cjack...

...how about This new Thread...

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

cjack, a couple of things

cjack...If a person intentionally spreads an STD, they should be punished.

s...What if they unintentionally do so, or choose lifestyles that increase the risk to public health? Does not the body politic have a right..nee a duty...to act?

cjack....between consenting adults.

s.... Is a crippled definition at best. Just because one is say....18 (and as low as 16 in some states) supposedly they can "consent" to sex. Are you saying every consenting adult is psycholically/emotionally healthy enough to "consent" to any sex act? Many people are not psychologically/emotionally equiped to "consent" in a healthy manner.....so what do we do about that? Sex is not a trivial matter, it is extremely important to society (and thusly to our lawmakers) what it's citizens are doing sexually....why? Cause it affects all of us. The most obvious example being defining statuatory rape.

You (and others of similar argument) try to say homosexuality is just like heterosexuality and should be treated the same way by society....as you say....that dog don't hunt. You don't want to say homosexuality = pedophilia...fine, I agree (I think)..but you also give up the argument homosexuality = heterosexuality, or you are intellectually dishonest. The fact is homosexuality does not = anything, neither to defeat or support it thusly. It must stand on it's own merits, and society will decide what to do about it, as it has for all human activity. And I am ok with that. Homosexuality advocates can attempt manipulation through fairness and false equivalency arguments, it is a strategy...I hope it fails and they are forced to make their case why their lifestyle is a benefit to society... I am surprised that a secualar humanist wouldn't understand that.

cjack..What I am saying is that I, as a humanist, (and a person who does not feel that all homosexuals are deviants looking to have sex with children) no longer feel welcome on a site that is overwhelmingly Christian, and as such, fundamentally oppposed to homosexuality based upon a couple of passages in the Bible.

s...I am a Christian, and I oppose homosexuality on secular grounds. I have never argued the reltious view, it is simple enough to prove homosexuality is a poor lifestyle for individuals, as well as tolerated but not promoted behaviour for society.

<small>[ July 27, 2003, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

cjack, from the site you referenced (10 myths) this is quoted..

Secular humanists disagree that, without God, life can have no meaning or purpose. We believe that people create their own meaning and purpose in life. The value and significance of life comes from how we live life, not from some supposed transcendent realm. Humanists believe the meaning of life is to live a life of meaning.

s...Is it just me, or is this a circular statement that says nothing at all except do whatever feels good?

For meaning and purpose to....well, mean anything...there has to be underlying parameters, where are they here? If we "celebrate" meaning, than who is to say one meaning is better than another, such as harm no one (an impossibility anyways). For all these indviduals to make common cause they must be in agreement about what meaning is...that make secular humanism just another religion. When I was much younger I called myself a secular humanist as well, until I realized it was nothing more than religion, and that if I was going to "believe" in something Christianity fit the facts of our existence the best.

However, there is one (and only one) competeing "reason" for our existence (other than a Godcentric explanation)...that does provide the same type of immutable basis for human behaviour, I find it curious that the humanists have not figured this out....but then they wouldn't if humanism is a religion.

I apologize for not being around when this subject started, but I have been away on vacation.

This is all really close to heart for me because it is the reason I came to MB in the first place. Jim and some other old timers may remember my story and I&#8217;m not going to go into it in great detail here. The short of it is that my wife is having a relationship with another woman who is also her superior at their company. She admitted the affair to me initially. I also have been counseling with SH on a regular basis for 2 ½ years. He seemed to believe from the outset that I still had a chance to save my marriage. I have been all through the program from Plan A to a Plan B that failed miserably. This past May I filed for divorce. SH had suggested me for a year previous to that that I consider filing.

All through the latter stages of this, my wife has tried to deny her relationship with this OW. My divorce complaint has included adultery and extreme cruelty. In my state, they mean absolutely nothing in custody or settlement issues. But SH had recommended I go as far as I can with these issues because of the moral values it was passing along to my daughters who are now 12 and 17.

So with all this talk about how children are affected, I felt I had to jump in. I am now faced with throwing away our financial future pursuing protecting my daughters&#8217; moral values and the lifelong lessons they are learning. Or I could just go through an amicable divorce and let everything get swept under the rug so they can go to college. I&#8217;m sure that is what my wife wants. Someone posted earlier that the issue didn&#8217;t affect him or her directly. It has affected me directly. I&#8217;m wondering what road many of you here would choose if you were placed in a similar situation?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by sufdb:
<strong>

cjack...If a person intentionally spreads an STD, they should be punished.

...What if they unintentionally do so, or choose lifestyles that increase the risk to public health? Does not the body politic have a right..nee a duty...to act?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">News flash: STDs do not discriminate when it comes to sexual preference. The lifestyle you and I have "chosen" (heterosexuality) has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of cases of STDs throughout history. Does not the body politic have a right...nee a duty...to ban heterosexuality?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">....between consenting adults.

.... Is a crippled definition at best. Just because one is say....18 (and as low as 16 in some states) supposedly they can "consent" to sex. Are you saying every consenting adult is psycholically/emotionally healthy enough to "consent" to any sex act? Many people are not psychologically/emotionally equiped to "consent" in a healthy manner.....so what do we do about that? Sex is not a trivial matter, it is extremely important to society (and thusly to our lawmakers) what it's citizens are doing sexually....why? Cause it affects all of us.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Just because one is 18, one can vote. Are you saying that every 18 year old is psychologically/emotionally healthy enough to vote? Voting is not a trivial matter, so how can you possibly justify allowing all people (once they reach a certain age) to participate in our democracy?

By your argument, NO adult has the unfettered right to decide he or she can have sexual relations with another adult.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
You (and others of similar argument) try to say homosexuality is just like heterosexuality and should be treated the same way by society....as you say....that dog don't hunt.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You (and others of similar argument) try to say that homosexuality is evil, and that society should take steps to suppress or eradicate it at all costs. You (and others of similar argument) try to say that, as homosexuality is a danger to society, anyone who practices it or advocates it should be punished, silenced, or shunned by society at large.

Isn't this really what you're saying?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It must stand on it's own merits, and society will decide what to do about it, as it has for all human activity...I hope it fails and they are forced to make their case why their lifestyle is a benefit to society... I am surprised that a secualar humanist wouldn't understand that.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, it appears it is EXACTLY what you're saying. I'm surprised that you (and others of similar argument) cannot be intellectually honest enough to admit that what you really want is laws banning homosexuality and punishing anyone who openly claims such.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>...I am a Christian, and I oppose homosexuality on secular grounds. I have never argued the reltious view, it is simple enough to prove homosexuality is a poor lifestyle for individuals, as well as tolerated but not promoted behaviour for society.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ahh...tolerated but not promoted. Sounds a bit like "separate, but equal." Let me see if I get this straight (pun intended):

We should tolerate homosexuality, as long as homosexuals keep their orientation a closely guarded secret.

If an individual reveals they are homosexual, that toleration should be, for all intents and purposes, suspended in favor of scorn.

We should tolerate homosexuality, unless we suspect that the act is happening...then the cops should bust in and arrest the people involved.

We should tolerate homosexuality, but enact laws and pass Constitutional Amendments in order to make the homosexual lifesytle effectively illegal.

We should tolerate homosexuality, but not allow the gay community any sort of political voice.

We should tolerate homosexuality, but teach our children that it is evil.

<small>[ July 27, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: cjack ]</small>

cjack...If a person intentionally spreads an STD, they should be punished.

...What if they unintentionally do so, or choose lifestyles that increase the risk to public health? Does not the body politic have a right..nee a duty...to act?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

News flash: STDs do not discriminate when it comes to sexual preference. The lifestyle you and I have "chosen" (heterosexuality) has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of cases of STDs throughout history. Does not the body politic have a right...nee a duty...to ban heterosexuality?

SUFDB...You didn't answer the question. Nor did I make any statements about where the distribution of std's...if we are going to discuss, you really need to respond to what I say, otherwise it is not a discussion you are just making a speech, which belies any consideration you seek consensus as opposed to simply promoting your viewpoint...could you please clarify your intent?

But responding to what you did write. I suspect you have no real idea whatsover about the distribution and populations re std transmission (nor do I, so I do not make such statemnents). But I am comfortable noting (from published accounts I have read) AIDS is a much more serious threat to homosexuals, thereby suggesting a public health concern about homosexuality. I am also confident in saying total std transmission being mostly heterosexual is probably true, but only because their is a great numbers disparity between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, that is a meaningless statistic. We cannot eliminate std without draconian control over individual behaviour, but that was not the point. Society has the right and obligation to assess all sexual behaviour in the context of the public good, do you agree that is so, is so why not? And in fact we do impact heterosexuals as well with various health regulations. As to your last point re banning heterosexuality, you miss one salient fact which makes that position moot. You cannot ban that which continues the species. We have to tolerate std's as the price of not becoming extinct...we do not have to do so with homosexuality, they are not the same. But I am with you on banning promiscuity in all it's forms.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....between consenting adults.

.... Is a crippled definition at best. Just because one is say....18 (and as low as 16 in some states) supposedly they can "consent" to sex. Are you saying every consenting adult is psycholically/emotionally healthy enough to "consent" to any sex act? Many people are not psychologically/emotionally equiped to "consent" in a healthy manner.....so what do we do about that? Sex is not a trivial matter, it is extremely important to society (and thusly to our lawmakers) what it's citizens are doing sexually....why? Cause it affects all of us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because one is 18, one can vote. Are you saying that every 18 year old is psychologically/emotionally healthy enough to vote? Voting is not a trivial matter, so how can you possibly justify allowing all people (once they reach a certain age) to participate in our democracy?

SUFDB.....You are again substituting one argument for another, you cannot do that, it is intellectually dishonest (assuming you do seek purposeful discourse instead of political posturing). But in fact I would make the same argument for voting. I do not think society is best served by letting anyone vote without establishing they have sufficent political maturity to do so in a responsible manner. Further, while irresponsible voting could have an impact on society and thereby the individual, it is quite dilute, and the impact small. The consequences of irresonsible sexual choices can be very immediate, devastating, even fatal, hardly apples and oranges cjack.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You (and others of similar argument) try to say homosexuality is just like heterosexuality and should be treated the same way by society....as you say....that dog don't hunt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You (and others of similar argument) try to say that homosexuality is evil, and that society should take steps to suppress or eradicate it at all costs. You (and others of similar argument) try to say that, as homosexuality is a danger to society, anyone who practices it or advocates it should be punished, silenced, or shunned by society at large.

Isn't this really what you're saying?

SUFDB....Perhaps you didn't read my previous post closely enough. I agreed mindless connecting of homosexuality with pedophiles, etc. is not usefull. So maybe you can respond more appropriately, my posiiton is you cannot equate homosexuality to anything else.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It must stand on it's own merits, and society will decide what to do about it, as it has for all human activity...I hope it fails and they are forced to make their case why their lifestyle is a benefit to society... I am surprised that a secualar humanist wouldn't understand that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it appears it is EXACTLY what you're saying. I'm surprised that you (and others of similar argument) cannot be intellectually honest enough to admit that what you really want is laws banning homosexuality and punishing anyone who openly claims such.

SUFDB....Tsk tsk chjack, Come on guy, stick to the discussion. If you can't refute something on it's own merits than say so, don't resort to the shameless and transparent tactic of fear mongering...and DO NOT put words in my mouth, I have not given you permission to do so, and it is rude. But since you ask, I do not want or support any laws that make homosexual behaviour a crime...there can we play nice now?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b]...I am a Christian, and I oppose homosexuality on secular grounds. I have never argued the reltious view, it is simple enough to prove homosexuality is a poor lifestyle for individuals, as well as tolerated but not promoted behaviour for society.[/qb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh...tolerated but not promoted. Sounds a bit like "separate, but equal." Let me see if I get this straight (pun intended):

We should tolerate homosexuality, as long as homosexuals keep their orientation a closely guarded secret.

SUFDB.....No you haven't got it straight. I am talking public policy...you are talking private behaviour. I am in favor of free choice in lettng people choose who they want to associate with (be it live together, who you hire, who you make friends with, whatever). But I am not in favor of public policy that equates homosexual lifestyles with heterosexual, or offers any special treatment or protections of those lifestyles, other than potection of their person and property from criminal activity (ie assault, vandalism, harrassment, etc.).

cj..If an individual reveals they are homosexual, that toleration should be, for all intents and purposes, suspended in favor of scorn.

SUFDB....what are you referring to? There was nothing aboutn this in my post.

cj..We should tolerate homosexuality, unless we suspect that the act is happening...then the cops should bust in and arrest the people involved.

SUFDB...no.

cj...We should tolerate homosexuality, but enact laws and pass Constitutional Amendments in order to make the homosexual lifesytle effectively illegal.

SUFDB...No.

cj...We should tolerate homosexuality, but not allow the gay community any sort of political voice.

SUFDB...That is impossible.

cj...We should tolerate homosexuality, but teach our children that it is evil.

SUFDB...We should teach our children what we think is best...is that what you do? I do.

On this subject I have "attempted" to teach my kids that homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle choice...that some (and it is very few) homosexuals may in fact have a biochemical component (genetically/gestationally determined) which makes them have a sexual attraction to the same gender...but that they still choose (as do heterosexuals) inappropriate behaviour. I do not teach them that anything between consenting adults is ok (cause it is not, and that includes a bunch of stuff besides homosexual issues), that sex can be healthy and unhealthy....just like anything else humans "need" to do, such as eating.

Hope this clarifys what appears to be substantial confusion over the purpose of my post.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by sufdb:
<strong>cjack, from the site you referenced (10 myths) this is quoted..

Secular humanists disagree that, without God, life can have no meaning or purpose. We believe that people create their own meaning and purpose in life. The value and significance of life comes from how we live life, not from some supposed transcendent realm. Humanists believe the meaning of life is to live a life of meaning.

s...Is it just me, or is this a circular statement that says nothing at all except do whatever feels good?
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not at all...

To look at it another way, consider this (attributed to Confucius) that I posted in another thread:

"What is love?" one of his followers asked.

"To love mankind, that is love," he replied.

"But what is it?"

"To hold dear the effort more than the prize may be called love. The joy of doing something not for the prize one would get in the end, but for the joy itself, that may be called love. To do good not because you are going to be rewarded for it in this life or in a life to come, but to do good because you enjoy doing good, that is to love good. Love is its own reward. Love makes all things look beautiful. Love offers peace. When love is at stake, my children, yield not to an army!"

He thought for awhile, then added:

"A heart set on love can do no wrong!"

That sums it up rather nicely, I think.

If you need more, read my sig line...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by sufdb:
<strong>

...You didn't answer the question. Nor did I make any statements about where the distribution of std's...if we are going to discuss, you really need to respond to what I say, otherwise it is not a discussion you are just making a speech, which belies any consideration you seek consensus as opposed to simply promoting your viewpoint...could you please clarify your intent?

But responding to what you did write. I suspect you have no real idea whatsover about the distribution and populations re std transmission (nor do I, so I do not make such statemnents). But I am comfortable noting (from published accounts I have read) AIDS is a much more serious threat to homosexuals, thereby suggesting a public health concern about homosexuality. I am also confident in saying total std transmission being mostly heterosexual is probably true, but only because their is a great numbers disparity between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, that is a meaningless statistic. We cannot eliminate std without draconian control over individual behaviour, but that was not the point. Society has the right and obligation to assess all sexual behaviour in the context of the public good, do you agree that is so, is so why not? And in fact we do impact heterosexuals as well with various health regulations. As to your last point re banning heterosexuality, you miss one salient fact which makes that position moot. You cannot ban that which continues the species. We have to tolerate std's as the price of not becoming extinct...we do not have to do so with homosexuality, they are not the same. But I am with you on banning promiscuity in all it's forms.

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My point and answer to your question regarding STDs was to point out that sexual preference is not relevant to the transmission of such diseases. AIDS has reached epidemic proportions in Africa and that epidemic has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.

Also, I'd like you to clarify your position for me. In the above post you say that it is impossible to eliminate STDs without draconian control over individual behavior, then you turn around and seem to suggest("We have to tolerate std's as the price of not becoming extinct...we do not have to do so with homosexuality") something quite different. Are you saying we shouldn't tolerate homosexuality because of public health concerns?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>The consequences of irresonsible sexual choices can be very immediate, devastating, even fatal, hardly apples and oranges cjack.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I would agree that irresponsible sexual choices and promiscuity can be dangerous...does that mean we should legislate against them?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>I do not want or support any laws that make homosexual behaviour a crime...there can we play nice now?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again, you need to clarify your position. If you do not want laws banning homosexual behavior, then how do you propose to fight what you apparently see as a grave threat to public health?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>I am talking public policy...you are talking private behaviour. I am in favor of free choice in lettng people choose who they want to associate with (be it live together, who you hire, who you make friends with, whatever). But I am not in favor of public policy that equates homosexual lifestyles with heterosexual, or offers any special treatment or protections of those lifestyles, other than potection of their person and property from criminal activity (ie assault, vandalism, harrassment, etc.).</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The question is, at what point does your public policy begin to dictate private behavior?

<small>[ July 27, 2003, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: cjack ]</small>

cj...To look at it another way, consider this (attributed to Confucius) that I posted in another thread:

"What is love?" one of his followers asked.

"To love mankind, that is love," he replied.

"But what is it?"

"To hold dear the effort more than the prize may be called love. The joy of doing something not for the prize one would get in the end, but for the joy itself, that may be called love. To do good not because you are going to be rewarded for it in this life or in a life to come, but to do good because you enjoy doing good, that is to love good.

sufdb...Ok, the philosophy is clear, and provides a motivational paradigm, but it does not answer the question why this behaviour should be chosen.

cj..cont...Love is its own reward. Love makes all things look beautiful. Love offers peace. When love is at stake, my children, yield not to an army!"

Sufdb...This offers a bit of a why, but not really. What does all things look beautiful mean, why is that desireable. Love is peace is a nonsensical statement, anything can be peace, whatever peace is.

cont...He thought for awhile, then added:

"A heart set on love can do no wrong!"

That sums it up rather nicely, I think.

sufdb...It sounds nice, but is useless as a behavioural paradigm in a real world. Hearts are smooth muscle organs designed to pump blood through an organism. So this is allegorical and is trying to say something about not seperateing epectations from choices, I can agree with that, but it is of limited usefullness as we need to have expectations in order to make choices.

Using this example, one could simply pick any person at all, just focus on "loving" them regardless of how they treat you, and that would be a rewarding life.....I don't think so, it could just as easily be a wasted life. But again the problem is how to we assess this, what is the underlying basis for determining successful human behaviour? Turns out the answer to that is very simple, but extemely difficult to implement.

If you need more, read my sig line...[/QB][/QUOTE]

"Life is its own answer. Accept it and enjoy it day by day. Live as well as possible. Expect no more."

sufdb...Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow you (may) die?

cjack, I enjoy, and encourage introspection about why are we here, and what should we do about it. I hope you are not offended by vigorous debate about such matters. Re your sig, it is nothing more than the usual do whatever feels right philosophy, which cannot stand up to any real challenge as a paradigm.

These things cannot be just written down and offered as solutions. They have to make everyday pragmatic sense in terms of individual and species survival.

[/qb][/QUOTE]My point and answer to your question regarding STDs was to point out that sexual preference is not relevant to the transmission of such diseases. AIDS has reached epidemic proportions in Africa and that epidemic has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.

Also, I'd like you to clarify your position for me. In the above post you say that it is impossible to eliminate STDs without draconian control over individual behavior, then you turn around and seem to suggest("We have to tolerate std's as the price of not becoming extinct...we do not have to do so with homosexuality") something quite different. Are you saying we shouldn't tolerate homosexuality because of public health concerns?

Sufdb....I was only refuting the comment about banning heterosexuality for std reasons.

But responding to your question, my main objections to special treatment of homosexual lifestyles is an inappropriate invasion of govt into private choice. I do not want the govt telling me that homosexuals are an identifiable group deserving of minority protections, or modifications of our socio/legal paradigm to accomodate such bhaviour. I doubt I could make a case that legalizing homosexual marriage would have a public health impact...but it could, if the net effect is an increase in homosexual behaviour cause of greater social acceptance, and the fact that gay males are the most promiscuous sexual population. The key issue is whether greater acceptance of homosexuality would encourage experiementation by those who now do not do so cause of social stigma. My guess is it would, and that is one of the concerns by anti-advocates, but I don't know how to prove it, or disprove it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>The consequences of irresonsible sexual choices can be very immediate, devastating, even fatal, hardly apples and oranges cjack.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I would agree that irresponsible sexual choices and promiscuity can be dangerous...does that mean we should legislate against them?

sufdb...If we can effectively, yes. And indeed there are a number of things the govt could do to reduce promiscuous behaviour. That is essentially what statuatory rape laws are about. Clearly down to even 12 or so, we are genetically equipped to make sexual decisions, but the outcome of allowing this would be most likely an increase in promiscuity, so we discourage 18, 19 etc. yo from pursuing underage girls (usually, but is applicable both ways). If it is older men, then is more predatory, but young males are supposed to pursue young females, this provides some kind of brake.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>I do not want or support any laws that make homosexual behaviour a crime...there can we play nice now?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again, you need to clarify your position. If you do not want laws banning homosexual behavior, then how do you propose to fight what you apparently see as a grave threat to public health?

sufdb...that has been clarified above. But the original issue was gay marriage. I propose to oppose any law defining marriage as anything but heterosexual monogamy. Further I oppose any laws that add sexual orientation as a protected minority status. Ya know cjack, the whole notion of sexual orientation as a identifiable characteristic similar to race, gender is ridiculous. Who says, who defines. If there is some benefit to be gained on a given day by saying one is homosexual, who is to say they aren't? This is becoming a problem with the interface between the state and church. What the heck is a religion anyways, and how much protection should we give to the holy order of frog worshipers anyways? The battlefront on this these days is the wiccan movement. Wanting access and representation similar to that of Christians, Muslims, etc. I don't see it myself.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>I am talking public policy...you are talking private behaviour. I am in favor of free choice in lettng people choose who they want to associate with (be it live together, who you hire, who you make friends with, whatever). But I am not in favor of public policy that equates homosexual lifestyles with heterosexual, or offers any special treatment or protections of those lifestyles, other than potection of their person and property from criminal activity (ie assault, vandalism, harrassment, etc.).</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The question is, at what point does your public policy begin to dictate private behavior?[/QB][/QUOTE]

sufdb...ah yes, the perennial question. Put me in charge and I will let you know <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

but to tackle it a bit. I guess in part it is when govt "makes" (with intent) one act a certain way. Such as the seperate but equal racial policies. Or when govt starts telling everyone who they can let in their private school, or sell their house to, or who they can hire (other than race, or gender....and I start getting shakey at including religion as a protection in hiring).

The notion though that defining marriage as only heterosexual is discriminating is nonsense. There are strong compelling reasons for heterosexuality (survival of the species), so facillitateing and basing social paradigms on that makes sense. There are no strong compelling reasons (I can see)to extend marital benefits to other groupings (including polygamy).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by sufdb:
<strong>But responding to your question, my main objections to special treatment of homosexual lifestyles is an inappropriate invasion of govt into private choice. I do not want the govt telling me that homosexuals are an identifiable group deserving of minority protections, or modifications of our socio/legal paradigm to accomodate such bhaviour.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Who's asking for "special" treatment of homosexuality?

IIRC, this entire debate came about because of the ruling in the Texas sodomy case...where the government invasion of the private lives of homosexuals was struck down.

I'd also agree that we don't need the government telling us that homosexuals are an identifiable group...that is self-evident. The question regarding "protection" depends upon the level of discrimination against this group. If people are being discriminated against (losing job opportunities, being denied housing, being harrassed in public, etc.) because they are a part of this group, then we need to look at whether or not they need protection from such discrimination.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong> I doubt I could make a case that legalizing homosexual marriage would have a public health impact...but it could, if the net effect is an increase in homosexual behaviour cause of greater social acceptance, and the fact that gay males are the most promiscuous sexual population. The key issue is whether greater acceptance of homosexuality would encourage experiementation by those who now do not do so cause of social stigma. My guess is it would, and that is one of the concerns by anti-advocates, but I don't know how to prove it, or disprove it.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My guess is that if some sort of civil union were recognized for homosexuals, this would in fact encourage monogamous relationships. Consider this for a moment:

There is an enormous amount of social inertia pushing people to "settle down, get married, and start a family." There are financial, social, and legal benefits to heterosexual marriage. There is a legitimate institution in place and a good deal of pressure from society at large for people to get married.

Perhaps a legitimate institution in place for gay civil unions that provided economic, legal, and social benefits might give an incentive for homosexuals to similarly "settle down."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>And indeed there are a number of things the govt could do to reduce promiscuous behaviour. That is essentially what statuatory rape laws are about. Clearly down to even 12 or so, we are genetically equipped to make sexual decisions, but the outcome of allowing this would be most likely an increase in promiscuity, so we discourage 18, 19 etc. yo from pursuing underage girls (usually, but is applicable both ways). If it is older men, then is more predatory, but young males are supposed to pursue young females, this provides some kind of brake.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I fail to see what statutory rape laws have to do with the issue of whether or not the government can stop promiscuity between adults. Statutory rape laws, as I see them, are less about promiscuity and more about protecting underage boys and girls from older sexual predators. Pray tell, what could the government do to reduce promiscuity among adults short of intruding into the bedroom?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>Ya know cjack, the whole notion of sexual orientation as a identifiable characteristic similar to race, gender is ridiculous. Who says, who defines. If there is some benefit to be gained on a given day by saying one is homosexual, who is to say they aren't?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How about, for a moment, dropping the notion that I'm arguing for "special" rights or benefits specifically for being gay?

Currently, an admission (or even suspicion) of homosexuality can lead from discrimination in the workplace all the way to the risk of physical violence. Do you think that maybe it would be beneficial for our society to arrive at a place where a homosexual doesn't have to worry about being beaten and left to die on a roadside in Wyoming simply because of sexual orientation?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>
This is becoming a problem with the interface between the state and church. What the heck is a religion anyways, and how much protection should we give to the holy order of frog worshipers anyways? The battlefront on this these days is the wiccan movement. Wanting access and representation similar to that of Christians, Muslims, etc. I don't see it myself.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Actually, there should be NO interface between church and state. I say if wiccans can get the government to recognize them as a religion, then more power to 'em. They see themselves as a continuation of religious traditions that pre-date Christianity, and as such, certainly deserve consideration.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>I guess in part it is when govt "makes" (with intent) one act a certain way. Such as the seperate but equal racial policies. Or when govt starts telling everyone who they can let in their private school, or sell their house to, or who they can hire (other than race, or gender....and I start getting shakey at including religion as a protection in hiring).</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Mmm...do you feel that discrimination based upon religion is okay?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>
The notion though that defining marriage as only heterosexual is discriminating is nonsense. There are strong compelling reasons for heterosexuality (survival of the species), so facillitateing and basing social paradigms on that makes sense. There are no strong compelling reasons (I can see)to extend marital benefits to other groupings (including polygamy).</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Just a point here: heterosexuality is necessary for the survival of the species...marriage is not. Marriage is a social institution within the paradigm of heterosexuality. I would argue that there are compelling reasons to have a similar social institution within the paradigm of homosexuality.

Such an institution (call it gay marrriage, civil union, whatever you like) would by its very existence encourage long-term monogamous relationships and discourage promiscuity. Just like traditional marriage.

On a side note, you misunderstood my use of the Confucius story and my sig line. It was a response to your post regarding humanists and the search for meaning in life. It had nothing to do with homosexuality. And you also missed the point, I think.

<small>[ July 28, 2003, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: cjack ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Can you really argue the dishonesty of 'slippery slope'???

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I didn't read the thread, so perhaps I am commenting out of line on this but generally the problem with a slippery slope argument is that it asserts an if-then relationship between two events. Then attempts to argue against the first by using the problems associated with the second.

For example: If gay marriages are legalized, then pedphilia must also be legalized.

If gay marriages are legalized, there is NO obligaiton or implication that pedophilia will become legal. In fact, I have not seen any lessening of the horror and outrage expressed towards pedophilia in mainstream society no matter what NAMBLA says. Let me just ask you this question - if gay marriage WAS legalized, would you then automatically rubber stamp an OK on pedophilia? How about inter-species marriage?

Just my $.02, I apologize if I'm out of context - I found this thread from the other thread on secular humanism and missed the first thread entirely.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
posted by sufbd
Just because one is say....18 (and as low as 16 in some states) supposedly they can "consent" to sex. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, there is no other 'official' rite of passage. Sure, it would be wonderful if we could give an aptitude test for understanding at some point... hrm.. for a whole lot of things. But, society can't reasonably do that and I would hope there would be a lot of questions about the validity of any such test (who gets to design it.. can I? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> )... we have to draw the line somewhere between childhood and adulthood. When should humans be expected to be responsible for themselves and their own behaviour? Our society has picked somewhat arbitrary ages that are our 'best guesses'. We guess that by the age of 16 someone is old enough to begin to drive. We guess that by the age of 18 someone is old enough to vote.. or enlist in the armed forces and fight.. or consent to sexual relations. The reality is that some folks should wait until later and some might be ready sooner. But, we, as a society have decided to make that decision based on an arbitrary age rather than a personal evaluation. It may not be the best way, but at LEAST it's an objective measure (rather than subjective).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> posted by sufbd
It must stand on it's own merits, and society will decide what to do about it, as it has for all human activity. And I am ok with that. Homosexuality advocates can attempt manipulation through fairness and false equivalency arguments, it is a strategy...I hope it fails and they are forced to make their case why their lifestyle is a benefit to society... I am surprised that a secualar humanist wouldn't understand that.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Homosexuality != heterosexuality. Homosexuality != pedophilia.

Good. We're on the same page there. I'm not sure what you mean by making a case as to why their lifestyle is a benefit to society. At least in the case of gay marriage, it could be argued that such an institution would have a stabilizing effect on the homosexual population by providing an alternative to promiscuity? Would that be considered a benefit to you? Certainly I would see it as a stabilizing element and I would assert that is positive for society.

As far as homosexuality being harmful to the species because it does not contribute to the propigation of the species, I would just like to point out that the human population is GROWING. In fact, it has grown large enough and continues to grow fast enough (overall) that it is causing great concern amongst scientists that if we do not find a way to slow down or arrest our population growth in the future, we face grave environmental consequences. Now, it IS true that some populations in certain parts of the World are stabilizing and even declining, but the fact remains that those areas are being over compensated for by other areas of the world. The human population is in no way at risk for extinction due to a DECLINE in population growth. Therefore, homosexuals who do not contribute to the growth of the population are NOT putting the survival of the species at risk. I haven't seen any statistics even suggesting that the number of homosexuals not propigating the species is even having a POSTIVE effect on negative population growth... though perhaps that could be used as an argument for the benefits to society of that lifestyle.

But population growth is not the real reason I would advocate for gay marriages. The 'real' reason is that I think it's time has come. Homosexual relationships are much more mainstream these days and I see this as a step in the right direction towards encouraging people to 'settle down.' Tolerance should be actively encouraged because it has been found to markedly reduce violence. So, I will also assert that tolerance of homosexual relationships in an effort to reduce violence within our society is another good reason.

For me, the issues of gay marriage vs. child sexual abuse are entirely seperate. Yes, to gay marriage. No, to child sexual abuse (homosexual or heterosexual).

sufdb
Member
Member # 27316

posted July 25, 2003 02:14 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
miss priss...Doesn't everyone deserve to be with a person that they love and a person that returns that love....no matter your color, religion....and your sex?

sufdb...Why?

I can appreciate your sentiment, but no one deserves anything near as I can tell. We all get what we work for, fight for, beg for, etc.

In this case the issue was homosexuals wanting benefits now reserved for monogamous heterosexuals.... deserveing these benefits just "because" doesn't work. And they (all of us) already have the right to live with who we want, and love who we want, that wasn't the issue.
-----------------------------------------------

Is that supposed to mean that us monogomous heterosexuals are better than homosexuals?

That's kind of like saying that whites are better than blacks in my opinion. That doesn't wash with me. I'm no better than anybody else.....gay, straight....black or white.

If WE ALL have the right already to live and love who we want then I don't see the problem in homosexual relationships taking the next step to marriage. If it's a religious issue then there are plenty of Justices of The Peace that will perform the ceremony. Hundreds of "heterosexuals" are married that way every year.

As for none of us deserving anything. I think you are wrong about that.

As for only getting what you work, fight or beg for.....sorry, it doesn't always work out that way. Some of the people on this site are a good example of that.

I agree with the word work.....I should work for the things that I want....I shouldn't have to fight or beg for them.

This is an issue that will probably be debated until the end of time.

I dare say this is vearing off course a bit...
...that's OK.

To the merit of 'slippery slope'... In Defense of the Slippery Slope.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

Interesting...a lawyer defends the slippery slope!

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Sometimes, though, it is advantageous to look at the other side of the argument.

Let's, for the moment, accept that the slippery slope is a legitimate argument and not a logical fallacy.

It would then be reasonable to assume that the slippery slope goes in both directions, right?

So today - A Constitutional amendment declaring that only heterosexuals can marry.

Tomorrow - A law declaring that heterosexuality is the only "natural" sexual orientation.

Later - A law banning homosexual behavior.

Some say it will never happen. Well, look at history. Chances are, your state has just such a law on the books...unless you live in Texas!

And again...

Yesterday - Congress oversteps its bounds and changes our national motto from E Pluribus Unum to an affirmation of faith in God. (1956)

Today - The Faith-Based Initiative already uses public money to convert prisoners to Christianity and Congress is in the process of making publicly funded religious discrimination legal.

Tomorrow - Where does this slippery slope lead?

I learned long ago that in debating the homosexuality issue, it's impossible to do so using religion or morality. Society is FORCED to accept the beliefs of all 'religions' without question. This is the Politically Correct WAY. If one chooses to follow this model, homosexuality (and all the debauchery that goes along with it) must be accepted.

I suspect this is why the entire Secular Humanist movement was created. What better way to justify things that would otherwise be condemned by society, than to call them acceptable under one's own 'relgion' or 'beliefs'?

Politicians do NOTHING to eradicate this--if anything, they use the causes of special interest groups to further their careers and solidify votes. In doing this, they unwillingly create hundreds of thousands of subcultures (all hoping to be recognized)which undermine the values that the country was founded on.

As a Libertarian, I believe in minimal governmental control and the fundamental freedom of individuals. In *MY* Libertarian world, homosexual people would be FREE to act on their every whim, HOWEVER, they would be SEGREGATED from those who didn't accept their lifestyle.

Why would homosexuals NOT agree to exclusion? It is only when the inequal treatment of homosexuals is examined that society begins to victimize them. In an exclusionary society, homosexuals would live among their own, make their own rules and live their lives AS THEY SEE FIT. They would have 100% freedom and happiness AND a tolerant society to live in.

For those who would like to parallel this to racial EXCLUSION, I invite all arguments. It is my belief that racial exclusion could easily work in the same manner.

If Haitian people, for example, were segregated according to those who practiced witchcraft and those who were Christians, then they could live in relative peace and harmony with other Haitians who believed in their way of life. They would have supreme power over who to allow into their commune, based on the person's beliefs. Should the Christian Haitian choose to live with other non-Haitian Christians, then they would be perfectly free to do so.

The system works perfectly if a few rules are introduced:

1. Internal governing of each commune, based on the needs and wants of the inhabitants. (Gay Commune would have an all gay "government" which would in turn, be completely senstive to the needs of the inhabitants).

2. No cross-governing. (Each commune of gays, lesbians, Christians, Christian/Gays, Christian/Lesbians and so forth would only have the right to govern their own people. Those who disagree with the governing system would be required to lobby as they see fit or jump communes).

3. Individual freedom to jump communes. (Each person is free to APPLY to join any commune and can only enter into their commune of choice if they fit the criteria of the commune---so therefore, if you're not a gay female, you cannot enter the Lesbian commune)

4. No collective government.

5. No inter-communal lobbying.

YES--this entire argument is somewhat "tongue in cheek", however, it DOES have it's merits. This is the perfect framework for harmonious living since NO ONE feels oppressed.

Freedom is essential to well being. The "melting pot" solution is no longer valid.

*Aeri for President* <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />