Lets discuss: Homophobia
- Thread starter useless
- Start date
- Status
The_Tyrant
Values Guardian
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 619
For what? Are you really that clueless in constitutional Law that you need me to tell you all the enumerated rights?
Moderator Action: 'Are you really that clueless' is not acceptable, and is considered trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Are you really that clueless in constitutional law that you need me to tell you that some rights aren't listed in the constitution?
Moderator Action: Same deal. 'Are you really that clueless' is not acceptable, and is considered trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Ninth Amendment said:
Moderator Action: Same deal. 'Are you really that clueless' is not acceptable, and is considered trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
Just because the right to civil unions wasn't stated explicitly in the Constitution, the right to civil unions for homosexuals falls under the 14th amendment with the due process clause.
EDIT: And as choxorn says, the 9th amendment.
Interestingly, Minneapolis has a fairly large number of gays for its size and was recently rated one of the ten best places to raise kids.
I think you mean 1789.
The_Tyrant
Values Guardian
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 619
You are either 1) extremely lacking knowledge in American government or 2) a young child, and at the moment I'm leaning more towards scenario 2. So I will not contribute to this any further until someone else replies to my earlier posts.
Moderator Action: Please don't attack other posters. Infraction for this and previous post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
And I feel like I should post this again, it really gives you an insight into how dirty San Francisco has become: http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2...retty-silly-watters-world-takes-san-francisco
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
Two words: Implied powers. I believe it was McCullocgh v. Maryland where the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government can take action if it is needed to preserve its enumerated powers, including supremacy.
Not that this has any bearing on the thread, but just pointing that out.
Here's an interesting thought question for you. If someone is gay and did not make you aware of it through acting flamboyant and campy and stereotypical, how would you know they were gay? The vast majority of people I meet or observe in passing (be it in person, on television, or on the internet) do not give any obvious indication as to their sexual preferences. However, I do know many people who are gay, and only a small percentage of them are flamboyantly so. So, to assume all non-flamboyant people are not gay is #1 flatly incorrect, and #2 makes your statement supported only by circular logic.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
You have declared quote war! 
Never mind, it won't work. It would be a challenge for me to reply, but you'd start with a completely different premise.
Yes, if they're extremely limiting, that makes it more difficult to find potential mates. Just like a strange fetish, but folks do manage to find partners.
Not relevant. Two reasons. I was referring to couples, not individuals, as "good, natural, healthy, moral" relationships. The heterosexual relationship doesn't have to be "perfect" - but it's conducive to more "goodness" than a homosexual relationship.
That's what you're talking about? That's not what I'm talking about. That belief comes from the book. I don't care about it. I don't care whether or why the sin is the sin. I care about the practical implications of the belief. They're discriminatory.
Of course I assume that my opponent's belief is wrong. My intention wasn't to argue that. It was an illustration of the analogy.
However, if we were to argue whether the sex is sin, the burden of proof is yours. The sex is amoral, like everything else ever, neutral until proven otherwise.
Oh please. Sex is an essential part of adult relationships. You can't damn gay sex without damning the gays. You wouldn't expect a heterosexual to abstain from sex, but you expect a homosexual to eschew sex lest he be a sinner. It's cruel and stupid.
Now I'm lost.I really don't understand the question.
Never mind, it won't work. It would be a challenge for me to reply, but you'd start with a completely different premise.
Yes, if they're extremely limiting, that makes it more difficult to find potential mates. Just like a strange fetish, but folks do manage to find partners.
Not relevant. Two reasons. I was referring to couples, not individuals, as "good, natural, healthy, moral" relationships. The heterosexual relationship doesn't have to be "perfect" - but it's conducive to more "goodness" than a homosexual relationship.
That's what you're talking about? That's not what I'm talking about. That belief comes from the book. I don't care about it. I don't care whether or why the sin is the sin. I care about the practical implications of the belief. They're discriminatory.
Of course I assume that my opponent's belief is wrong. My intention wasn't to argue that. It was an illustration of the analogy.
However, if we were to argue whether the sex is sin, the burden of proof is yours. The sex is amoral, like everything else ever, neutral until proven otherwise.
Oh please. Sex is an essential part of adult relationships. You can't damn gay sex without damning the gays. You wouldn't expect a heterosexual to abstain from sex, but you expect a homosexual to eschew sex lest he be a sinner. It's cruel and stupid.
wcbarney
Know-it-all
Hey, Tyrant -- you've got an ally here, I think.
But I'm pretty much tired of the discussions on the two homophobia threads. Cool sig!
How can I get one like it?Your fault! You just keep it going, and with more and more quotes! I'm just reacting to close the quote gap!You have declared quote war!
But that was my point -- sexual orientation is usually extremely limiting. I'm very much a straight guy, and I really don't know what sort of coercion/mind control/gayemup therapy it would take to get me to have sex or date a guy. For all practical purposes, I'm permanently limited to dating only women. This means that about one half of the planet is fundamentally and permanently unattractive to me. (I'm not into transgenders, either, so...yeah. It's permanent.) If sex/gender is as irrelevant as race for the purpose of sexual ethics, then it seems like we should view people who cannot be attracted to persons of a particular race in the same way as those who are limited in their orientation: perhaps not morally deficient, but unfortunately limited in a way that we should try and help them overcome, if we can. We'd probably be willing to send someone to therapy to try and get over the weird issues that keep him from seeing other races as potentially attractive; it's no longer kosher to do that about sex. So what's the difference? Either they aren't really comparable, or they are -- and perhaps we're just so used to people being gay and straight, rather than bisexual or pansexual that we don't generally see it as wrong. But if that's the case, then those sexual orientations should be next on the chopping block.
Or, we can just stop using that analogy.
Yep.
Well, yeah, I'm primarily thinking of this in terms of ethics and morality, rather than law.
Well, I don't think it's true. I think it's a rational position to take though -- more or less so depending on the justifications and the specific limitations.
So all those who can have sex, but choose not to, aren't really in adult relationships? (I'll have to tell my girlfriend that we're both kids.
At least since it applies to both of us, no pedo.) What about those who aren't able to have sex -- say, where one spouse is completely paralyzed. Are they unable to have adult relationships? I'd say no, and I bet you do too. Sex is usually part of long-term adult romantic relationships, but they aren't necessarily part of it.And besides -- again, I'm not making an argument that such relationships shouldn't be legally allowed. I'm talking about the morality involved, specifically from a Christian point of view. And I'm hard pressed, as a Christian, to believe that God couldn't possibly ask certain people to not have sex, or not have the sex that they want -- if He could ask us to be willing to die for Him, why not give up sex? You don't have to agree, but I think it's a pretty coherent viewpoint to hold. (And not particularly bigoted. Although we might just have to define that word...)
Hey, yeah, it's always possible to distinguish analogies. I find that I don't agree with your distinguishing at all, in that I don't think that what you're doing really changes the intent of the analogy. I've been on the other side of that, though.
So, what is a good analogy for homophobia? What's it similar to?
So, what is a good analogy for homophobia? What's it similar to?
If we're going down the homosexual acts are sin route, then it's similar to treating anyone with a speeding ticket as a social outcast. Of course, that assumes that the government hands out speeding tickets entirely at random, but people believing the first point seem to be impossible to persuade of the second.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Isn't the bigger problem facing the US from a Christian Moral Viewpoint the greed driven economy? Isn't that more inherent in US culture than Homosexuality?
I dunno! We could compare it to disliking certain other behaviors with likely genetic and physiological predispositions (Or people with that predisposition or who act in that way). That's pretty broad, though, and could probably range from having a sweet tooth to pedophilia. (In other words, such a broad range of possible actions and desired behaviors that the comparison is pretty useless.) Who says there has to be a good analogy, though? Analogies work pretty much for illustrating points, rather than proving them. There may not be a particularly good analogy to find -- or at least, one that we can all agree on.
Just because what you cherish has been damaged doesn't mean you should let any come along and damage it. Prevent harm to it and repair it.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
That's not an answer to my question.
- Status
