 |
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
for example, the case in Germany where one guy asked the other to eat him.
|
...I was just about to mention that.
quote:
It is clear that homosexuality falls under neither category.
|
What defines insanity? The German case is a little extreme, but I can imagine a religious sect popping up which would include self (or just consenting) mutilation or death. Now, while you or I wouldn't want to do this, is it right to take away someone else's 'right' to do it? I say yes, because it has a negative effect on the rest of society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I am sick to death of your tirades against anyone who might even remotely disagree with a post made by a member of poly's 'gay community'. What is wrong with you people? Do you have no opinions of your own?
For ****s sake, get a grip. |
Ah yes, the pink mafia has done its work well to brainwash the masses and smack down any opposition with its stylish Prada bags.
This is really just another insult, isn't it? I mean, it's pretty insulting to think that posters here aren't exercising their own opinions on such matters. Maybe you should get a grip yourself and realize that sometimes what you say is truly offensive to a lot of people, not just we homos?
As for the argument, the fact is that there isn't demonstrable difference in the impact on society between two consenting adults having sex based on their respective genders. The same is not true of ages, as victims of child molestation are horribly scarred by their experiences. It's not true for cannibals, clearly, as these people get eaten and die as a direct result of their practices, and one thing society has determined is that otherwise-healthy people dying is not a good thing for it.
That this opens a can of worms wrt other consensual crimes, such as drug use, prostitution, assisted suicide, etc., is not necessarily so, as the law has always tended to treat such matters on individual basis rather than a collective "these type things bad, these type good." Otherwise, we'd have to have bans on alcohol and tobacco like we do drugs, arranged marriages like we do prostitution, and the like. So clearly the law isn't a model of consistency.
The bottom line is, does the state have a compelling interest in prohibiting such an activity? For homosexuality, the courts have decidedly ruled no, since the vast majority medical and psychological evidence shows that there's nothing bad or wrong about, and the implicit right to privacy in the constitution means it's people's own business what they do in their bedrooms, not the law.
On the flip side, look what precedent this law sets. What if this town wanted to kick out all Muslims? Being Muslim is a choice, after all. Should towns have the right to ban people based on such biases? After all, they could justify the prohibition based on their religious beliefs. What's next, kicking out all the left-handed folks?
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 19-03-2004 at 20:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
The argument that things should not be illegal if they are between consenting adults (or on your own) is wrong. There are plenty of things out there which are (rightly) illegal which do not harm anyone other than the consenting adults who take part.
|
Firstly, there is no reason I can see why two consenting people of sound mind cannot to anything to each other. Assuming the participants to be sane, in the case of the German cannibal, I am sickened but would not support an attempt to stop them.
Furthermore, homosexual activity between two consenting adults is going to be about as harmful as consenting heterosexual sex.
The principle that people can be stopped by law from consenting to something that does not directly harm an unwilling bystander is a throw-back to the days when the individual was not considered sovereign over their own body and mind. If we talk about liberty, or the individual, we have to accept this. This assumes it does not harm anyone else, which it does not.
This is a side-point of course, and someone cerebral, it does not affect the more pragmatic counter to you, that is namely that homosexual activity does not harm the participants any more than heterosexual sex. Nor does it harm society. Your point is defunct.
quote:
I say yes, because it has a negative effect on the rest of society.
|
How does homosexual relationships have a negative effect on the rest of society? It makes more people happy, adds some colour and variation to life and has a liberalising effect in this day and age.
quote:
I just see a problem with a argument that uses strawmen, such as comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or addiction (to get an emotional reaction), or comparing homosexuality to the German ogre.
|
 Agreed. One is forced to question his motivations with reasoning of that quality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
How does homosexual relationships have a negative effect on the rest of society? It makes more people happy, adds some colour and variation to life and has a liberalising effect in this day and age.
|
I don't think anyone here was saying that they do. (I am not so enthusiastic towards gay sex as you are, but I am not against it per se.) However, since it is completely subjective as to what a 'negative effect' on society actually is, I do accept that some people might find the changes in society to be undesirable, and I respect their right to have that opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Firstly, there is no reason I can see why two consenting people of sound mind cannot to anything to each other. Assuming the participants to be sane, in the case of the German cannibal, I am sickened but would not support an attempt to stop them.
|
If you are willing to allow cannibalism, then I think your reasoning is consistant. I think most people would disagree with you though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Homosexuals have a constitutional right to live where they want free from institutionalized discrimination. |
How does the constitution distiguish between gay rights and the rights of, say, consenting cannibals?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
AFAIK, the SCOTUS has not upheld any constitutional right to consentual cannibalism, while they have for homosexuality. |
What was their reasoning for upholding gay constitutional rights? I mean, which part of the US constitution do they refer to?
(I am genuinely interested, so enough of the facetious remarks, OK?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Don't worry, it is 
Elok finds it enjoyable to play the devil's advocate on religious matters, but this time he really has trouble finding any stretch of defendable thing |
The thing is, this isn't really a religious matter to begin with. This is just a bizarre, irrational form of knee-jerk xenophobia dressed up as piety, and that only as an aside. True, most Christian sects traditionally oppose homosexuality, but then, prior to WWII it was fashionable to think of the Jews as the filthy usurers who killed Jesus. Hitler just used the rooted hatred as grist for his own agenda; the Holocaust wasn't a Christian persecution of Jews in the same sense that the Spanish Inquisition was, it just borrowed a whipping-boy from the existing tradition. I see this as more of the same. They don't mention religion in their justification so much as a lot of stuff about "crimes against nature." Which is weird and ironic-they oppose evolution, but also oppose gays on the vaguely Darwinian grounds that they are a threat to social progress of the human species and blah blah blah.
Ultimately, of course, all such persecutions have nothing to do with religion, or politics, or whatever. It is hard to argue that gays are somehow *more* immoral in the judeo-christian sense than heterosexual fornicators, which they aren't chasing (watch your back, Ted), and the local newspaper gossip column is surely a far greater threat to public well-being than a few men secretly having unconventional relations with other men. The arguments in these cases are only justification for acts that begin as a declaration of insularity, revulsion, and fear. Maybe that's obvious, I just want to make it clear that I'm not "siding against the religious people" on this. I'm siding against the people using unrelated societal conventions like ventriloquist's dummies to chatter approval for their own deep-seated neuroses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
From Justice Kennedy on Lawrence vs. Texas:
"This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Pp. 17—18."
This would not apply to cannibalism, as that involves several things that aren't sexual conduct, per se: killing and eating people. While Ogie's pot above was tongue-in-cheek, it does highlight one issue, in that the concern for public health in regards to cannibalism is indeed of public concern. You can't kill and eat a cow in your own home due to similar health concerns. And then, of course, there's the difficulty of someone consenting to being eaten being mentally sane enough to make such a decision. It seems to me, and to plenty of psychiatric experts, that a sexual fetish for cannibalism and the willingness to be a victim of it are indicators of mental unfitness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It seems to me, and to plenty of psychiatric experts, that a sexual fetish for cannibalism and the willingness to be a victim of it are indicators of mental unfitness. |
The same thing would have been said of homosexuality 50 years ago.
If your only other concern is that of public health, then you would have no problem if the act were carried out in a supervised environment?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No, because I think the psychological arguments against is are sound. Being killed is irreversible, committing homosexual acts are not. Anyone who consents to being killed and eaten out of a sexual predeliction is taking a step into what should be considered insanity in that it is complete and utter disregard for one's well-being. |
It is only your opinion that death is a bad thing. Obviously these people would disagree with you. The irreversability is moot - it is simply another facet of the decision.
quote:
Again, the state has a demonstrable interest in keeping otherwise healthy people from killing themselves. |
Someone said earlier that suicide is no longer illegal in the US. Is this true? How do you think this meshes with your first paragraph?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
EDIT: and as for the "50 years ago" argument, this is true, but contemporary definitions in law are often based on contemporary standards. SCOTUS says this frequently in rulings--that as societal notions and knowledge changes in certain regards, so will the interpretations of certain laws. |
So what good is the constitution if SCOTUS can regard it or disregard it based on 'contemporary standards'?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-03-2004 17:08
|