Getting tired of the same old debates

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby asaris » Sat Sep 30, 2000 8:00 pm

I'm getting tired of all these controversial Christian vs. Atheist, Woman-hater vs. Abortionist threads. So I thought I'd start a new controversial thread...What do you guys think about gay rights? Gays in the military? Gay marriage? The Gay Science?<BR><BR>And try to be civil (though my saying won't do any good, I know.)
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby plunge » Sat Sep 30, 2000 8:59 pm

"The Gay Science" has nothing to with gay rights <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR>
User avatar
plunge
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 4:23 pm
Top

Postby Star-of-Hope » Sat Sep 30, 2000 9:21 pm

I will furiously defend my right to be happy <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> ... joyous <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>... cheerful... <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0> just don't call me Gay or Gaye <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Star-of-Hope
Mariner



 
Posts: 9999
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 11:27 am
Top

Postby TheMadMonk » Sat Sep 30, 2000 9:33 pm

Pardon my ignorance, but what is "the Gay Science"?<BR><BR>Homo-ology?<BR>
User avatar
TheMadMonk
Rider of the Mark
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 1:00 am
Top

Postby asaris » Sat Sep 30, 2000 9:43 pm

Yes, I'm fully aware that The Gay Science has nothing to do with homosexuality. For those of you who aren't aware, it's a book by Nietzsche that these days would be better translated as The Happy Science.
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby Kelannar » Sun Oct 01, 2000 12:37 am

Gay Rights? If you mean so-called "hate-crimes" legislation, I don't see why gays should get special protection. If Killing is already a crime, what difference will it make if additional penalties are imposed for killing a gay man? Murder is still murder.<BR><BR>As far as the military goes - I think that the military can set their own policies as far as qualifications for joining. You don't see fat people complaining that they can't get in the military. Likewise, if the military has determined that homosexuals in the military causes extreme morale problems (as it currently is) then that alone should be enough of a disqualification for service.<BR><BR>So-called "gay Marriage" is not marriage at all. Marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. So-called "civil unions" that give gays all the rights of marriage also demean the meaning of marriage. If it's a "civil union" what difference is it from a "marriage", except for the name? Marriage is the religious and social recognition of the union of a man and a woman. Homosexuality enters not into that categor, nor should it. While I don't care what people do behind closed doors, it'll be a cold day in hell when I recognize the social union of gay partners.<BR>
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby Mithfânion » Sun Oct 01, 2000 3:43 am

I absolutely agree 100 percent, you just beat me to it. IMO it's an absolute disgrace that Gays are allowed to be married. It doesn't matter what official name it has, a marriage should be out of the question. That's between a man and a women not between two Men. So from now on, a married couple could be two guys as well? Come on. I absolutely despise the idea. <BR><BR>I don't mind if they live together. IMO they are certainly allowed to live together in some sort of union, but why should that be something official like marriage. That's not for Men only. Yaiks.<BR><BR>If gays in the military do cause problems, morally, than perhaps they shoudl be excluded. On the other hand, if you do that, it's not going to help gays "come out" and if a gay man should want to join the army, he's probably never gonna tell he's gay is he. So what you have then is that there are gays in the army as well, but they're just not recognized. This would lead to rumors and gossip, making everybody insecure.<BR><BR>But in any case, if the army doesn't allow it, gay men will have to obide by their laws. If you live in such an organization, you must accept their rules, even if it means that you are not allowed.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Mithfânion
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11589
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:35 am
Top

Postby asaris » Sun Oct 01, 2000 6:58 am

I see your points about the military, and I think they're good ones, but I disagree about gay 'marriage'. Yes, we would all be a bit more comfortable if they didn't call it marriage, but I really don't see why gays shouldn't be allowed to have a civil union. It's fairly discriminatory not to allow gays to be capable of having the same rights as heterosexuals. And if you allow 'domestic partnerships', it just weakens marriage all the more, by allowing two people who live together to get marriage benefits. I guess it's not clear to me in any case why legalizing gay marriage would weaken the traditional religious marriage.
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby Monk » Sun Oct 01, 2000 7:46 am

A discussion on gay rights.... I love it. I wonder what any one of us here would say if we were told that we couldn't marry the man or woman we loved. How about legislation banning Blondes from marrying Redheads? A law limiting the number and sex of the children we are allowed to have? Laws banning different races from different areas in resturants? <BR> Anyone with a minimum of intellegence can see the point that I'm trying to make. Our nation was founded on the right of all of us to choose our own morals, so long as they harmed noone. If you are against homosexual relationships; then, by all means, don't have a homosexual relationship. If you are not attracted to Redheads, then don't date a Redhead. But do not, under any circumstance, seek to limit the choices that I or anyone else may make regarding who we wish to love. <BR><BR><BR> Keep Smiling<BR> Monk<BR>
User avatar
Monk
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 7:05 am
Top

Postby TheMadMonk » Sun Oct 01, 2000 7:56 am

I don't have any problems with legally recognizing a gay union, but I agree that it shouldn't use the name "marriage"<BR><BR>As far as gays in the military, I think that is probably another thing that has been blown (no pun intended!) out of proportion. It's not like these people can't do the job that is required of them, where overweight people might very well be incapable of the physical requirements. And hey, if they want to fight in our stupid little political wars I say let them, 'cause I ain't doing it!<BR><BR>I also agree that hate crime legislation is absurd. Murder is a hate crime, regardless of color, religion, sexual orientation, etc.<BR><BR>Basically, I don't want to know if you, or anybody else is gay. I don't go around flaunting my heterosexuality by marching in "Straight-Pride" parades. It is my business and nobody else's. People's sexual preference belongs in the bedroom (or the closet! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>)<BR><BR>Peace.<BR>
User avatar
TheMadMonk
Rider of the Mark
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 1:00 am
Top

Postby TheMadMonk » Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am

Hey! Another Monk! Greetings!<BR><BR>Oh, and I absolutely love Redheads! They are my favorite flavor! (vows of celibacy be damned!) <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR>
User avatar
TheMadMonk
Rider of the Mark
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 1:00 am
Top

Postby Altariel » Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:03 am

I cannot understand why anyone cares whether Gays marry or not.<BR><BR>How does that effect you or me? It certainly doesn't diminish my marriage in any way. I seriously cannot understand why it matters to anyone.<BR><BR>I don't know much about the military, but I assume racial integration in the military led to morale problems at first too. <BR><BR>It seems that its the hetero members of the military who are effected by this lowered morale, I have a hard time accepting exclusion because those in the "norm" are effected by it. What do we need to do to straighten these guys out? <BR><BR>I'm pretty sure that neither my father nor my son would have their morale lowered by associating militarily with gays. Yet my brother would, because he's a rather ignorant biggot. That's his problem, not the gay man's.<BR><BR>I wouldn't have a problem with gay sexual activity being forbidden, I guess I'm assuming that any form of sexual activity is forbidden in the barracks and such, so gays who engage in such activities, or sexually harrass others should be kicked out.<BR><BR>I guess in the end, I just don't understand why people are against gay marriage or gays in the military.
User avatar
Altariel
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2001 8:48 am
Top

Postby Witch_King_of_Angmar » Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:12 am

Hey I live in Vermont the only state with civil Union. So I guess thats my answer.
User avatar
Witch_King_of_Angmar
Rider of the Mark
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2000 3:44 pm
Top

Postby dogstar » Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:30 am

If we wish to consider the merits of an individual, does their sexuality have any bearing on those aspects of their lives that are not sexual? If we judge, segregate and disadvantage an individual based on their not meeting our intolerant criterion, we are little more than fascists. I hope we would then have the self-assurance of our own perfection; otherwise one day it will be <i>our</i> quirks at the mercy of someone else's intolerant authority.<BR>Is a homosexual more likely to harbour sexual fantasies than a heterosexual, beyond the natural confines of sexual practice? Unless we speak from experience, our misgivings are little more than fabrications and fictions of our own sad scared selves. We give away the level of our own base nature, if we decide to qualify a human being first on his sexual inclination, rather than any more profound human merits. How dare we pick and choose what human characteristics we can acceptably take to original or unconventional extremes? What reasonable, rational person or body of persons could possibly suffer from the sexual inclination of others, if carried out with the habitual discretion of private confines involving consenting adults? If people are <i>harassed</i> by homosexuals, understand that the significance lies not in the sexual leaning, but in the inappropriate behaviour where the sexual leaning manifests. And this is not a symptom of homosexuality - this is a symptom of human nature.<BR><BR>When the popular press cover a crime where homosexuality is at issue, they take great delight in highlighting such supposed quirky characteristics as homosexuality. By this very criterion we ought to then take it for granted that all non-labelled crime is perpetrated by heterosexuals. It seems that the straight world is thus doing more obvious damage to society. Oops, I forgot, we only bring sexuality into it when it is <i>not the norm</i>, but who <i>really </i>wants to be normal? All you would-be thinkers, arguers and philosophers, do you not ever endeavour to be exceptional or unique, to probe the dark recesses of the human condition and come to some valid penetration of the matter in hand, with your own peculiar slant?<BR> <BR>The trouble with homosexuality is not homosexuality. The trouble with homosexuality is homophobia. Get a grip, all you tight-arses out there. No…not of <i>that</i>….of <i>this</i>……<BR>
User avatar
dogstar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:10 am
Top

Postby TheMadMonk » Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:38 am

Isn't "dogstar" the name of Keanu Reeves "band"? If so, is that why you chose the name?<BR>
User avatar
TheMadMonk
Rider of the Mark
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 1:00 am
Top

Postby n@ked-cheese » Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:47 am

he he he he ......you said gay.....he he he <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif"border=0>
User avatar
n@ked-cheese
Petitioner to the Council
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2000 9:19 am
Top

Postby plunge » Sun Oct 01, 2000 9:09 am

Since I am often the only one who does so, let me at least show some of the other side on these various issues.<BR><BR>hate crimes: I'm surprised that as a lawyer, Kel doesn't at least know the rationale behind it. If he thinks it's a bunk rationale, that's fine, and he can argue against it, but he never even mentions it, prefering the "murder is murder" irrelevancy. Murder, at least in our legal system, isn't just murder (and hate crimes don't apply to murders alone). It has all sorts of varrying degrees. It depends whether one has premeditation or not. It depends on who was murdered (ex: police officer's lives lost in the line of duty are worth more punishment than your average joe). We take all these sorts of things into account when selecting the exact charge, and many of them aren't just straight punishments for the crime, they are an expression of a community's outrage for certain crimes- for causing harm not just to the vicitim, but also the sanctity of the community. The rationale for hate crimes is simply that crimes motivated by a politicized hatred do severe damage to a community. The racists that dragged a black man to death didn't just kill him- they also did horrors to the amount of public trust in the involved community, created major mistrust between a population that before was becoming fairly comfortably integrated. All having a hate crime is saying that when people commit acts that are not JUST murder- but ALSO meant as a political statement to the community (burning a cross, for instance, isn't just meant for the family it's targeted at- but for everyone to see) then society can punish the criminal for the harm he quite obviously (and this is what has to be determined by a jury) intended to forment. My general opinion is that hate crimes are a bad idea, because juries aren't impartial enough as it is (ex: black victims of crime are clearly judged to be worth less than white victims) but at least I'm willing to see the other side.<BR><BR>Gay marriage: I don't see why religious understanding of marriage should have any effect on the civil practice of it. People who marry get all sorts of benefits from society, from tax breaks to medical visiting rights, and its not clear why they should unless its an institution that all people can partake in. Certainly it's the right of religious insitutions to refuse to perform the relgious ceremonies and the bond before God, but for the government to deny it? Silly. Like it or not, gay couples can have and raise kids. And I see marriage as an institution that primarily exists as a pledging of a bond to unite forever for a child's welfare. The huge rates of divorce (highest in the Bible Belt, I might add) or deliberately childless marriages (power couples in New York) do far more to denigrate the insitution than gay couples who very seriously want to pledge to be together in a meaningful way and raise children. I think the primary reason people like Kel oppose it is that they know that some Churches WOULD be willing to marry gay couples- so they want to use the government as a discriminatory shield.<BR><BR>Gay's in the miliatary: I dunno. The military isn't like a normal insitution- the people in it and the strict social heirarchy it necessitates are meant to be a little wacko. The problem again, is that it's in part a public organization, not a private one. It doesn't "set it's own rules"- it's controlled by civilians and ultimately the body public.
User avatar
plunge
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 4:23 pm
Top

Postby Old Gaffer » Sun Oct 01, 2000 10:00 am

When discussing gay issues, the question always comes up: Is being gay a choice (whether conscious or subconscious) or is one born that way??<BR><BR>I always argue that homosexuality must be a choice. If one were born that way, then that implies it is genetic. It is well known that homosexuality exists in all the large populations around the world. Here is the dilemna: How can a gene exist so broadly in so many populations, when having the gene would preclude it from being passed on?? Even if the gene were recessive, or if it just offered a tendency of being gay, then over thousands of years, it would breed itself out of a population, not increase its presence. And the argument has been made that society caused homosexuals to deny their true feelings and marry and have children. That doesn't work either, as those societal factors have only been around for a few thousand years, not enough time in my opinion to spread a gene throughtout the world (into different societies too, I might add).<BR><BR>For that reason, I think that homosexuality must be choice. And no, I don't think anyone just said, "Hey I choose to be gay". Clearly the choice is much more subtle, based on a myriad of environmental factors, all different for each individual.<BR><BR>As far as gays in the military, let the militart decide. The military decided on racial integration, and it worked. They found out that integrated units were better than segregated units. If the military thought or found that having gays would increase the value of the unit, then they would make changes.<BR><BR>As far as marriage, like earlier posts mentioned, it is up to different religous institutions to decide whether to recognize it.<BR><BR>As far as legal unions, I say no. If we are going to allow that, then aren't we discriminating against those that wish to practice polygymy? Should society allow 3,4, 5 or more people to be in a 'union'? I strongly agree that people in this country should be allowed to do most whatever they want without fear of be repressed, but we should not change the institutions that the mainstream of society have. It is similar to whether we should have government workers speak languages other than english (as a recent law in California). The point being is that when one chooses to live in America, you choose to live in a country that speaks english. The person should change if he/she wants to, but should not expect the country to change.<BR><BR>I hope not to sound discriminatory, and I have many minority friends, all who agree with my point. I didn't have time to review this post for clarity, as kickoff is moments away.<BR><BR>Old Gaffer
User avatar
Old Gaffer
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:00 am
Top

Postby Lytse » Sun Oct 01, 2000 10:10 am

Dogstar: How perfectly stated! *applause*<BR><BR>Gil-Galad: sorry dude, here in Holland gay people can have the same marriage as anybody else, really soon. And why not?! <BR><BR>I have gay friends, and they are no different than the next person, how they are sexually doesn't matter any which way. And it shouldn't matter legaly either!
User avatar
Lytse
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 767
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 1:48 pm
Top

Postby Cerin » Sun Oct 01, 2000 10:21 am

Thank you, plunge, for the explanation of hate crimes. I was going to ask that question.<BR><BR>Do you then think there is something repugnant about deliberately childless marriages? That the purpose of marriage is procreation only?<BR><BR>I am convinced homosexuality is not a choice, based on the gay people it has been my pleasure to know. I think it is a matter of androgen production in the womb, that being what stimulates the development of male characteristics in the fetus. Of course, homosexuals decide how they will behave, just like everybody else. <BR>
User avatar
Cerin
Mariner

 
Posts: 7350
Joined: Tue May 02, 2000 12:52 am
Top

Postby plunge » Sun Oct 01, 2000 11:21 am

Gaffer, in my opinion, your arguments don't add up. THe fact that homosexuality appears in virtually every known culture isn't an argument AGAINST it being genetically influenced- it's a good argument for it. As I've stated many times before, people who think that "gay" genes wouldn't survive in the genome are simply mistaken about how genetics works. First of all, gay people generally do, and have, reproduced. Secondly, it's not always direct reproduction that carries on a genetic trait, but also the success of near relatives (genomes are reccesive and extremely complex accross humanity). E.O. Wilson's explanation for the persistence of homosexuality was that family groups that carried a "gay" gene on the whole did better- the homosexuals may not have reproduced as much, but they seriously contributed to the protection and raising of their family. <BR><BR>But finally, what's probably the most convincing evidence to me anyway, is that the animal kingdom is full of homosexual partnerships, sex, and just about everything else- as full a range as there are of heterosexual partnerships. Dolphins, normally considered the smartest animals on the planet, often bond for life female to female or male to male, engage in sexual activity with same sex partners, and raise young in same sex pods. Male swans are notorious for not only bonding in life pairs (the same kind as male/female swan pairs) but even for stealing the eggs of other swans and raising them as their own. The bonobo monkey's entire society is based around homosexuality. There are tons of examples. So when people say things like "homosexuality isn't natural" I tend to doubt whether they have any idea what "natural" is. And animals aren't exactly known for being representatives of choice- they're simply acting according to their natures. <BR><BR>I personally think marriage should be reserved for childrearing. Or rather, I think something should. I think there'a real value in symbolic rituals and specific commitments. My personal solution would be to have one sort of "marriage" for people that simply wish to pledge their eternal partnership with each other, and another for the even deeper commitment of being parents to a child.
User avatar
plunge
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 4:23 pm
Top

Postby asaris » Sun Oct 01, 2000 11:42 am

Regarding whether homosexuality is "natural" -- from a Christian perspective, this argument is a non-starter. We were created good, so many things that are "natural" are good. But by the same token, we are fallen creatures, so our natures are corrupt, and many things that are "natural" are bad. For example, it's natural to be selfish. But that doesn't mean it's good. Again, it's natural to care for your family. But that doesn't mean it's bad. To say that something is natural or unnatural says nothing about the morality of that thing.
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby Old Gaffer » Sun Oct 01, 2000 11:49 am

Plunge, good points, but I want to first clarify that I do not consider homosexuality to be unnatural. I am aware of the wide ranging examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Personally, I think this adds weight to homosexuality being a societal behavior. For example, gorillas have been seen using homosexual behavior in displays of dominance.<BR><BR>As far as a gene is involved, in order for it to be so widespread, it would have had to been there for tens of thousands of years; before humanity became 'modern'. I still don't see how a gene could be so prevalent when it prevents passing itself on. I know that many homosexuals have had children, but it was my understanding that a lot of people in the last couple of thousand years suppressed their true feelings, and tried to be "normal", in whatever society they lived in. Nowadays, with more enlightened tolerance to differences, homosexuals do not have the same problems with being open (although there still remain several hurdles for society to overcome), and they can live as they will. They may adopt to raise families, but adoption is also much more widespread today than other timess.<BR><BR>Also, what determines what a given person finds sexually attractive? Some guys like blondes, some brunettes. Same with women. We all have different sexual turn-ons. Are these all genetic? I don't think so. The fact that 2 guys love and are sexually attracted to each other does't mean that they were born thay way. I have some kind of bond with my 2 best friends that I have known for years, but we are not gay. We all love our parents, siblings, friends, etc... I guess my point with this is that I separate the bond of love between 2 people and the sexuality element when considering these issues.<BR><BR>And by the way, any behavior is natural, as humans are a product of nature.<BR><BR>And the debate continues...
User avatar
Old Gaffer
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:00 am
Top

Postby plunge » Sun Oct 01, 2000 12:50 pm

Sure asaris, but keep in mind that not all of us believe a mishmash of ancient religious texts and modern re-interpretation is relevant. Especially when it comes to formulating social policy, "natural" her eis more about determining the realities of the situation than formulating a moral judgement. That comes after.<BR><BR>I think if you really think about it Gaffer, that you or I are attracted to women is a lot more fundamental than just a preference in hair color.<BR><BR>The gene DOESN'T prevent itself from being passed on- that was my whole point, especially with Wilson's example. I know that many male animals use homosexual sex as a dominance behavior- but this theory of animal homosexuality simply being aggresive or "oversexuality" has mainly been discarded because it isn't born out by the many examples of non-dominance same sex partnerships (like the swans) or partnerships in which two same sex animals act as if their were coupled in every way, but do not engage in any sexual activity. The animal kingdom is extremely varied.
User avatar
plunge
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 4:23 pm
Top

Postby Nienna » Sun Oct 01, 2000 1:29 pm

Oh, who cares already......really. What possible difference could it make to anyone whether or not gay couples are allowed to enjoy the same legal status as homosexual married couples? What does it take away from the homosexual community? Worry about your own marriages and sex lives, folks, not someone else's. <BR><BR>I do disagree with plunge on the hate crimes issue. Any crime, murder, vandalism, whatever, takes away from all of us as a society. If we start dividing society into groups based on ethnicity or sexual orientation (or gender, for that matter), we immediately place a greater value on a particular group when charging someone of a "hate crime" against it.
User avatar
Nienna
Mariner

 
Posts: 5845
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 5:20 pm
Top

Postby Mithfânion » Sun Oct 01, 2000 1:36 pm

Lytse<BR><BR>Perhaps so. I find that sad. But what I am doing here is giving my opinion on this matter. I don't have any rational basis or any decent arguments to defend my opinion. It's just how I feel about it. If anyone is ok with gay men marrying like normal couples do, then bless you. I find it totally inappropriate.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Mithfânion
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11589
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:35 am
Top

Postby Kelannar » Sun Oct 01, 2000 2:04 pm

Monk said: "Our nation was founded on the right of all of us to choose our own morals, so long as they harmed noone."<BR><BR>If you had even a basic knowledge of American history, you'd know that this viewpoint didn't come into widespread acceptance until probably at least 150 years after the Revolution. Usury laws, Blue Laws, Sodomy Laws, and a host of other "moral" laws were on the books at the Founding, and remained that way for at least 100 years, sometimes even more. To my knowledge, pedophilia is still a crime. But your mentality and those of others who would de-criminalize child molestation and other such acts. What about statutory rape? Stalking? Consentual pedophilia? All those deviant acts that remain criminal, because of moral precepts behind the laws.<BR><BR>When people get up on their high horse and say, to the effect, "Who are we to judge what is moral? How can we say this is wrong? How dare we tell someone that their lifestyle is wrong?" Such views are so inconsistent with legal realities and historical fact that most of the time I casually dismiss the argument. Of course, the explanation was needed here, and I suppose many will continue to repeat such rhetoric - but it is so ridiculious that I'm surprised people still try to use it as an argument.<BR><BR>plunge - hehehe. Ok, you got me. I didn't mention the variations in penalties because it wasn't my job. But intent and who the victim is do influence the punishment. Intentional murder of a police officer is much different than the unintentional killing of a mugger. Hate crimes, however, distinguish across the civil population according to a generic GROUP. It does not deal with individuals, instead it generalizes and creates sterotypes, and in effect divides the population and causes more harm than any possible benefit it MIGHT give (which it doesn't). Hate Crime legislation itself is designed to create special protections for certain political groups in the populace, which create different rights according to the law, and as such they violate the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection of the law and due process for every INDIVIDUAL.<BR><BR>As far as the idea that I'm opposed to gay marrige because a religion might permit it, that is silly. What one religion does as far as marriage is concerned might not apply to what the state thinks. If you get divorced, the state may consider you divorced, but maybe not your religion. So it's different. But marriage is also the social recognition of the couple, and I simply do not think that the state should be in the business of recognizing and promoting that kind of behavior.<BR><BR>The issue of whether homosexuality is inherent as a flaw in genes, or if it's learned behavior, I think is irrelevant to this discussion.
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby plunge » Sun Oct 01, 2000 3:46 pm

<i>I simply do not think that the state should be in the business of recognizing and promoting that kind of behavior.</i> <BR><BR>Geez- what a consistent libertarian conservative you are Kel. _Now_ you want the state to be a big mommy? You'll be suggesting gun control next. And your even trying to associate consenual bonds of marriage between two adults with pedophilla is patently despicable on its face, even for you. In your world, there seems to be what you believe, and then ANYTHING else, no matter how minor, is a slipperly slope directly to hell. Someone thinks gay couples should be able to get the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples? Or that unshared morality _should_ not be the basis of law? They must want to make raping children legal. Sure. <BR><BR>The whole of point of that line of hate crime thinking is that the CRIMINAL singles out a group for attack, not just an individual. His actions are meant to do harm not just to an individual, but to that group as a whole- he does it as a statement to drive a rift into a community. Why shouldn't we be able to punish people for this harm? On one hand, Kel thinks laws _should_ be based on a community's moral outrage at a crime- in another, he finds that rationale totally unnacceptable. I don't see the consistency here.<BR><BR>And Neinna, just because I outline a point of view doesn't mean I agree with it. I pretty clearly stated that I didn't, and don't. Why is that so hard for people to understand? I just don't like "yeah yeah" kind of discussions that glaze over real issues and differences. <BR><BR>It's interesting to note that not one person I can think of on this board is an open homosexual. I think there was one person at one time, but he isn't around anymore. So we're all essentially having a debate about a group of people who aren't even here to speak up on their own points of view (and not all homosexuals support gay unions or gays in the military, I might note).
User avatar
plunge
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 4:23 pm
Top

Postby Kelannar » Sun Oct 01, 2000 4:10 pm

Whoever said I was a libertarian conservative? That's YOUR assumption. Haven't you learned through my denouncement of drug legalization that I'm certainly not a libertarian? <BR><BR>Many people make the mistake of assuming that a "conservative" automatically means "libetarian." Bill Mahr on Politically Incorrect makes the same mistake every night, and he's a moron for it. I know that many people have a casual acquaintence with politics, but is it really so hard to understand that even if a person wants the government out of your life, there are needs for the community (like policing)? It's even more astounding that a person like you, plunge, could make this dumb mistake. Well, in short form - there IS a difference, and even still I'm not sure if I fit the mold of "conservative" neatly.<BR><BR>Again, with hate crimes legislation, you know very well the distinction being made. Social moralities that the states criminalize, like pedophilia, might be to protect a specific group (children), because usually the victim is especially vulnerable and needs the added state protection. But Hate Crime laws are normal crimes given a bonus of penalty because of the political identity of the victim. It is a political payoff. In practice, they're used by prosecutors as another axe to let fall if the criminal doesn't confess (not that I have a problem with that tactic, per say - but in reality the INTENT of the crime is really inconsequential, as prosecutors will assume that any Hate Crime victim was chosen because of the protected quality). I have to wonder, aside from the political payoffs, what exactly is Hate Crime Legislation supposed to accomplish? Deterrence? Increased community respect for protected people?
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby plunge » Sun Oct 01, 2000 7:10 pm

No, you're still missing the point. To be convicted of a hate crime, it must be shown that the criminal act was intended as part of a political statement of hate against a certain group. Killing a black person or gay person or anything like that doesn't qualify as a hate crime. The crime must be motivated BY that person's group status. It does extra harm to a community, so the community metes out extra punishment. I don't think that's so unreasonable. That you think it is just a political payoff seems just to be a matter of cynicism. Pedophilia is an entirely different rationale, due to child's status as a minor with no ability for consent. Laws against consensual adult sodomy might be a better example, since the only real rationale there might be that the act disgraces the community. Of course, that's not generally an acceptable legal rationale any more in most places.<BR><BR>The problem Kel, is that calling for "getting the government off our backs" looks pretty darn suspicious when in practice what you seem to advocate is "get the government off my back, but onto everyone else's- I don't like them."
User avatar
plunge
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 4:23 pm
Top

Next

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests