 |
| |
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Demanding that someone justify a change/addition to law based on current laws is unrealistic. |
No it's not.
IMO, the movement to get homosexuality recognized as a civil right, which is a solid law, is more the route ppl need to be going instead of pushing for a single issue; marriage. Ppl in Boston are trying.
Instead of arguing marriage, argue the definition of the word discrimination.
quote:
Civil Rights Act of 1964
To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
SEC. 601. No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
SEC. 602. Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 601 with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken.
|
Amend according to sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination. Using other definitions within the law to support claims.
quote:
Title VII
The terms ''because of sex'' or ''on the basis of sex'' include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions;
|
One cannot discriminate based on on the ground of race, color, or national origin, and ammended to included sex, as defined above. Ammend it again to include sexual orientation. Using cases and facts such:
American Bar Association EEO recognizes gay discrimination
Murray v. Oceanside Unified School District, San Diego County Superior Court Case No. N71842
Centola also relied upon the Supreme Court's holding in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 532 U.S. 75 (1998). In Oncale, which did not involve sexual orientation discrimination, the Court held that harassment of men by other men could violate Title VII if the discrimination occurred because of the plaintiff's sex.
Price-Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), the plaintiff alleged that her employer, an accounting firm, had refused to promote her to partner because she had failed to conform to traditional gender stereotypes. The plaintiff had been told by partners at her firm that she should take a "course in charm school" and "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." The Court concluded that when an employer makes decisions based on a woman's failure to conform to traditional female stereotypes, it has engaged in unlawful discrimination.
U.S. Supreme Court Holds Title VII Prohibits Same-Sex Harassment
Then conclude that if Harassment is a product of discrimination the highest court of the land has already found that homosexuals are discriminated against based on sexual orientation, which violates their Civil Rights according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Hey, I'm no expert, but it appears to me that the court has already found that sexual harassment based on sexual orientation is legal, which concludes that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong, ergo the civil rights act needs to be ammended to include sexual orientation which will, inturn, give homosexuals the right to marry.
See I used the law to support gay marriage as well as an ammendment to it based on court ruling and general interpretations.
Last edited by Japher on 24-06-2004 at 02:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
I would disagree with this. Historically (and even currently) our societies have been rooted in bigotry, and the bigots have been more vocal. We are progressing towards more open minded society though.
|
Hmmm perhaps, I'm just thinking about the old addage of yesterdays liberal is tomorrows conservative - slave emancipation, womens rights, civil rights etc were all liberal causes that became accepted etc, but yes you do have a good point. Perhaps it's a bit of both?
quote:
I'm sure there are many other examples that I have failed to mention here.
|
Indeed, though some good examples. Bisexuals as a distinct group are usually seen as oversexed homosexuals or confused heterosexuals  . That is a myth that also needs to be addressed.
quote:
IMO, the movement to get homosexuality recognized as a civil right, which is a solid law, is more the route ppl need to be going instead of pushing for a single issue; marriage. Ppl in Boston are trying.
|
I'd argue for non-discrimination in law or statute against homosexuals with all the rights therein, in other words, if homosexuality is seen as race, religion or politic now is, then a gay person has as much right to marry as a liberal, a Catholic or an Indian person  .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Park Avenue
The fact is, Whaleboy, any sex or touching/kissing in public between man and man is a perversion. |
So any men who kiss each other in public or touch each other in public by your reasoning, are perverted.
Have you told the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church this?
He kisses bishops and archbishops, and cardinals.
In many churches, both Roman Catholic and Anglican, it is customary to exchange a kiss of peace on Sunday at mass. I think it is your bounden duty as a good citizen and guardian of public morals, to let the greater British public know of these hotbeds of perversion and immorality.
Equally, there are quite a few countries in Europe where a customary greeting between males is one kiss, two kisses, or in the Netherlands, three kisses.
In countries with an Arab culture, this is also the case.
In Judaism, both religious leaders and big butch Israeli Defence Force male soldiers exchange a bit of lippy action.
In Greece a lot of their clergy go around kissing each other.
The Russian Federation likewise.
I have a hunch about where all this perversion may have originated in the West, at any rate:
Matthew 26:47-54 :: New International Version (NIV)
Matthew 26
Jesus Arrested
"47
While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people.
48
Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him."
49
Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him. "
I used a modern translation for you P.A.- I thought you might have difficulty with 17th Century English.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Park Avenue
Humans are above animals so trying to defend the perverse behaviours of some of our species through references to monkeys and others is just ridiculous and shows how desperate you are for an argument.
|
Right. So as well as being a historian, anthropologist, theologian, sexologist and political scientist, you're also now a naturalist?
Please explain to me which animal type behaviours exhibited by humans you disagree with, and why:
monogamy: exhibited by some birds, fish, mammals
promiscuity: birds, fish, mammals
homosexuality or same sex activity: birds, fish, mammals
harems: seals, whales, lions, wolves, gorillas, deer, et cetera
mating for life: some birds, some mammals
waging war: ants, termites
female domination: ants, bees, termites, some mammals, spiders, praying mantises, et cetera.
abandonment of young: insects, fish, some reptiles et cetera.
primary caregiver male: seahorses, some fish, et cetera
extended families: whales, dolphins, primates such as monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas
adoption: some primates, other mammals
infanticide: mammals, reptiles, birds, insects
altruism: baboons, wolves, antelopes
cross species cooperation: ants, termites, hippoes, birds, honey badgers, reptiles, meerkats.
Not that I unduly wish to take issue with your characteristically sloppy use of language, but one definition of 'human', given by the Oxford English Dictionary, is 'man, as opposed to other animals'.
Perhaps you're also an amateur lexicographer, too.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
I would have thought there's more people unhappily chained to homosexuality. After all, nobody tends to kill themselves because they are straight.
|
Nobody kills themselves because they’re gay either. People get depressed because they’re not able to express themselves. In a society that ostracises homosexuality someone who is gay could well get depressed, because they cannot openly be themselves. The same would happen to straight people in a society that ostracises straights. It isn’t their sexuality that makes them depressed, and moreover, that cannot be changed, it’s societies intolerance that is to blame.
quote:
Because it is unnatural, and not what society wants to see.
|
Ie. Not what you want to see. Please differentiate that from what society wants to see. Much of society doesn’t care.
quote:
There's no trolling going on here, but I'm leaving this thread. I've said what I came to say and I've spoken for the off-line majority.
|
Link? Evidence? The majority is pretty split on gay marriage, but moreover, I’m sure the majority don’t particularly care about two men kissing. Public nudity is illegal for anyone, regardless of sexuality. Kissing isn’t.
quote:
But suddenly yours and Whaleboy's opinions become an objective norm rather than just your personal opinions?
|
This is the more logical and humanistic approach in terms of society. Since there are few human societies with metaphysical, meta-ethical or cosmological consequences your strawman appeal to my meta-ethical relativism will cut as much ice as a wet mouse.
quote:
And that was correct, at the time in which it was happening, for that is what society decreed.
|
So you’re saying that lynching of blacks in the US deep south or the massacre of Jews in the holocaust was “correct” because it was what society decreed? Society, being a loaded context, has better and worse courses of action and the liberal movement against the oppression like the NAACP or the Jewish resistance in Poland, for example, were more righteous than their bigoted and popular oppressors.
quote:
I haven't yet seen any gays holding hands in public so I'm inclined to agree with you here.
|
For fear of people like you. You believe that were it not for that fear, they would be any less inclined to display their love than any other couple? And I have seen gay and lesbian couples hold hands and kiss in public, and they always get a nod of approval from me so to speak.
quote:
There's no trolling going on here, but I'm leaving this thread. I've said what I came to say and I've spoken for the off-line majority.
|
 For a troll with absolutely no credibility you certainly are capable of humour at your own expense! Such entertainment provides that luminous streak of brown we all need in our lives, so keep it going  .
quote:
One that doesn't show favoritism to one side or another. (Well, it shows favoritism to non-bigots I suppose...)
|
I’d go for modern utilitarianism personally, and say the action that causes most direct utility to the people concerned, namely making homosexuals happier, something that does not harm other people on bit.
quote:
Stop trying to distort the argument into one of rationality and irrationality
|
You’ve done a thorough enough job of that
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Again, reductionism...sodomy or marriage, it is none of your business. Just because you think gays should have the right to have penetrative sex does not qualify your position any further.
|
It makes a big difference. I am not saying that gay people should be prevented from having sex. One such argument against these regulations is the one that having a law unenforced, weakens all the others. There is no way to enforce a ban on sodomy, ergo, one ought not to place a ban, since such ban would be detrimental to the rule of law.
quote:
I agree, they are an infringement of civil liberties. If consenting adults want to get married in higher multiples, so be it. If incestuous couples want to get married, so be it.
|
Fair enough. That is a consistent position, but then you are left with this question. If anything goes, why have marriage licenses at all? Why should the state be required to provide benefits to these relationships, if they have no authority to regulate?
quote:
It is not the role of the state to stand in moral judgement. Why should it openly condone heterosexuality?
|
In the state of marriage, the state derives benefits not found in other relationships essential for the propagation of the state.
quote:
Are you advocating the state restricting individual freedom?
|
That is the purpose of the state, to regulate individual freedom, to ensure collective harmony. Complete individual freedom produces anarchy.
quote:
No, marriage involves the couple involve. It is a contract between those two, a bond between those two. It is the role of the state to provide the necessary legislation and framework,
|
Thus the state has a role in the regulation of marriage. If you demand the intervention of the state, then you admit their regulations on personal freedom.
quote:
not to stand in moral judgement.
|
The state has a responsibility to all citizens, ergo, one of their responsibilities is to stand in moral judgement. It's one thing to disagree with the moral judgement of the state, and quite another to deny the state any such role.
If there is no role for the state in regulation, then no marriage licenses may be issued.
quote:
You still do not grasp the difference between democracy and tyranny of the masses. People have rights as long as they do not infringe the rights of others.
|
Very true! Which is why I am arguing that gay people have no right to impose their desires which impose a burden upon the rest of us, without our consent.
quote:
The mass does not have the right to impose it's will when the issue is a private matter.
|
Again, if marriage is a public issue, then the mass does get to have a say.
quote:
Lynchmob or parliament in this instance, the concept is the same - one forcing it's will on the other by sheer force of numbers.
|
Some lynchmob! What gay person ever did die at the hands of the state? What black person did the same?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
You are demanding rights that do not exist. There is no right to recieve the benefits of marriage, simply a right to be married. Any gay person does not lose his right to be married, so long as he can find a nice woman to marry him, the same as anyone else. If for whatever reason you do not want to marry, that is your choice, and you should not expect to receive the same benefits as those who do choose to marry.
|
You seem to be equating the benefits afforded by marriage to the right to be married therein. A folly. The idea is for equal right to be married, and the benefits afforded as a consequence of that should be equal to heterosexuals and homosexuals, simply because there is no reason not to be. And surely you would not approve of a gay man marrying a heterosexual woman under false pretenses? It is not so much a question of a humans right to be married being affected by ones sexuality, rather ones right to be married to their person of choice. This argument is advocating that the notion of marriage be extended to same-sex couples.
quote:
It makes a big difference. I am not saying that gay people should be prevented from having sex. One such argument against these regulations is the one that having a law unenforced, weakens all the others. There is no way to enforce a ban on sodomy, ergo, one ought not to place a ban, since such ban would be detrimental to the rule of law.
|
That would seem to imply that were you to have the means to impose such a law, you would do so. I'm saying that such a law is invalid anyway, since I am an advocate of the individuals right to live by their own morality so long as it is not forced on another, and not have another moral code imposed upon them.
quote:
Fair enough. That is a consistent position, but then you are left with this question. If anything goes, why have marriage licenses at all? Why should the state be required to provide benefits to these relationships, if they have no authority to regulate?
|
I like the emotive attempt to put gay marriage in the same sordid box as incest and polygamy . There seems to be this "taxation" argument against gay marriage that I find curious. If the state does not want to give tax breaks or whatever to couples, then they don't have to. That should apply consistently throughout heterosexual or gay marriages. If its a childcare issue, then provide tax-breaks / benefit per child, whether naturally conceived or adopted etc. It really isn't a big issue, I don't understand why the anti-gay people are so determined to make a sticking point out of it.
quote:
The state has a responsibility to all citizens, ergo, one of their responsibilities is to stand in moral judgement. It's one thing to disagree with the moral judgement of the state, and quite another to deny the state any such role.
|
Wrong, the state can uphold some ethical principle, for example, that of liberty, but the state has no objective ability or functional purpose in anything but a religious fundamentalist state, be it Islamic or Catholic, to stand in moral judgement of its people, or act in some form of moral guidance. I prefer to think there is no moral right or wrong as defined by the state .
quote:
That is the purpose of the state, to regulate individual freedom, to ensure collective harmony. Complete individual freedom produces anarchy.
|
. So a libertarian state where certain actions are forbidden, cannot occur where it still allows for individual freedom to do anything but harm another (as the law should be in my opinion, the variable comes as ones definition of harm but you all know my views on that). In such a state individual freedom is maintained and protected by the state, not limited. You need to diffentiate between individual freedom and chaos. Nonetheless, if we are dealing with societies that are not run by an organised religion, you point has no merit.
quote:
Very true! Which is why I am arguing that gay people have no right to impose their desires which impose a burden upon the rest of us, without our consent.
|
There is no direct impositional burden as there is with something like assault or the imposition of a moral view of one upon another. You can make a case for there being a consequential, interpretative harm caused by public display of gay relationships to homophobes, but one will always offend anyone in all but the most mundane of pursuits so we can't find consistency there, especially since the issue of offense is with the offended, not the person who causes it (like a swimmer blaming the tide, not his error, for drowning). Now in terms of taxation, society agrees to afford certain benefits to marriage. We are not arguing for marriage to be extended to all human beings, since it already is, we are arguing for marriage to allow for same-sex couples, and I can see no reason why that should not happen, except perhaps a risk to public homosexuals from homophobes, but then that hardly constitutes a good reason . If society does not want to pay those benefits, then it neednt, but note that your argument would conclude that any marriage without the consent of the populus is imposing its burden upon the rest of us without its consent, so no dice.
quote:
Again, if marriage is a public issue, then the mass does get to have a say.
|
It is an issue of public recognition, not public business. It is akin to me wearing what I like in public, so thus displaying myself to all those who would look, expressing my identity, but that is none of the publics business in a proactive manner.
quote:
Some lynchmob! What gay person ever did die at the hands of the state? What black person did the same?
|
How many have suffered at the hands of the state? Before homosexuality was legalised in the UK, many. Afterwards and today they still face institutional discrimination as highlighted by MrFun in his post earlier.
quote:
In terms of their health they would be better off chaste. There are many dissatisfied gay men, who want out, and who cannot find help. Even Mr. Fun acknowledges this.
|
Ergo we must discourage homosexuality? 
Fez actually makes very coherent and intelligent posts when he's with a liberal cause! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2004 02:05
|