Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Jul 28, 2004.
Because the Attorney General of Alabama said so, Baron. Did you miss that part?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yeah, I did. But does that answer my question?
And second, ...so you believe everything that the AG of Alabama says?
The issue has to do with argumentative integrity. I know, I know, you have serious problems with that.
Quite obviously, it's not a logical extension. However, a number of interesting issues present themselves:
• Why do homophobes raise the incest argument in the first place?
• Does the law in Alabama create such a conflict that Pryor, a federal judicial nominee, filed a spurious brief before the U.S. Supreme Court?
However, mostly it's just the superlative sense of the macabre that comes when what people decry as a consequence already exists. I know, it's a bit subtle for you. So don't fret too much.
Thank you ....I was beginning to worry about you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, I think it's a natural thing for them to worry about. If we start just giving away things/rights, etc to just anyone who asks, we must naturally ask, "What the fuck's next?"
For example, right now, in the USA, there are laws against the acts of sado-masochism. I.e., one can't consent to being beaten with whips and chains and hung up by the nipples or testicles. So, maybe next is to give the same "rights" to SM-ers as we give to the homos? Why not? How can we argue otherwise? Ditto for incest? How can we argue against those while giving in to the homos?
But ....you need to quit using all those big words! "spurious", "superlative", "macabre", "consequence", "subtle" .....big words always throw me off track! I know most, not all, of the words found in "See Spot Run" ...try to confine yourself to those words ...it would help me a lot. ;=)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And that's sort of the irony. (Those words aren't too big?)
Asking, "What the fuck's next?" about incest is a bit strange, since incestuous marriages are protected by law against declarations of illegitimacy. I mean, think about it: incest is a Class C felony, but at least the marriage is valid.
That's ... uh ... well, yeah. Talk about a "family" agenda, eh?
No, you done good! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hmm, why didn't you mention SM, Tiassa? Did that big word fake you out or something? Why don't you try to tackle that one in lieu of the incest issue? SM, like homosexaulity, is nothing more than a "deviant" sexual act. If we allow "rights" for homos, why not for SM-ers?
Really? I would like to be directed to where in the US code those laws are written. I was fairly sure there were places you could even go to and pay for that kind of thing completely legaly.
Two primary reasons:
• Matter of relevance
• While I'm not a fan of S&M, I'm of the opinion that consenting adults can do whatever they wish with each other.
Because it's not about rights for homos or sados. It's about rights for people.
Why should we prohibit consenting adults from sadomasochistic sexuality?
As to whether the insurance company should cover the damage, that's a whole separate argument.
That's right, after a long and bitter struggle "Gay license plates" are finally legal in Utah. Truly this is a proud day for civil rights enthusiasts everywhere-that is if any of them actually care.
I'm not sure why this issue was found to be contentious in the first place - but then again it is Utah. I suppose she could have just used a bumper sticker of things didn’t work out in her favor, though that would have been a complete travesty.
On a side note I’ve never much understood some people’s desires to use their cars to make political statements – I mean any petty prick (Someone like Barron max for instance) with a set of keys who happens to pass your parked vehicle at the supermarket could make a retort in your car’s paint. I known I wouldn’t want to jeopardize my car’s safety that way, and hell I’ve been known to drive a bit recklessly around people with a W sticker on the back of their SUV. At any rate I think it's worth a smile and a chuckle, you've got to appreciate those little victories I guess.
Just within the last hundred years here in the United States there has been a significant change in society’s understanding of and attitude toward homosexuality. With the exception of a short-lived group founded in Chicago in the 1920s, it was not until the 1950s that gay men and lesbians began to form organizations. Indeed, as recently as 30 years ago bars and clubs where homosexuals gathered were routinely raided by police and the patrons taken to jail. The only safe place to gather was in private homes.
The 1960s and 70s brought us the Civil Rights and Women’s Rights movements. In 1969 the patrons of a bar, the Stonewall Inn in New York, fought back against a police raid. Many people talk about the Stonewall riots as a turning point in homosexual rights. But until 1975 the American Psychiatric Association continued to classify homosexual attraction as a mental disorder. More and more states have repealed their laws against homosexual activity, and the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that homosexual behaviour, in and of itself, cannot be outlawed.
With all of this positive movement towards acceptance of homosexuality, it is important to remember that homosexuals have lived much of their lives during times when they could lose their job, their home, their family or even their life if they were even suspected of being homosexual. For these reasons, many gay and lesbian people are still very private about their sexual orientation and fearful of revealing that part of their lives to others.
While a recent Supreme Court decision struck down laws criminalizing homosexual activity in the 13 states that still had such laws on the books, gays and lesbians can still be discriminated against in a variety of ways in most of the country. In 36 states, it is legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. Co-workers can harass homosexuals based on their sexual orientation, and employers can choose not to hire a person because they are homosexual. Landlords can use homosexuality as a reason not to rent in most parts of the country. So you have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians, but not against any other group based on any other criteria.
“Gay bashing," usually at the hands of teenagers and younger males, is all too common. Although not all hate crimes are reported, 1,400 incidences of anti-gay violence were reported in 2001. Mathew Sheppard, the college student in Laramie Wyoming who was beaten and left hanging on a picket fence to die is perhaps the most famous victim. Because of this it is difficult for most openly gay people to feel comfortable in public, whether at a cultural event, or at a public meeting place as the stigma attached to being homosexual among their peers is often frightening. Only a few gays or lesbians would take the risk of disclosing their homosexuality in such environments. In a recent survey of licensed social workers, more that half said their co-workers were intolerant or condemning of homosexuality among their clients, while most of the remaining respondents did not answer the question at all.
Lesbians and gays may also experience bias from physicians and other health care providers. Homosexuals have been denied visitation rights to partners in intensive care units or have not been privy to information on their partner's medical condition because they were not legally or biologically related. Doctors often look for children or siblings to make medical decisions regarding older homosexuals rather than their partners unless they have Power of Attorney Health Care papers in hand.
Despite recent developments in several states (e.g., Vermont and Massachusetts), the federal government does not acknowledge same-gender unions as legal. Therefore, even “married” homosexuals do not receive the same benefits that married opposite-sex couples receive. This impacts the homosexual couple in numerous ways. Employers that offer health insurance and other fringe benefits to spouses but not domestic partners would not cover homosexual couples. Spousal rights to a worker's pension benefits while both are living and after the worker’s death do not apply to domestic partners. Unmarried couples are also at a disadvantage in regard to most employee pension plans. 401(k) savings cannot be rolled over tax free to unmarried partners. Even homosexual couples that have been together 30-50 years are not eligible for the spousal benefit or the survivor benefit that Social Security offers married couples.
Medicaid Spousal Impoverishment regulations, which allow a spouse to remain in the couples’ home, hold on to over $92,670 in assets and up to $2,319 of the couples monthly benefits (2004), does not apply to homosexual couples. These couples are treated as separate individuals – they may need to sell their home and deplete their bank accounts to less than $2,000 before they qualify for Medicaid. It is not uncommon for biological family members to successfully contest a will that names a same-sex partner as beneficiary because there is no legally defined spousal relationship. When a house is held in common, the biological family can force the sale of the home so that the assets can be divided.
All this still leaves the gay/lesbian couple on unequal footing. With unequal rights, and with unequal benefits. With all the pride we have in Civil and Equal Rights amoung all Americans, we still let the Church dictate who is equal and who is not equal under American Law. We let the condemnation and intolerance continue despite the fact that these are human beings, capable of loving and caring for one another, being productive and law abiding members of society. Because some Holy Books decree that their lifestyle is an abomination, we do not see them as equal, and we do not treat them as if they deserve to be.
Interesting post but it reads a bit dry and academically and seems to have been written rather quickly after this thread was bumped back to the first page from being buried on the third. I don't mean to imply anything, but is there perhaps any source that you'd like to cite?
It's from a post written by me, on my own site. If you'd like the sources for my writings, that's fine but don't accuse me of not writing it myself. I had posted it days ago, and found it relevant here when the thread was bumped. If you'd like a link to my personal site, please PM and I'd be happy to provide it.
As a side note, I wrote it for some sensitivity training for health care professionals here where I work. It is dry, but it was meant to inform them that they should treat these individuals they are treating with the same modicum of privacy and respect provided to other patients. Keep in mind that I was originally writing this for RN's, LPN's and CNA's who work with mostly mid 40's to end of life patients.
Berger, Raymond M. Gay and Gray: The Older Homosexual Man (2nd ed.). (1995). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Cahill, Sean, Ken South and Jane Spade. (2000.) Outing Age: Public Policy Issues Affecting Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Elders. (Adobe Acrobat version accessible at www.lgbthealth.net/research.)
Coleman, Penny. (2000). Village Elders. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Cruz, J. Michael, Ph.D. (2003). Sociological Analysis of Aging: The Gay Male Perspective. New York: The Hawthorne Press.
Dworkin,Sari H. and Fernando J. Gutierrez. (1992). Counseling Gay Men and Lesbians: Journey to the End of the Rainbow. Alexandria VA: American Counseling Assn.
Gerrshick, Zsa Zsa. (1998). Gay Old Girls. Los Angeles: Alyson Publications
Kimmel, Douglas C. and Dawn Lundy Martin (eds.) (2003). Midlife and Aging in Gay America: Proceedings of the SAGE Conference 2000.
Lee, John Alan. (1991). Gay Midlife and Maturity. Binghampton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Sarton, May. (1995). Encore: A Journal of the Eightieth Year. New York: W. W. Norton.
Don't get snippy now, I did qualify that I didn't mean to accuse you of anything. I realized that something like this was within the realm of possibility, but regardless of the true source of the article it was clear that it was not written specifically for this forum in thirteen minuets. Not posting a source or some sort of qualifying statement in regards to where it is from (or when you wrote it) it's a bit intellectually dishonest.
How so? How is not letting people know when I wrote it, being intellectually dishonest? I honestly wrote it, and I honestly posted it here on topic to the conversation. The importance is that it is relevant to to the topic at hand, and written by my own hand.
I do find it interesting that you are attacking the poster and not the posters points. Is there a reason for that? Just wondering why you feel the need to drag this off-topic.
The default assumption is always that a response was hand written for the discussion unless otherwise stated. The fact that this was clearly not the case opens up questions which you then did not address by noting the source of the article. Let's please not get overly bogged down in discussing forum etiquette and proper citation in this thread.
It is important to let your audience know what they're reading.
Also, I find no contentious points in your initial post in this thread, and that's why I'm not contending them - they all run right along my own views of the matter, and I'm being pushy about citation because I feel that I'll likely have cause to cite your work at some time in the future - it seems very concise and effective to me.
Well, regardless of the quotes or not, Kotoko, it's all just opinion and nothing more. If you wish to hold that opinion, that's fine. But you should also be tolerant of the opinions of others in the same way.
Thank you for a long, drawn-out opinion, but that's all it was/is.
You mean much in the same way that you are not, Maxy? Kotoko's post can really be paraphrased as "live and let live" and you ask her not to hold on too tightly to that and be accepting of the fact that you hate and want to dominate others as is your right as an inherent superior(when taken in the context of your many other posts and threads on this forum)?
I'd say it's a bit more than that - an educated reasoned opinion backed up by inductive logic is different than "just an opinion". Not to mention that it's really a valid agrument from a legal standpoint as well. The fact that she takes history and society and actual relevant factors into account and has thought the matter through enough to adequately explain her position really speaks volumes, I think. It's a lead that you should really follow - that is if old dogs really can be taught new tricks.
Everything spoken or written is opinion, Baron Max.
Everything is mutable.
One thing is clear by my post, however that legally and factually, gays are treated differently than everyone else whether you choose to actually look at my historical data or legal data. Your opinion is already known, and not backed up by historical facts or legal books. But thank you for your lack of insight.
Well, sure they are!! But they WANT to be treated differently ...that's why they're protesting for special rights and special considerations in the law!
Gays and lesbians are ONLY different becuase they like to fuck differently! I don't believe that our laws should or do treat them differently.
But if they, like all other "normal" males and females, were to just go about their business and fuck in private, we'd not have such an issue about this. But how many hetero groups go around proclaiming, say, that they like oral sexy and want special laws written so they can engage in oral sex?????
Homo males and females are simply males and females in the eyes of the law. But gays and lesbians have taken it too far ....they want SPECIAL consideration under the law. And that's wrong!
It's painfully obvious that you skimmed, but did not read my post.
They are not equal in marriage and the rights that it provides. They are not free to love and settled down with whomever they choose because they don't get the same securities provided to them that married couples do. They do not get the same government benefits, and they do not get the same private sector benefits. They are allowed to be harrassed and fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation, and they can even be evicted or denied from their living place because of it.
Men fuck their wives up the ass all the time, and perform oral sex with abandon... then stand there voting so that these people don't get to enjoy the same right.
Separate names with a comma.