Isn’t it possible that the dirty hippies who argued for minority, women’s and Gay rights are actually doing the true Christian thing?

RMRD
~
Christianity has many, many sects. You cannot link Christianity itself to misguided and irrational interpretations of Christianity. Anyone who bases their Christian doctrine solely on the Bible is furthering their own misunderstanding of Christianity.
~
It is not only possible, but absolutely true that those who advocate freedom from oppression and discrimination are engaging in true Christian virtues. I absolutely support civil rights equality for minorities, women, and gays. However, that does not imply that I should equate marriage with any two consenting adults. Marriage is simply not a civil-right issue in my opinion.

neorationalist86:
>
You cannot link Christianity itself to misguided and irrational interpretations of Christianity. Anyone who bases their Christian doctrine solely on the Bible is furthering their own misunderstanding of Christianity.
.
As a Christian, I can affirm that this is undoubtedly true, although I will add the needed clarification solely on the [literal reading of the ] Bible

While the West has certainly not rejected Christianity, it has circumvented its absolutism in terms of socially condoned actions, opting more for individualism which inevitably leads to a decline in moral standards. Societies based on the moral code of religion and willing to recognize its benefit to society, even those societies which would not base their governing structure upon religion, will always surpass, in terms of moral direction, those societies which view religion as something to be entirely privatized.
.
exiled,
.
I’m curious about the precise ways moral standards have worsened. Are you referring to greed perhaps? I would agree on that point. I know you mentioned declining respect for our elders, but again I’m not sure exactly what that is referring to.

Stuart,
Indeed. An accurate clarification.

Rose
~
Greed. Thats a great start.
.
Lack of respect for elders. While certainly not the worst vice an individual could have, it is certainly indicative of a culture throwing off the yoke of tradition. As a 23 year old I can absolutely attest to the rampant lack of respect my generation has when interacting with our elders.
.
Glorification of lewd behavior in television, music, media, and entertainment.
.
Unprecedented rates of violent crime in comparison to other western societies.
.
Pervasive drug-abuse culture.
.
Rejection of intellectualism, embracing of sensationalist entertainment.
.
Declining standards of education, journalism, and governing.
.
Prejudice and bigotry based on religion, race, gender, and yes, sexual orientation, of which I have been accused. Yet I am confident in my own knowledge that I do not subscribe to a bigoted rationale.
~
These are but a few of contemporary American society’s most cherished values.

Unprecedented rates of violent crime in comparison to other western societies.
.
I just have to do a historical fact check on that point. While American crime rates are definitely higher than those of most if not all other western societies, they are nonetheless very low by historical standards. 18th-century London was far more dangerous than 21st-century Detroit.
.
Declining standards of education, journalism, and governing.
.
I disagree about education and governing but I’d have to agree on journalism with the caveat that the prejudice you refer to used to be far more pervasive in the media. And while real and problematic, that prejudice, in both a historical context and in comparison to other contemporary societies, is remarkably uncommon in the United States in 2009. Any evidence-based analysis would conclude that America has never been less prejudiced than it is right now.
.
However in general, I would agree with your list except that I don’t think these problems are worse than they were. There was a lot of sensationalist entertainment in 19th-century France. One reason why every generation says that moral standards are getting worse is that history tends to only remember the intellectual and political highlights of previous eras: Newton is remembered while Katterfelto is ignored.

Government scandals are not uncommon in US or world history. Older generations commonly fault the level of education of subsequent generations.
.
I think that there is more opportunity to have a voice in government than in past generations. I also think that there is easier access to knowledge than in past generations.
.
You have not identified a culture that is superior to United States society and have provided scant support for your collapse of Western society fears.

A gay activist was brutally killled in Puerto Rico!.
The Puerto Rico Police Department disregards the crime as a crime of passion I hear…the victim wore female clothes and was feminine.{victimization of the victim?
Internet chatter volume goes crazy( deja vu; ghost of Mississippi Burning; Mathew Sheppard in the tropics ….burned and mutilated ).
Could PR become the first USA jurisdiction where the recently signed anti-LGBT “hate crimes” law is applicable?.