Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 299
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    I understand what you're saying about proof. However, what's your reaction to this:

    Go out and have sex with another man tonight.

    I doubt that you're thinking "Oh, OK. I could do that." (assuming you are a man, I can't tell from the avatar). The feeling of being gay is just as strong and prevalent as the feeling of being straight. So whatever the genetic source is for sexual orientation, neither has been proved.

    And, I would add that sexual orientation is fluid. I know people who've switched back and forth throughout their lives, but don't consider themselves "bi". I know straight men who periodically engage in gay sex, but don't identify as gay or as bi.

    Trying to classify sexuality is like trying to hold water in a sieve. You just have to accept that it is.
    I agree, classifying sexual preference/orientaion is not an open and shut case. Since you state that you also know those who switch back and forth that indicates they are making a choice and something that is a choice should not have a discriminitory class designation. Since sexual orientation is fluid (constantly changing), how can anyone say they are being discriminated against if they are not allowed to marry a same sex partner, it is difficult to discriminate against a choice.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by southbound747
    I am not sure what you mean "dregde"...i tired to cut and paste my original text but it wouldn't let me. Anyway, my point was the OP, Heberman, asked for a valid difference between gay and plural marriage. I gave him one and he didn't respond to it.
    Sorry, that should have been 'dredge'. How bout a link to it, your original distinction.
  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by southbound747
    I am not sure what you mean "dregde"...i tired to cut and paste my original text but it wouldn't let me. Anyway, my point was the OP, Heberman, asked for a valid difference between gay and plural marriage. I gave him one and he didn't respond to it.
    Your argument for not allowing those practicing polygamy to marry, but allowing same sex marriage is all financial???? If you are going to base it on fianancial resons why not try changing polygamy to white and same sex to all other races. That should save us a bunch of money.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Since you state that you also know those who switch back and forth that indicates they are making a choice and something that is a choice should not have a discriminitory class designation.
    Isnt there a third possibility (that would allow it to still not be a choice)? That the sexual orientation isnt as strong in those individuals so it leads them to try both sides? (versus a hetero who has a strong sexual preference and doesnt co-mingle.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    So you're ok with straight marriage as long as it does not infringe on others' ability to do so. That would include gays. Good to see you come around
  6. #106  
    My aplogies for not being as clear as I should have been. I would have better said it by stating that "apparently sexual orientation can be fluid". The folks that I know who consider their sexuality to be fluid represent an even smaller group of people. And many people do make choices in how they express their sexuality. Regardless of how they may publicly identify.

    I intended to just point out that at one end is the group that identifies as gay/lesbian and at the other end is the group that identifies as straight. In between those two ends is a whole range of people who make choices. In my sexual orientation, I have not made a choice, nor has it been fluid (or at least it has not been for 30 years).
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    I have not made a choice, nor has it been fluid (or at least it has not been for 30 years).
    The point could be made that your actions indicate your choice, whether you've declared it or not. Another similar but different viewpoint could be that not making a choice is in itself a declaration and a choice

    I was in an anti-fraternity fraternity once.... it was very confusing, so we had to drink alot of beer in order to cope.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #108  
    Actually, your post makes sense. And if we want to go down a philosophical road, that's fine.

    But, life (especially political life around "hot button" issues) has taught me that philosophy seems to have little bearing on reality. Would that we could all have spent some time with Socrates.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    That's a big leap to say there is no demonstratable interest. There is actually a raging debate over this right now. To say there is an absence of interest ignores half of the debate.
    I intended to leave open the question of whether or not there is an interest. Only intended to say that until such an interest is demonstrated, the concensus is that the government may not discriminate. In any case, the list was only intended as an illustration of the kinds of things that the state may not use as a basis for discrimination. I am content to leave for another day the argument as to whether or not sexual orientation belongs on the list. For now, can we agree that the government does not have carte blanche to discriminate on any basis that the majority may choose?


    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Woah. Since when did "sexual preference" become included in this list? It's not in the constitution.
    Niether were race or gender for a long part of our history.

    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Wrong. The federal government became quite vicious in stamping out polygamy in the past. Polygamy became illegal from the Edmonds Act in US territories. Later, the Morrill Act went further and precluded polygamists from voting or holding any public office. They were also denied the right to sit on grand juries. I haven't seen any such federal laws as applied to gays.
    I did not intend to suggest that the federal government has not persecuted polygamists, only that they did not do so on the basis of legislating "marriage." The government has often abused its power to force a majority ethic on minorities. Its persecution of the Mormons is infamous, though not mentioned in public school history books. It is ironic that so many Mormons are now in the vanguard of those militating for state discrimination on the basis of the gender of one's life partner.

    I do not have nearly so big an ethical problem with polygamy as I have with any federal government action to regulate it. Indeed, while I have an ethical problem with bigamy, I do not have a similar problem with polygamy. Bigamy involves fraud and deceit; polygamy is patent and presumptively voluntary. The government justifies its current war on polygamy by pointing to abuses and disfunctions in some polygamous families and generalizing those, not just to all polygamous families, but to polygamy itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Right. It was actually a precondition of Utah being granted statehood. There was a long battle over the feds vs. the Mormons over polygamy in Utah. The feds finally one after passage of the Edmonds and Morrill Acts, disqualifying polygamists from voting, holding office, or sitting on the grand juries. Only then did the feds wrest control of Utah politics away from the Mormons (who changed the barren deserts of the west into livable communities looking for freedom of religion) and gave control of the government to east coast political appointees.

    With all due respect to ugly discrimination against gays by society, there is no comparison to the battle that was waged, and lost, by the Mormons in the 1800's. In Missouri, it was lawful to shoot a Mormon on sight. The Missouri law made it legal to kill anyone who belonged to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the state of Missouri, until it was repealed in 1976. At least 60 Mormons were killed and dozens of women and girls raped, and countless others died from exposure in 1838 under the executive order and resulting forced evacuation from the state. (See the Wikipedia article on the Extermination Order: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order )
    I disagree. However one may judge the relative magnitude of the iniquity, the comparison is legitimate, apt, and illuminating.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/13/2006 at 01:28 PM.
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    The point could be made that your actions indicate your choice, whether you've declared it or not. Another similar but different viewpoint could be that not making a choice is in itself a declaration and a choice .......
    You misconstrue. The man's point was that he did not have a choice in the sense that you imply, i.e., between heterosexual orientation and homosexual orientation, any more than you did or do. That is not the same thing as saying that he does not exercise, and take responsibility for, his sexual activity choices. I take responsibility for my sexual identity; that does not imply that I could change it.
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    ...... With all due respect to ugly discrimination against gays by society,.......
    Right this minute the issue that most concerns me is state discrimination against anybody. That is what most threatens us. State discrimination justifies and legitimizes other discrimination. Let us deal with the state first and then take a crack at the Church, academia, and schools.

    Do not delude yourself that, because you are straight, you do not have a dog in this fight. We either have the Rule of Law or we do not. Liberty is not divisible. We cannot preserve one freedom at the expense of another; we are all free or none of us are. If the state can discriminate against gays based upon the gender of those that they live with, it can discriminate against anyone for anything. If the state can mistreat any minorities that the majority does not like, then it can mistreat anyone, if only on the basis of pretense. (How many people were executed by the Nazis because they were swish or butch? How many on the basis of coerced confessions?) If the state protects only those minorities that the majority likes, then none of us are safe from thugs and bullies.

    This is not just about the federal government, but also, just merely for example and not just because I do not like them anyway, the Texas or Colorado governments. It is not just about the US Government but about all governments. There are no benign governments. All government tends to excess; it is in the nature of government. The only thing that protects us from temporary majorities and governments is the Rule of Law.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/13/2006 at 04:14 PM.
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Which is why polygamists actually have a better legal case.
    Might be true if one could demonstrate that polygamy was an essential part of the religion. Even the LDS Church does not assert that.

    That said, I do not want the federal government to regulate anyone's living arrangements or bedroom activity. I only want the states to be able to do so under the Rule of Law.
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    ........I think a case can be made that both the government and private sectors have (or at least at one point had) a demonstrable interest in promoting marriage, most notably being the creation of additional productive citizens..........
    Be careful what you ask for; you might get it. If it is an appropriate interest for government to promote procreation at one point in time, why is it not appropriate for it to discourage it at another? If you do not get my point, look at China.

    There must be limits to what government can do and the means that it can use to do it. We call that the Rule of Law. We may argue about where the limits are but we give them up at our peril.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/13/2006 at 05:12 PM.
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Where I was going was trying to better define the logical distinction between homoxesuality and polygamy. Specifically, I was wondering how we could be certain that the tendency towards polygamy was not an "orientation" as well.
    Why do I think that you already know the answer to that question? Why do I suspect that you are setting up a "slippery slope" argument?

    Be very careful. Is monogamy an "orientation?"
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Might be true if one could demonstrate that polygamy was an essential part of the religion. Even the LDS Church does not assert that.
    Not any more. After the legal battles there was a sudden "revelation" that polygamy was no longer a tenet of the faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    That said, I do not want the federal government to regulate anyone's living arrangements or bedroom activity. I only want the states to be able to do so under the Rule of Law.
    On that we can certainly agree.
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Right this minute the issue that most concerns me is state discrimination against anybody. That is what most threatens us. State discrimination justifies and legitimizes other discrimination. Let us deal with the state first and then take a crack at the Church, academia, and schools.

    Do not delude yourself that, because you are straight, you do not have a dog in this fight. We either have the Rule of Law or we do not. Liberty is not divisible. We cannot preserve one freedom at the expense of another; we are all free or none of us are. If the state can discriminate against gays based upon the gender of those that they live with, it can discriminate against anyone for anything. If the state can mistreat any minorities that the majority does not like, then it can mistreat anyone, if only on the basis of pretense. (How many people were executed by the Nazis because they were swish or butch? How many on the basis of coerced confessions?) If the state protects only those minorities that the majority likes, then none of us are safe from thugs and bullies.

    This is not just about the federal government, but also, just merely for example and not just because I do not like them anyway, the Texas or Colorado governments. It is not just about the US Government but about all governments. There are no benign governments. All government tends to excess; it is in the nature of government. The only thing that protects us from temporary majorities and governments is the Rule of Law.
    Hear, Hear!!

    Surur
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    . (How many people were executed by the Nazis because they were swish or butch?
    Hold it, what the hell is swish?
  18. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Right this minute the issue that most concerns me is state discrimination against anybody. That is what most threatens us. State discrimination justifies and legitimizes other discrimination. Let us deal with the state first and then take a crack at the Church, academia, and schools.

    Do not delude yourself that, because you are straight, you do not have a dog in this fight. We either have the Rule of Law or we do not. Liberty is not divisible. We cannot preserve one freedom at the expense of another; we are all free or none of us are. If the state can discriminate against gays based upon the gender of those that they live with, it can discriminate against anyone for anything. If the state can mistreat any minorities that the majority does not like, then it can mistreat anyone, if only on the basis of pretense. (How many people were executed by the Nazis because they were swish or butch? How many on the basis of coerced confessions?) If the state protects only those minorities that the majority likes, then none of us are safe from thugs and bullies.

    This is not just about the federal government, but also, just merely for example and not just because I do not like them anyway, the Texas or Colorado governments. It is not just about the US Government but about all governments. There are no benign governments. All government tends to excess; it is in the nature of government. The only thing that protects us from temporary majorities and governments is the Rule of Law.
    Could not have dreamed me saying it better.
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Hold it, what the hell is swish?
    Ask your mother.
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Not any more. After the legal battles there was a sudden "revelation" that polygamy was no longer a tenet of the faith.
    Ah, well, that is an advantage of having modern prophets.

    What was the position of the LDS Church? How essential to the practice of polygamy to the practice of the faith? Was it that only those with more than one wife could be a member or a bishop, or was it simply that multiple wives were encouraged? Were single people excommunicated?
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions