Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by zombie, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. AaylaSecurOWNED Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 6
    Which isn't really an valid distinction. There are things that are "illegal" that involve only civil penalties, or are proscribed, but have no specific penalties outlined in statute. The existence of criminal penalties isn't a magic wand that creates a distinction between illegality and not-legality, as you're terming them."Illegal" is a term of art that doesn't work the way you're trying to use it.

    Whether applying the 'separate, but equal' terminology to this debate is appropriate is a fair discussion, but it's also possible to think that the terminology applies while not thinking that Jim Crow "equates" to gay rights or that they comprise the same struggle. They are comparable, though. They're both state-endorsed systems of oppression of minorities, the fact that things like criminalized sodomy have been struck down by the Supreme Court (in 2003 - 40 years after the Civil Rights Act) doesn't invalidate the other ongoing legal oppression that exists when gay marriage is illegal/not legal/whatever term you'd like to use.
    V-2 likes this.
  2. Souderwan Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    Ok. Good. We understand each other.
  3. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Okay, so the Jim Crow laws had stronger penalties behind them (then again, jail is probably the only penalty you could use to deter someone from physically using a water fountain). But isn't the effect of Jim Crow and same-sex marriage bans that both create a group of de facto second class citizens?
    V-2 and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  4. Souderwan Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    That's a valid point, which is why I said:

    I am not, nor have I ever, espoused a belief that homosexual couples should not be allowed to enter into whatever contract they want to and call it whatever they want to. In my ideal world, the State would not be in the business of sanctioning or subsidizing unions between consenting adults. But since it is, the State should do so consistently.

    But. Under the Jim Crow era and anti-miscegenation laws, it wasn't just that the state did not recognize a marriage between blacks and whites. The State actively--and with full use of its police power--criminalized it. In 1950 in the State of Virginia, if a black man married a white woman, the marriage wouldn't just be legally invalid, both he and his wife could be put on trial and sent to prison. No homosexual couple anywhere in America currently faces that kind of threat. I do think that this distinction is important. Observing this distinction does not in any way invalidate the importance of the issue at hand. My comments in this thread were only to address that single point.
  5. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    Brian, do you think that consanguineous couples should face legal penalties for having sexual intercourse? Because, under current law, they do, much like interracial couples used to.
    Last edited by Obi-Zahn Kenobi, Mar 17, 2013
  6. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Well, at least with the point Souderwan was bringing up, it should be kept in mind that Living v Virginia didn't come an interracial couple that wanted to get marry and couldn't, it came from an interracial couple that traveled to Washington D.C., got married THERE, then returned to Virginia and were arrested and charged for having a marriage certificate. They may be out there, but I've yet to hear that happening with same-sex marriage. There is, imo, a distinct difference between pushing for greater government recognition of something, and the government prohibiting someone from doing something. The anti-miscegenation laws, and many of the other Jim Crow laws, were of the latter, prohibiting people from doing certain things. In contrast, the same-sex marriage issue itself is very much about the former (other issues, like the sodomy laws that were struck down, were far more in line with Jim Crow laws, imo, as that was a restriction of what one could do. The Briggs Initiative in California would be another older example).

    While I think that is a distinction that matters when discussing it, I don't think it doesn't make it an important thing to work towards fixing. It's still a problem, I just don't think it is a problem of the same nature. Although at this point, I've long since learned that it tends to come down to differences on how people view what 'rights' are, it seems.
  7. Souderwan Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    Honestly, I don't know enough about the issue to speak intelligently about it. I certainly think that any parent-child sexual activity should be illegal, but that has to do with the idea of consent being even possible to establish in such a situation.

    But brother and sister? Generally, I understand the urge to prevent them from procreating because of the harm it would likely do to any offspring. Since no one is going to agree to state-ordered abortions, I can see how criminalizing sexual activity would be an alternative. But where does one draw the line? I don't even know how these laws work or how they are enforced so I'm pretty reluctant to say much on the matter. What I will say is that generally speaking, I think the State should err on the side of liberty and not interfere with people's inherent freedom to do what they choose in their specific circumstances to the maximum extent possible.
  8. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    I think the concern is as much about coercion, especially since one child is usually older than the other, and this creates an obvious power dynamic between them.
  9. Souderwan Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    Yeah, I can see that. I was thinking entirely about adults, but certainly that kind of dynamic might extend into adulthood, too
  10. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    Then what about children who live together? Or children raised together on the same street, or in the same apartment building? It seems to me that the concerns would be similar. I do recognize this concern and see the problem. It's a legitimate problem and one of the reasons that I oppose consanguineous relationships in the immediate family (I am totally fine with first cousin relationships though, while thinking them weird). But I know lots of people who have bad relationships with varying degrees of emotional abuse and control issues and all sorts of things - but I respect their decisions and their right to enter into bad relationships, even if they're impaired in their decision making. I really don't want the government saying, "Sorry, you can't get back together with your ex because she's controlling and you always seem so miserable when you're with her." To me it's kind of a similar thing.

    I definitely agree about erring on the side of liberty. I don't think the state should determine who reproduces or not. Should two people be prevented from breeding just because they happen to carry, say, a gene for cystic fibrosis? 25% of their children will have CF. That's much higher than the odds of two siblings having a child with birth defects. I really don't want the government telling me with whom I can or cannot breed. Legally prohibiting two related adults from having intercourse to me seems as silly as prohibiting two people from having anal sex. Yeah, I think both are gross and have no intention of doing either, or even condoning either, but I still don't think the government should be telling people they can or cannot if it's only affecting them.
  11. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Really? Are you honestly arguing that, on average, the relationship a person has with their siblings is equivalent with the relationship they have with anyone else that happens to live in the same apartment complex? Come on. Yes, these risks exist at some level everywhere. Unless in complete and permanent solitude, some sort of abusive or unhealthy relationship can develop. But just because the government doesn't protect from the most abstract and implausible risks doesn't mean it's inappropriate to put up safeguards against more obvious ones. I think you might concede there is a difference in the plausibility of the scenario we're discussing when we talk immediate family versus pretty much anything else.

    To me, it's fundamentally different. This isn't just a person making a single bad decision. Someone with access to a victim from the time of childhood can systematically warp their reasoning capacity such that they never really stood a chance of making rational decision. That's not the same thing as a rational, high-functioning person wandering in to an abusive relationship, or even the same as a serially abused person who can no longer break the cycle. There is a huge, fundamental difference between any of these cases and situations where people never had a remotely normal trajectory of development to begin with.
    Last edited by Jabba-wocky, Mar 17, 2013
    NYCitygurl likes this.
  12. Guinastasia Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2002
    star 6
    Are we really going to start comparing homosexuality to incest? :oops:

    I once heard an expression that said something like, while you're not likely to get pulled over for driving while gay, nobody gets kicked out of their family for being black. Interesting comparison. Both have to deal with their own discrimination.

    It's only been ten years since sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional. Before that, you could be arrested simply for sleeping with someone of the same sex. That's messed up. Homosexuality isn't always a protected class, like race, sex, religion, etc, meaning you CAN be discriminated for being gay. And that's wrong.

    Not being gay or black, maybe I shouldn't presume to speak for either, but as far as I'm concerned discrimination and bigotry is wrong no matter who it's against.
  13. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    As far as I see it, if they're consenting adults I really don't see the issue, be it partners of the same sex or partners that are related.
  14. Souderwan Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    No. I think he was comparing regulation/restriction of homosexual marriage between consenting adults to regulation/restriction of incesteous marriage between consenting adults. I don't think that's inherently a :oops:-worthy comparison.

    Interesting you should say that. My grandmother wouldn't have anything to do with me when I was a baby because my dad was white. But I actually agree with the sentiment. The fact that homosexual kids spend so much of their lives in angst about announcing who they are even to their own families is genuinely tragic.
  15. V-2 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    star 4
    Bringing up incest (or even bestiality) in a debate about gay marriage is a standard tactic for ignorant bigots; don't get carried along by it.
    Last edited by V-2, Mar 18, 2013
  16. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I would say there's far more bigotry involved, on average, in grouping incest and bestiality together than there is grouping homosexuality and incest together. It is, imo, completely reasonable to discuss incest, when it involves consenting adults, when the whole thrust of a movement is that society shouldn't be saying what does or does not constitute and acceptable union between consenting adults that can be considered a marriage.
    Souderwan likes this.
  17. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    Except that I support legal marriage rights for homosexual and consanguineous couples, as well as for polyamorous groups. If anyone is a bigot, it's those who oppose the marriage rights of related couples or polygamists.

    This isn't a tactic. I think it's weird and gross but I think it should be legal.
  18. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    Attacking the character of a person is a standard tactic used by people who want to distract attention away from the argument.

    Let's objectively consider propositions and assume that they are advanced in good faith, ok? No one here is a bigot...
  19. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    LOL. How would you even know this? It's not like bigots are going to use "Hey I'm a bigot!" as their signature.
    V-2 likes this.
  20. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Support for gay marriage reached a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, marking a dramatic change in public attitudes on the subject across the past decade. Fifty-eight percent of Americans now say it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to wed.

    That number has grown sharply in ABC News/Washington Post polls, from a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, advancing to a narrow majority for the first time only two years ago, and now up again to a significant majority for the first time.

    Most Americans, moreover, say the U.S. Constitution should trump state laws on gay marriage, a question now before the U.S. Supreme Court. And – in another fundamental shift – just 24 percent now see homosexuality as a choice, down from 40 percent nearly 20 years ago. It’s a view that closely relates to opinions on the legality of same-sex marriage.

    Intensity of sentiment about gay marriage also shows considerable change in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. In 2004, strong opponents outnumbered strong supporters by a broad 34 percentage points. Today strong supporters are ascendant, outnumbering strong opponents by 11 points.


    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/poll-tracks-dramatic-rise-in-support-for-gay-marriage/

    58%?!? I knew it would keep growing, but this seems really fast. Probably the fastest the support for a civil rights issue has ever been.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Mar 18, 2013
  21. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    That's what happens on a slippery slope. You go faster and faster...
  22. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
  23. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Anybody see Hilary's video message today fully committing her support for Same Sex Marriage?
  24. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    Yes. I must say that it kinda bugs the hell out of me how incredibly obvious it is that the Democratic party and many of its prominent members have come out in support of same sex marriage for political expediency. Understandable, yes, but still annoying.
  25. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Didn't politicians also come around to civil rights for political expediency? Also, when the American public turned against the Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan wars, politicians did the same.
    V-2 likes this.