 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
I respect their right to have that opinion.
|
Fair enough, but thats like opinions in society that are not implementable. The implementation of those views are down to government and if you are discussing what is applicable in a society, then you can bring in the notion that some ideas are "better" in that respect than others. It's contextual, so relativism holds nicely  .
quote:
If you are willing to allow cannibalism, then I think your reasoning is consistant. I think most people would disagree with you though.
|
Not really, there are two levels. I am forced to allow consentual cannibalism as I seek conceptual consistency. Pragmatic consistency would take into account respective harm to one another, and to society, none of which we can safely say occurs with homosexual sex, relationships or marriage.
quote:
How does the constitution distiguish between gay rights and the rights of, say, consenting cannibals?
|
See above.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
It is only your opinion that death is a bad thing. |
Only mine? I doubt that--it's very much the overwhelming majority opinion. It's also a natural perogative, as every animal species is quite concerned with staying alive. Avoiding death is one of our fundamental instincts, and the notion that an untimely death at unnatural hands is bad is near-universal. So the societal precedent stands.
quote:
Obviously these people would disagree with you. The irreversability is moot - it is simply another facet of the decision. |
Whether or not they agree isn't an issue--the very point is that these people aren't in their sound mind enough to make such a decision rationally. Making an irreversible step that kills you is NOT moot when we're talking about sexual kinks.
quote:
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? |
One state, Oregon, has a doctor-assisted suicide statute, but otherwise assisting a suicide is a crime, and people who attempt it are (often) legally obliged to undergo measures to prevent further attempts, be it incarceration in a mental health facility, taking medication, etc. Oregon's law isn't applicable, AFAIK, because it is strictly for assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness and the like. It has nothing to do with sexual practices.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
So what good is the constitution if SCOTUS can regard it or disregard it based on 'contemporary standards'? |
Besides Imran's point, the other here is that this only applies to when the constitution is, in fact, vague. When it is not so, disregarding it is not an option.
But remember the rights enumerated therein are not the only ones we possess. The constitution itslef explicitely states this--that just because it isn't given as a right in the constitution doesn't mean the rights can't be there, so long as they do not conflict with anything in the constitution.
That contemporary societal norms and standards can shape interpretation of the Constitution isn't by any means a bad thing, IMO--it is, in fact, precisely what makes it a great document. It's "living and breathing," as some say, and to a certain extent is flexible. A rigid, uncompromising document would probably be less long-lived and useful to a society, since society is itself living and breathing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
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. |
"What is wrong with you religionistas?
I am sick of your community's incessant tirades against anyone who might not even remotely fit in with your nomadic primitive goatherders' morality.
Have you no opinions of your own, but you must find them in the 2000 year old rantings of smelly goatskin wearing misogynists?
For the sake of reason, get a grip."
Blah, blah, blah...
Amazing.
This from a person who described gay men (forgot to mention lesbians, but no surprise there) in a 'gay marriage' thread as arsef*ckers- hitherto not known to be an activity solely the perquisite of gay men, as several heterosexual males of my acquaintance can testify..
And regularly compares gay men (and lesbians, presumably) with rapists, drug addicts (oh, except apparently we're not really like drug addicts, but a more relevant comparison wasn't to hand) and child molesters (child molestation not being confined to gay men or lesbians, and being more prevalent amongst adult male heterosexuals).
What defines insanity?
I suspect any person who relies on the moral code of 2000 year old genocidal misogynistic monotheists for guidance, isn't perhaps best placed to ask that question.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Only mine? I doubt that--it's very much the overwhelming majority opinion.
|
Sorry - I phrased that ambiguously. I meant it is only an opinion, not that it is a minority opinion. I think it is unreasonable to assume that people who disagree with our values are 'insane'.
quote:
It's also a natural perogative, as every animal species is quite concerned with staying alive. ... So the societal precedent stands.
|
The same thing could be said for homosexuality. I don't think it is wise to argue your stance on the basis of 'societal precedent'. I don't think this is a good argument for anything, whether it is homosexuality or suicide or whatever.
quote:
But remember the rights enumerated therein are not the only ones we possess. The constitution itslef explicitely states this--that just because it isn't given as a right in the constitution doesn't mean the rights can't be there, so long as they do not conflict with anything in the constitution.
|
It was you who brought up the constitution - not me. I do believe though that your 'living breathing document' is being twisted to fit your agenda.
Last edited by Rogan Josh on 20-03-2004 at 17:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
And regularly compares gay men (and lesbians, presumably) with rapists, drug addicts (oh, except apparently we're not really like drug addicts, but a more relevant comparison wasn't to hand) and child molesters (child molestation not being confined to gay men or lesbians, and being more prevalent amongst adult male heterosexuals).
|
OK, lets take these one by one.
1. I never mentioned rapists. Got something on your conscience?
2. Drug addicts. I pointed out that ensuring the right to have gay sex on the grounds that it is something between consenting adults in the privicy of their own homes would also ensure the right of people to take hard drugs. After all they are consenting adults (as was pointed out ad infinitum) and often in the privicy of their own homes. That is hardy a comparison.... 
2. child molesters. Again, they were never mentioned. I mentioned pedophiles, which is actually pretty different since one implies only a desire (how bigoted of you!). If you define homosexuality as being being attracted to members of the same sex, then you should define pedophiles as being attracted to children - not 'child molesters'. There are plenty of pedophile activities which are (imho rightly) illegal but do not harm anyone (such as the downloading of suspicious pictures on the internet, which does not generate revenue for the producer).
I do believe that you, Molly, are a heterophobe. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I think it is unreasonable to assume that people who disagree with our values are 'insane'. |
That's not what makes it "insane," it's the complete disregard for one's continued existence for the purposes of sexual gratification. This is clearly not something within "natural" tendencies, as far as we've observed nature.
quote:
The same thing could be said for homosexuality. I don't think it is wise to argue your stance on the basis of 'societal precedent'. I don't think this is a good argument for anything, whether it is homosexuality or suicide or whatever. |
It can't be said, because 1) homosexuality is observed in nature all the time, so there is a "natural" precedent for it, and 2) homosexuality doesn't involve any inherent fatal harm to the participants, unlike sexual cannibalism. I think those are rather important differences when it comes to establishing whether or not something is a "sane" action. And I'm not arguing solely on societal precedent, I simply brought up the overwhelming societal notion that self destruction = bad as a means of showing why it can be viewed as something in the realm of insanity.
quote:
It was you who brought up the constitution - not me. I do believe though that your 'living breathing document' is being twisted to fit your agenda. |
I'm not sure what the point of your first statement is, as I was answering questions you made in the course of the argument. The constitutionality of the potential laws referenced in the article certainly is a matter of concern when discussing whether or not the town has the power to do what they propose to do, which they clearly don't.
As for "twisting," I beg to differ. I think, given what we know of the Founding Fathers, that while they may not have understood or approved of homosexuality in their day and age, the notion of a government hounding people for consentual acts performed in private would be more repugnant to them. I believe they would probably endorse the current interpretation of a right to privacy. There's certainly no "twisting" going on, at any rate--what has been "twisted?" Surely the Equal Protection clause isn't so ambiguous?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
1. I never mentioned rapists. Got something on your conscience?
2. Drug addicts.
It is something between consenting adults in the privicy of their own homes .....would also ensure the right of people to take hard drugs. After all they are consenting adults and often in the privicy of their own homes. That is hardy a comparison....
2. child molesters. Again, they were never mentioned. I mentioned pedophiles, which is actually pretty different since one implies only a desire (how bigoted of you!). There are plenty of pedophile activities which are (imho rightly) illegal but do not harm anyone (such as the downloading of suspicious pictures on the internet, which does not generate revenue for the producer).
I do believe that you, Molly, are a heterophobe. |
I do believe that you're a religious bigot, given the nature of your posts, and the frequency with which you say you have nothing against gay sex, and then go on ad nauseam, ad infinitum, to prove the very opposite- 'arsef*ckers'- for instance. You bring an old Ike and Tina Turner song to mind- 'I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do'.
Besides which, it would behoove you to pay close attention to text, although perhaps English comprehension isn't your strongest suit. You'll notice I said 'regularly compares'- meaning on more than one occasion in the past, in different threads, and posts.
Problems with the past tenses of verbs, or temporary amnesia, par chance?
Paedophilia isn't simply 'love' of children, it is also defined non-clinically as sexual attraction to, and sexual activity with, children- I love your spurious attempt to cloud the issue by confusing and conflating non-sexual pictures of children with child pornography.
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/chil...conf_index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underage_sex
As for the 'rape' statement  - a pathetic attempt at a slur, just about par for your posts, along with the 'heterophobe' nonsense- unlike you, I don't discriminate against people on the basis of their consensual sexual activity, but perhaps such a prejudice is so ingrained in you, that you find its absence hard to understand in other people.
With regard to your inaccurate and irrelevant drug taking comparison, or maybe now it's a non-comparison, since you seem to want it both ways and clearly don't understand the meaning of the word 'comparison', I can think of other consenting activities between two or more adults in private that are not harmful- stamp collecting, home improvement, backgammon, but surprisingly you opted for the activity that involved illegal substances, chemical dependency, criminal activity and disease and death, for a comparison with consenting sex between gay men and lesbians.
Gosh, I can't imagine why. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
Ah. Just noticed Boris's post up there (his second on page 6). I hate to sound like I'm defending Rogan's arguments (I'm pretty sure I'm not, though with this chaotic thread it's hard to tell), but how do you reconcile the power of the supreme court to jerk the constitution around with
A. Checks and balances-if SCOTUS can pull any reason out of its arse to justify shooting down a law or executive order, and the judges can't EVER be booted except for clear incompetence, doesn't that essentially give those nine people the power to win any argument by force? How is that democratic? Which leads me to my second argument,
B. How is its role in defining the changing constitution in any way representative of the best interests of the people? We're talking about people who know perfectly well that they are invincible, and at the moment, have been there so long we've been expecting half of them to retire for the past decade. They don't take polls before they decide, and their decisions, even those supposedly within proper constitutional boundaries, need not have a blessed thing to do with the current trend. Bush v. Gore, anyone?
C. The constitution can be amended. That change is by its very nature representative of the wishes of the people as a whole, and all of our lasting societal reforms-not stuff like right to an attorney-have come from amendments. Even Brown v. Board couldn't have held water without a century-old amendment the country had been ignoring.
As it stands, nine people have the final say on our rights as a country. Even if their decisions thus far were perfect for the nation, I think there's a serious problem with that situation. They need to get back to deciding real constitutional issues...
|
|
| |
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 23:43
Attachment: 
|
