The Gay Brain - Updated

this is the kind of thread you won't find on gomer.com.

I'll probably dumb this thread down a bit, but here goes:

I want homosexuality to be accepted to the point that nobody feels as though they have to remain in the closet.

I have a dream....of a society where men deal with their homo feelings, and don't try to snuff them out...I don't want some closet gay marrying my hypothetical daughter, and blowing guys behind the Chevron station on tuesday nights....or taking a "wide stance" in a men's room stall, like that infamous closet gay right-wing congressman.
 
name....that is the point.....do you think it SHOULD be legal to step on someone's toes purposely? what about punching them in the face? what about stabbing them in the back?

get it? to make any of those illegal is to legally enforce morality. why is that a problem?

the only question is where do we draw the line? i don't want anyone being required to honor the sabbath or to speak kindly to their spouse for instance. so where do we draw the line?

i was just pointing out the absurdity or myopic understanding of those who seem to think we never legalize morality.
 
^
^

we have drawn the line on this thread, and the line is where someone else is hurt, etc., by the practice, act, or belief.
 
The rather obvious answer to the toe-stepping comparison is that your right to step on toes infringes on someone else's personal rights. Now, everyone knows that and just ignored it to try to prove a point, but there it is. Our laws, which do enforce morality, are mostly designed to protect the rights of others. For instance, that's why you can't drink and drive or steal from someone.

Preventing gay marriage is an entirely different class of law. It isn't designed to protect someone's rights, it's simply one group saying "I don't think X is moral, so no one should be able to do it." We shouldn't be making that kind of law without a compelling interest.
 
fine creed.....but that IS a morality that is being legislated and whose to say it is the right one? i actually tend to agree with it as a matter of public policy.....but it leaves PLENTY of tricky questions.

for instance, should child porn be illegal if it is merely virtual? what if it has already been created and those being harmed are no longer being harmed? is it ok for someone to look at that?
 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It seems to me, mop, that the quote above is the morality that our government seeks to enforce. Of course, the Declaration is not a legislative document, but that passage describes the goal of a government as envisioned by the founders of our country. My statements above really all emanate from this idea; in our country, every man should be free to pursue his own happiness, subject to constraints only when such pursuit would deprive others of their life, liberty, or happiness.

Now, you can call that legislating "morality," and I guess it qualifies. However, it is the least restrictive system possible, seeking not to tell people how to live their lives, but rather to ensure that each man can live his life as he sees fit. If anything, this ethos seems to me almost the antithesis of what we traditionally think of as a moral code. More important than all else is individual freedom.

As for your kiddie porn example, I'm not sure I totally follow the set-up, but my viewpoint is pretty simple. Creating pornography using minors (who are deemed unable to consent to such activities) should be illegal. This law fits perfectly into the rubric developed above, as it restricts one man's freedom in defense of another. It also makes reasonable sense to prohibit distribution/possession of such materials, as that is the only way to lessen the incentive to produce such materials. Therefore, the purpose of these laws is to protect children and deter such activities (even if you're punishing someone for possessing existing work).
 
Looks like a couple of posters have taken their ball and gone home. But they'll be back on the next "gay" thread spewing the same tired rhetoric.
 
This thread has taken so many rabbit trails! I was trying to deal with one point at a time and then several others are opened up. Nature of the beast, I guess.
wink.gif


The point of my toe-stepping example was just to say that SOMEONE is going to get offended. The best real world example may be polygamist compound in Texas. If we say that polygamy is wrong. The polygamists are rightfully pissed. If we say it isn't wrong. Others who find such a practice offensive are pissed. I don't care how petty or large the example. Typically someone is going to get upset. Its not a neutral question. Either way its decided, someone's morality is being forced on someone else's.

If someone forced me to say what I compare homosexuality to... I'd say two promiscuous teenagers.

No I don't think we should have laws against that either.

NAIU... You mentioned that we were speaking past each other. Agreed. Partly because we have different definitions for words... Such as morality and the like. I plan on starting a thread on that soon for further discussion.
 
OC,

For me, I have trouble with your examples. I get your point that being born a certain way does not make it morally correct. And while your Pedophile example makes the point easily understood, it also sends a subliminal message of comparing homosexuality with pedophilia. I don't like the comparison because of the "hurts others" issue. And I don't like the example because pedophilia is obviously considered immoral by virtually everyone and homosexuality is not.

So now you are comparing homosexuality to promiscuous teenagers. Once again, you have sent a subliminal message here about the gay sexual lifestyle. That probably wasn't your point, but that is a reasonable impression. I think your point is more about sex outside of marriage.

I have another issue with this example. The context of the original post (and yes, I agree with you that this thread has gone on many tangents) is that gay people are born that way. I don't like the comparison of being gay with the sexual activities of immature teenagers. That is a phase of life many of us have lived and then regret or disapprove of later. It isn't a lifelong event

I have actually thought about your posts and have tried to come up with what I thought was a good example. Something that is genetic, does not harm others, and that most people would consider immoral. Nothing comes to mind is this regard.
 
i dont care what anybody does as long as i dont have to pay for it...ex: government makes businesses pay for health insurance for gay couples and adopted children.
 
Chipper, I think your polygamy example (and the toe-stepping) can be easily resolved by reading my last post. The government shouldn't give a damn if other people are offended by someone's actions. They should only care if those actions hurt a 3rd party. You don't have a right not to be offended, which is what the govt. would be enforcing by stopping polygamy (the practice of it, not the legal form).
 
GTT, in my research left-handedness is by far the best analogy. It's not perfectly hereditary. In fact, it behaves very similarly to homosexuality. For some reason, though, you don't see people out there saying that left-handedness is a choice and that maybe they should just decide to use their right hand anyway. I wonder why that is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top