Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter what the motivations. In your example, I don't think its really discrimination until you've denied them something...or treated them differently. For example, denying homosexuals marital rights because of their sexual orientation would be discrimination. Simply holding the opinion that they should not marry would be bigotry. Just out of curiosity, what about holding the opinion that gays shouldn't marry makes it less hateful than thinking interracial couples shouldn't marry?
I think that you can tie barring of interracial marriage immediately back to racism / racialism. As I explained earlier... some things are tied back to race, a biological factor, and others are tied back to what is perceived as the ethics and morals of sexuality.
Sexuality is a vast and large area that has an immediate impact on the lives and the perceptions of the people.
A mere biological detail such as race is obviously irrelevant as people of any race can have any cultural characteristics, ranging from the positive ones (religious, chaste, disciplined, creative, romantic, stoic) to the negative (promiscuous, selfcentered, selfinterested, etc.).
But sexual orientation does not only effect some legalistic stance on marriage but has wide sweeping moral ramifications whereas race does not.
Furthermore, what makes it immoral? I understand that some people think that god finds it immoral...but is that all? When you kill someone, you've taken their life. Steal from someone, and you've taken their property. When two gay people marry, no one is hurt, quite the opposite. What makes it immoral?
It makes sense to simply repeat it: "But sexual orientation does not only effect some legalistic stance on marriage but has wide sweeping moral ramifications whereas race does not."
Plato had some interesting ideas about 'licentiousness' and I will quote some Plato, Book IV for you:
Plato said:
Then to sum up: This is the point to which, above all, the attention of our rulers should be directed, --that music and gymnastic be preserved in their original form, and no innovation made. They must do their utmost to maintain them intact. And when any one says that mankind most regard
The newest song which the singers have, they will be afraid that he may be praising, not new songs, but a new kind of song; and this ought not to be praised, or conceived to be the meaning of the poet; for any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole State, and ought to be prohibited. So Damon tells me, and I can quite believe him;-he says that when modes of music change, of the State always change with them.
Yes, said Adeimantus; and you may add my suffrage to Damon's and your own.
Then, I said, our guardians must lay the foundations of their fortress in music?
Yes, he said; the lawlessness of which you speak too easily steals in.
Yes, I replied, in the form of amusement; and at first sight it appears harmless.
Why, yes, he said, and there is no harm; were it not that little by little this spirit of licence, finding a home, imperceptibly penetrates into manners and customs; whence, issuing with greater force, it invades contracts between man and man, and from contracts goes on to laws and constitutions, in utter recklessness, ending at last, Socrates, by an overthrow of all rights, private as well as public.
Is that true? I said.
That is my belief, he replied.
Then, as I was saying, our youth should be trained from the first in a stricter system, for if amusements become lawless, and the youths themselves become lawless, they can never grow up into well-conducted and virtuous citizens.
Very true, he said.
And when they have made a good beginning in play, and by the help of music have gained the habit of good order, then this habit of order, in a manner how unlike the lawless play of the others! will accompany them in all their actions and be a principle of growth to them, and if there be any fallen places a principle in the State will raise them up again.
In short, there is a perpetual struggle to maintain the status quo so as to allow for the maintenance of the order of the whole.
The Order is the essence of the nation -- it is what creates harmony. A society is not merely a group of law -- in fact, Plato goes on to criticize the uselessness of laws in the face of the culture of a society immediately after this piece -- but it is the inherent harmony of the society as an organic body.
The youth have the duty to become properly educated and to inherit the role of
Guardians of the State, Guards of the Society, if their society had been created in the proper fashion.
If not, they have the duty to create it.
Homosexuality, of course, invites licentiousness if it is practiced without a strict and rigorous order that is codifying and positive.. Of course, though, the Order which we stand for is one of other traditionalism. Hellenist social standards have perished with the rise of populism in the 19th century.
The West looks to Christendom & Islam, the East looks to Confucianism & Buddhism. These are the basis of the National Institutions and the future Far Right Wing movements, and are a part of our intellectual tradition. Perhaps some atheist asepcts can be adopted but, even still, in the Natural Order of things, homosexuality is still a deviation that invites licentiousness within the society.
Basically, homosexuality cannot jive at all with the religious institutions fundamental to a society, and moreover,
homosexual movements have allied themselves with the Capitalists and the Leftists, both of which are the enemies of the traditionalist...
Surely, you see what I mean.
I can't stand them. Even the few documentaries left seem to just skim things instead of getting in depth (North America and Wild Russia were pretty cool but only focused on each subject for a couple of minutes before moving onto something else).
