• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

CA Prop 8: Props to the Bruthas


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Connor MacLeod

  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 06 November 2008 - 03:43 AM


http://www.telegraph...e-ban-pass.html

Around 70 per cent of the African-American voters who overwhelmingly backed Mr Obama also approved Proposition 8, helping pass the controversial ballot measure despite a small majority of whites voting against the ban on same-sex unions. Hispanic and Asian voters were split on the issue.The state's black turnout jumped to 10 per cent of the electorate, up from 6 per cent in 2004, as voters inspired by Mr Obama flocked to the polls for the first time. The Democratic candidate took the state with 61 per cent of the popular vote.

Although the president-elect opposed the gay marriage ban, it appears his supporters may have helped pass the measure that was vociferously opposed by many white Democrats.


Some good sense from Black voters in California.

#2 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 06 November 2008 - 04:03 AM

Some good sense from Black voters in California.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is totally down with them.

#3 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 06 November 2008 - 04:05 AM

Why does gay marriage even matter? Who cares that one person loves another person? Why is this any of your business? In fact, from an overpopulated world perspective, homosexuality and gay marriage should be promoted, not denied.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 06 November 2008 - 04:46 AM

Some good sense from Black voters in California.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is totally down with them.


What do you mean? Oh yeah, you mean the guy in Iran. I thought you were being snotty to our new president elect for a minute.

#5 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 06 November 2008 - 04:51 AM

It is doubtful that race is the most relevant factor here. Look toward religiosity and age instead, which cut across race. A wider perspective that highlights the differences between age groups:

http://news.yahoo.co...ge/gay_marriage

"Exit polls revealed dramatic demographic gaps in the gay-marriage vote. While 63 percent of voters under 30 opposed the ban, 59 percent of those 65 and older supported it. There were sharp racial discrepancies as well. Even as black voters overwhelmingly backed Barack Obama — a gay-rights supporter — in the presidential race, 70 percent of them voted against gay marriage, compared with 47 percent of white voters."

Another demographic to look at is the LGBTQA community itself. A record number of gays and lesbians apparently voted for McCain. How might this have affected the Prop 8 and similar votes?

I hope that the LGBTQA community sees this not as a race issue, though it is easy to jump to that conclusion based on the statistics being reported. After my elation last night at the wonderful show of diversity in Grant Park, today was a sobering reminder that not all is well; discrimination remains. There is much work left to do, but I take some comfort in President-Elect Obama's inclusive acceptance speech and straight allies who expressed their disbelief and anger over the results in Arizona, Florida, Arkansas, and California.

A proud moment where the color of skin did not matter is a wonderful precedent for the moment when sexuality will not matter.

#6 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 06 November 2008 - 05:11 AM

It is doubtful that race is the most relevant factor here. Look toward religiosity and age instead, which cut across race. A wider perspective that highlights the differences between age groups:

http://news.yahoo.co...ge/gay_marriage

"Exit polls revealed dramatic demographic gaps in the gay-marriage vote. While 63 percent of voters under 30 opposed the ban, 59 percent of those 65 and older supported it. There were sharp racial discrepancies as well. Even as black voters overwhelmingly backed Barack Obama — a gay-rights supporter — in the presidential race, 70 percent of them voted against gay marriage, compared with 47 percent of white voters."

Another demographic to look at is the LGBTQA community itself. A record number of gays and lesbians apparently voted for McCain. How might this have affected the Prop 8 and similar votes?

I hope that the LGBTQA community sees this not as a race issue, though it is easy to jump to that conclusion based on the statistics being reported. After my elation last night at the wonderful show of diversity in Grant Park, today was a sobering reminder that not all is well; discrimination remains. There is much work left to do, but I take some comfort in President-Elect Obama's inclusive acceptance speech and straight allies who expressed their disbelief and anger over the results in Arizona, Florida, Arkansas, and California.

A proud moment where the color of skin did not matter is a wonderful precedent for the moment when sexuality will not matter.


Richard I question this. What I saw was that President elect Obama is against Guy marrage. He just said he wasn't for overturning the desision of the judges. He said he thinks marrage is between a man and a woman I think. I really have to wonder why he thinks thats that. It's very un-Democrat. Obama is a Democrat right? Or maybe he was just lying about how he feels because he thought that would get more votes. I guess we'll find out later.

I'm not sure what's up with the LGBTQA community. A lot of them might have just been for Hillary and resented Obama, or else it might have been his stance on gay marrage.


Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice In Calif.

November 02, 2008 6:36 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, Tahman Bradley, and Rigel Anderson report: Barack Obama's nuanced position on same-sex marriage is on full display in an MTV interview which is set to air on Monday. Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage." At the same time, Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8, the California ballot measure which would eliminate a right to same-sex marriage that the state's Supreme Court recently recognized. "I've stated my opposition to this. I think it's unnecessary," Obama told MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about." "Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them," he added.

http://blogs.abcnews...a-on-mtv-i.html

#7 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 06 November 2008 - 05:18 PM

From what I understand, he is against gay marriage, but for civil unions, and believes it should be up to the states to decide. Obama did say he was against Prop 8. He and Joe Biden have also reiterated their call for specific equal rights for gay couples.

#8 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 07 November 2008 - 04:45 AM

A proud moment where the color of skin did not matter is a wonderful precedent for the moment when sexuality will not matter.


I suspect the deep revulsion to some forms of sexuality, which in my view ultimately underpins much of the religious dogma, is biological in nature. If you take away the religion, the biological revulsion will still remain. For example, there seems to be a rather obvious explantion from an evolutionary point of view as to why the vast majority of human beings are replused by the odor of fecal matter or contact with the same. In light of this, is it reasonable to expect that the majority of people should view those individuals who take delight in such contact to be entirely healthy?

#9 suspire

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 10

Posted 07 November 2008 - 05:00 AM

A proud moment where the color of skin did not matter is a wonderful precedent for the moment when sexuality will not matter.


I suspect the deep revulsion to some forms of sexuality, which in my view ultimately underpins much of the religious dogma, is biological in nature. If you take away the religion, the biological revulsion will still remain. For example, there seems to be a rather obvious explantion from an evolutionary point of view as to why the vast majority of human beings are replused by the odor of fecal matter or contact with the same. In light of this, is it reasonable to expect that the majority of people should view those individuals who take delight in such contact to be entirely healthy?


I don't disagree that there may be a biological, an instinctive, responsive to homosexuality that is negative among certain percentages of the population. However, I think one of the triumphs of the human mind and its evolution is its ability to overcome baser, emotional responses and eventually return with a more logical conclusion. Homosexually may have been counter-productive to the continuation of the species when we first evolved on the planet, but those evolutionary concerns are no longer an issue for us as a species.

#10 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 07 November 2008 - 05:13 AM

Homosexually may have been counter-productive to the continuation of the species when we first evolved on the planet, but those evolutionary concerns are no longer an issue for us as a species.


Heard of AIDS?

#11 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 07 November 2008 - 05:24 AM

A proud moment where the color of skin did not matter is a wonderful precedent for the moment when sexuality will not matter.


I suspect the deep revulsion to some forms of sexuality, which in my view ultimately underpins much of the religious dogma, is biological in nature. If you take away the religion, the biological revulsion will still remain. For example, there seems to be a rather obvious explantion from an evolutionary point of view as to why the vast majority of human beings are replused by the odor of fecal matter or contact with the same. In light of this, is it reasonable to expect that the majority of people should view those individuals who take delight in such contact to be entirely healthy?


Deep revulsion? Biological revulsion? The law passed by a few percent, not a landslide, and many of those under 30, non-religious, or college educated people apparently have lost this revulsion of which you speak.

#12 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 07 November 2008 - 05:26 AM

However, I think one of the triumphs of the human mind and its evolution is its ability to overcome baser, emotional responses and eventually return with a more logical conclusion.

If you think a natural revulsion to bacteria-laden bodily excrement is base, then I can't help but wonder what you think about the idea of withdrawing from you lover with your......Oh, nevermind.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 07 November 2008 - 05:37 AM.


#13 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 07 November 2008 - 05:39 AM

Today I was working on a elderly lady's furnace. She's not in very good shape and requires a full time care taker, a young black girl who happened to be from Zimbabwe. The television was on fox news (the only channel anyone watches in Texas) when a story about the Ca prop 8 vote came on. We started chatting about the vote. I mentioned that over time I've come to believe that people are born gay, based on what my gay friends have told me.

The care taker ask me, then if that's true why are there no gay people in Zimbabwe? She indicated she'd never seen a gay person till she came to America. I didn't have an answer for her.

#14 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 07 November 2008 - 05:41 AM

Homosexually may have been counter-productive to the continuation of the species when we first evolved on the planet, but those evolutionary concerns are no longer an issue for us as a species.


Heard of AIDS?


That horrible disease that affects all demographics? The one caused by the HIV virus? The one that existed long enough ago to result in heritable susceptibility to HIV in some humans? That AIDS? Yeah, I've heard of it.

I've also heard of memes and how some memes with no basis in fact infect ignorant people who prefer expressing opinions to looking over the latest scientific consensus and breakthroughs in genomics.

As for counter-productive, research suggests that male homosexuality relates to higher female fecundity on the maternal family side and has therefore been conserved as beneficial.

#15 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 07 November 2008 - 05:49 AM

Today I was working on a elderly lady's furnace. She's not in very good shape and requires a full time care taker, a young black girl who happened to be from Zimbabwe. The television was on fox news (the only channel anyone watches in Texas) when a story about the Ca prop 8 vote came on. We started chatting about the vote. I mentioned that over time I've come to believe that people are born gay, based on what my gay friends have told me.

The care taker ask me, then if that's true why are there no gay people in Zimbabwe? She indicated she'd never seen a gay person till she came to America. I didn't have an answer for her.


Because it is illegal in Zimbabwe and the government has passed laws that make "it a criminal offense for two people of the same sex to hold hands, hug, or kiss." You don't have to look very far to find out about the horrible treatment of gays and lesbians in Zimbabwe.

#16 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 07 November 2008 - 05:49 AM

[quote name='Richard Leis' post='275783' date='7-Nov 2008, 01:24 AM'][quote name='Connor MacLeod' post='275773'

Deep revulsion? Biological revulsion? The law passed by a few percent, not a landslide, and many of those under 30, non-religious, or college educated people apparently have lost this revulsion of which you speak.[/quote]

It's possible you're confusing revulsion with tolerance. I try to keep in mind that I might like things that you could find revolting, and I'd rather not have you judging me either.

I don't like it when my wife puts ketchup on her scrambled eggs. I like fried baloney sandwiches. See what I mean?

Edited by biknut, 07 November 2008 - 05:50 AM.


#17 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 07 November 2008 - 06:02 AM

I am speaking to a fictional "you" below and not any particular ImmInst member.

The truth is, I don't need your tolerance or acceptance. Just get out of my damn way so I can get married. It is a basic right and I will keep demanding it until I have that right. Granting me the right to marry another man causes no harm and does not result in a slippery slope of any sort. A gay man who wants to marry a child or a goat is a sick fuck and no representative of the LGBTQA community. Besides, he obviously cannot get legal consent from a child or an animal, you freakin' pervert. Honestly, who comes up with these awful scenarios!?

Depriving a minority of some right the majority enjoys is historically wrong. So get over it. I'm getting married to the man I love and loves me in return. You are not invited to the wedding.

#18 suspire

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 10

Posted 07 November 2008 - 06:07 AM

Today I was working on a elderly lady's furnace. She's not in very good shape and requires a full time care taker, a young black girl who happened to be from Zimbabwe. The television was on fox news (the only channel anyone watches in Texas) when a story about the Ca prop 8 vote came on. We started chatting about the vote. I mentioned that over time I've come to believe that people are born gay, based on what my gay friends have told me.

The care taker ask me, then if that's true why are there no gay people in Zimbabwe? She indicated she'd never seen a gay person till she came to America. I didn't have an answer for her.


This is because many non-U.S. nations have incredibly low, and terribly negative, responses towards homosexuality. I suspect the care taker knew gay people in Zimbabwe; she just didn't realize it. For instance, in India, there are certainly significant minorities of gay people, but they cannot come out in the open. The culture is so repressive of the idea--your duty is to your family, your duty is to marry (by arrangement, often), produce kids, make a good home, take care of your family, etc. I have known many gay men in India who were married, had kids and incredibly, terribly, miserable; some of them had affairs, on the side, with other men. You do not, under any circumstances, disappoint your parents/family. You do not "shame" them with homosexuality.

I don't know the specifics of Zimbabwe law and culture well, but I would not be surprised this was the case there. Societal and religious pressures and persecution can force people underground, but it cannot overrule basic science. Here is an interesting article on homosexuality in Zimbabwe:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ents/143169.stm

I would say the anecdotal evidence given by an individual on homosexuality in Zimbabwe probably does not reflect fact. It reminds me of a situation where I was talking about poverty in India with a young lady who was born and brought up in India. She told me poverty has all but been eradicated in India, since the tech boom, and her evidence was based on the fact that "the city she came from was doing really now". I travel to India frequently for social work and know the state of poverty in the under-developed portions of the country--when I pointed out that the Indian government's own statistics, given this very year, put the population of India who make under .50 cents a day at roughly 700+ million out of 1+ billion, she had no real answer. Her world was limited by her interactions, which was limited to one of the few urban centers that is prospering.

#19 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 07 November 2008 - 06:21 AM

Because it is illegal in Zimbabwe and the government has passed laws that make "it a criminal offense for two people of the same sex to hold hands, hug, or kiss." You don't have to look very far to find out about the horrible treatment of gays and lesbians in Zimbabwe.


I hear you. It doesn't suprise me that Zimbabwe is behind the times.

One of my best friends is a gay Chinese girl. She was my lion partner till she left to attend Duke U. We formed a close bond over the years performing together. She wants to be able to marry her girlfriend, but can't. I can relate how both of you feel.

I think everyone should be allowed to marry and HAVE to be just as happy as the rest of us. :)

#20 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 07 November 2008 - 09:23 AM

The truth is, I don't need your tolerance or acceptance. Just get out of my damn way so I can get married. It is a basic right and I will keep demanding it until I have that right.

You have the right to get married, but you don't want it. What you want is to change the meaning of marriage.

Granting me the right to marry another man causes no harm and does not result in a slippery slope of any sort.

How can you be so sure? Do you imagine polygamist won't be asking to broaden the definition of marriage to include them? What about incestuous (same-sex) adult couples? Would you deny them their "right" to be married? It seems to me a line has to be drawn somewhere otherwise marriage loses all meaning. Where do you suppose that line should be drawn?

#21 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 08 November 2008 - 03:49 AM

Homosexually may have been counter-productive to the continuation of the species when we first evolved on the planet, but those evolutionary concerns are no longer an issue for us as a species.


Heard of AIDS?


That horrible disease that affects all demographics? The one caused by the HIV virus?


Yeah, I think we're talking about the same one:

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm5445a1.htm

The route of HIV infection for the majority (61%) of males was through male-to-male sexual contact; 17% occurred through high-risk heterosexual contact, and 16% occurred through injection-drug use. The majority (76%) of females with HIV/AIDS diagnosed were exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact*; 21% were exposed through injection-drug use.


It appears that homosexuals and intravenous drug users are responsible for 94% of HIV infections among men, and 97% among women.

*Note: high-risk heterosexual contact is defined as having sex with someone "of the opposite sex known to have HIV/AIDS or a risk factor [e.g., male-to-male sexual contact or injection-drug use] for HIV/AIDS."

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 08 November 2008 - 04:25 AM.


#22 Iam Empathy

  • Guest
  • 429 posts
  • 1

Posted 08 November 2008 - 08:20 PM



#23 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 08 November 2008 - 11:18 PM

</div>


What's wrong with wearing a garment made of two different threads?

#24 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 08 November 2008 - 11:25 PM

Granting me the right to marry another man causes no harm and does not result in a slippery slope of any sort.

How can you be so sure? Do you imagine polygamist won't be asking to broaden the definition of marriage to include them? What about incestuous (same-sex) adult couples? Would you deny them their "right" to be married? It seems to me a line has to be drawn somewhere otherwise marriage loses all meaning. Where do you suppose that line should be drawn?

First of all, we are concerned with the rights of LGBT here, not other social movements. A slippy slope does not lead movement to movement; we deal with this now and deal with what comes next when it arrives.

More importantly, however, there are additional complications related to polygamy and incestuous relationships that are deal breakers for them becoming viable social movements. Polygamy might otherwise become a viable social movement if it did not have additional issues of power, gender rights, and pedaphilia. How can polygamy ensure that the participants are consenting adults and these consenting adults value gender rights and equality within the relationship? Until polygamy can address these issues, it has no hopes of seeing the number of supporters social movements typically enjoys.

Incestuous relationships do not have the numbers, opposite-sex relationships can be genetically dangerous for offspring, and the relationships can often be secondary to issues of power, which always complicate matters. Scientists also suggest that there are particular evolutionary guards against incestuous relationships not found in LGBT relationships.

If either are to become social movements, they have many obstacles, probably insurmountable, ahead of them, obstacles that the women, race, LGBT, and atheist/non-religious civil rights movements simply never had to contend with. In fact, there are likely no more major social movements seeking marriage, equality, and civil rights until the advent (or arrival) of other intelligence species that arguably contain "consenting adults".

#25 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 08 November 2008 - 11:36 PM

Homosexually may have been counter-productive to the continuation of the species when we first evolved on the planet, but those evolutionary concerns are no longer an issue for us as a species.


Heard of AIDS?


That horrible disease that affects all demographics? The one caused by the HIV virus?


Yeah, I think we're talking about the same one:

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm5445a1.htm

The route of HIV infection for the majority (61%) of males was through male-to-male sexual contact; 17% occurred through high-risk heterosexual contact, and 16% occurred through injection-drug use. The majority (76%) of females with HIV/AIDS diagnosed were exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact*; 21% were exposed through injection-drug use.


It appears that homosexuals and intravenous drug users are responsible for 94% of HIV infections among men, and 97% among women.

*Note: high-risk heterosexual contact is defined as having sex with someone "of the opposite sex known to have HIV/AIDS or a risk factor [e.g., male-to-male sexual contact or injection-drug use] for HIV/AIDS."


No one is arguing with the statistics. How is this an evolutionary concern and what does that have to do with marriage? What was the point of your original "Heard of AIDS?" question?

#26 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 09 November 2008 - 03:59 PM

There was some discussion on a recent Amendinhedaj statement about homosexuality in Iran.
Reading the original, what Amendinhedaj actually said is that Iran wont have homosexuals. Iranian researchers discovered that a mutation in the NoCu537 gene is responsible for homosexual behavior. Furthermore, they came up with an inexpensive way to detect that mutant gene in the amniotic fluid. Thus, in the very near future, it will be possible to completely eradicate homosexuality with simple abortions.

More details at:
رویدادها، تازه‌ها و درخواست همکاری در پروژه‌ها و شرکت در نظرخواهی‌هایی که مربوط به ویکی‌پدیای فارسی هستند، در این صفحه مطرح می‌شوند. لطفاً گاهی به این صفحه نگاهی بیاندازید. برای فهرستی از صفحات مربوط به مسائل اجرایی ویکی‌پدیا، به فهرست مسائل اجرایی مراجعه کنید.
برای دیدن موارد مربوط به گذشته صفحهٔ بایگانی را ببینید.
برای صحبت‌های عمومی، به صفحهٔ قهوه‌خانه بروید.
تازه‌ها در ویکی‌پدیای فارسی
• ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸؛ رای‌گیری برای نظارت ویکی‌بدان بر انتخابات و سیاست‌گذاری در ویکی‌پدیای فارسی در جریان است.
• ۱۶ ژوئن ۲۰۰۸؛ اطلاعیه مهم در مورد حذف مقالات
• ‏۱۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۷؛ آمار استفاده از ویکی‌پدیای فارسی در شش ماه اول ۲۰۰۷ منتشر شد.
• ‏۱۹ اوت ۲۰۰۷؛ نتایج تحلیل آماری وقایع کنونی ویکی‌پدیای فارسی را در وقایع اتفاقیه ببینید.
بایگانی تازه‌ها/بایگانی اخبار
درخواست همکاری

#27 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 11 November 2008 - 03:54 AM

Incestuous relationships do not have the numbers, opposite-sex relationships can be genetically dangerous for offspring, and the relationships can often be secondary to issues of power, which always complicate matters. Scientists also suggest that there are particular evolutionary guards against incestuous relationships not found in LGBT relationships.

Note that I specifically mentioned same-sex incestuous couples (i.e. father-son, mother-daugher, sister-sister, brother-brother.) These are homosexual relationships between adults that pose no risk of producing genetically weak offspring. Regarding your comment that they (i.e. same-sex incestuous couples) "don't have the numbers," I am honestly a little surprised. I would think that you of all people would be strongly motivated to come to the aid of a minority whose "rights" were being denied be the majority. Do you think these people have any less right than you to marry the person they love?

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 11 November 2008 - 04:04 AM.


#28 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 11 November 2008 - 04:00 AM

Near the end of the video below you will see some members of the LGBTQ community slapping a cross out of an elderly woman's hand, and then stomping on it.



Funny how the anchor said there was "a lot of anger and hate on both sides." I only saw anger and hate from one side.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 11 November 2008 - 04:04 AM.


#29 Iam Empathy

  • Guest
  • 429 posts
  • 1

Posted 12 November 2008 - 03:14 AM

The entire point of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is that minority groups in the United States are entitled to equal treatment by the state, even if they're out-voted by a majority. One would think that a Mormon who claims to despise racism would understand that doubly.

The concern of homophobes for the future of civilization is not only hyperbolic, but indicative of a deep misunderstanding of the likely nature of sexuality. Homosexuals are something like left-handers -- they're likely to make up a little less than 10% of the population, and they're likely to do that whether or not they are allowed to live freely.

To get a little Freudian, I suspect that homophobes may be generalizing from some repressed homosexuality, mistakenly believing that, since most people must have the same internal experience he does, most people would abandon heterosexuality if given the social liberty to do so. That just isn't the case. I'm not a heterosexual because the government demands it, or makes it easier (though it does make it easier); I'm a heterosexual because I was born heterosexual. The mistake of social conservatives, I believe, is the mistake at the root of the Mark Foleys and Larry Craigs of the world -- those likely homosexuals who become moral crusaders against homosexuality. To come to the sincere belief that state-sanctioned social repression is all that stands between structured society and Gomorrah, one must himself wish for the sexual freedom they fear.

Edited by Iam Empathy, 12 November 2008 - 03:14 AM.


#30 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 12 November 2008 - 03:29 AM

Incestuous relationships do not have the numbers, opposite-sex relationships can be genetically dangerous for offspring, and the relationships can often be secondary to issues of power, which always complicate matters. Scientists also suggest that there are particular evolutionary guards against incestuous relationships not found in LGBT relationships.

Note that I specifically mentioned same-sex incestuous couples (i.e. father-son, mother-daugher, sister-sister, brother-brother.) These are homosexual relationships between adults that pose no risk of producing genetically weak offspring. Regarding your comment that they (i.e. same-sex incestuous couples) "don't have the numbers," I am honestly a little surprised. I would think that you of all people would be strongly motivated to come to the aid of a minority whose "rights" were being denied be the majority. Do you think these people have any less right than you to marry the person they love?

I did note that and provided three separate points; genetic danger to offspring does not currently apply but the other two do. I provided an argument for why polygamy and incest have not reached a particular social movement threshold and why I doubt they ever will. More importantly, however, I prefaced this argument with "First of all, we are concerned with the rights of LGBT here, not other social movements. A slippy slope does not lead movement to movement; we deal with this now and deal with what comes next when it arrives."

The "slippery slope" argument is a sloppy and common one in debates like these. The intention is to confuse the central issue with increasingly arbitrary and shocking scenarios. Choose not to support these escalating scenarios and you are accused of undercutting support for the central issue because of the incorrect assumption that all these scenarios are understood to be on the same moral footing. Choose to support these scenarios, and the escalation is applied to your character. As you can see, the slippery slope argument is not meant to further discourse; it is meant to demonize.

From the the use of the "slippery slope" argument to the very title, the level of discourse in this topic has been abysmal. I wish I could remember an important lesson in discourse: don't get sucked in. Still, my original intention was to make sure that this does not turn into a racist attack on African Americans. Whatever your view of homosexuality, African Americans certainly do not deserve unfounded attacks. Unfortunately, I have seen too many LGBT people discriminating against black people over Prop 8 and that does nobody any good.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users