What science says about homosexuality

[Copperpennies12]

I saw your Supreme Court citation. Could you provide more info on who said it? I am trying to find the case it was said in and under what context it was said. I find that quote disturbing on a number of levels, if nothing else that the judge seems to think that businesses closing on Sunday is observing the Sabbath.

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

 

[Copperpennies12]

I found it. It is almost an offhand remark in that opinion. It sets not legal precedence and, therefor, is just the opinion of the justice in question. The case had nothing to do with the US being a Christian nation or not, it was about immigration.

While it didn't set a legal precedent, it was the opinion of the Supreme Court and presented as a given fact. Did you see a dissenting opinion in that case about the notion?

Also, you might want to review the other link to the Library of Congress.

 

[Copperpennies12]

Currently, yes. But in a generation or two, when the opposite is true, what will you argument be then?

You've already responded to my other points (arguments). You know what they are.

 

[IzzyPop]

Who said the animal has to sign? Why does marriage even have to be a matter of consent?

Because marriage is a contract, nothing more or less. If consent is not there, the contract is null and void.

When you look at gay marriage and all the arguments you quickly find that it does come down to a matter of values for both sides but only one side admits it. The other side hides from it because they know if they make it a matter of values, they lose. Most people's values are against gay marriage.

I disagree. I support same sex marriage because I see it as a 'values' issue. I value equality. I value freedom. I value these ideals higher than I value my discomfort of seeing two men kiss.

 

[b&wpac4]

The funny thing is that homosexual marriage doesn't effect me one bit. I'm not gay, I don't have any close friends or family who are gay. I just see it as a denial of rights and that bothers me. Nobody is going to have a single issue when I marry my fiance (well, except maybe certain members of our families, but one cannot escape that). I just feel it sad that I am allowed to pick the person I want to marry and I cannot imagine wanting to find another person when there are others out there right now who are being told "No, sorry mate, you gotta find someone else, we don't approve."

 

[LightHorseman]

The links are still in the thread. They aren't hard to find when you search this thread and use my name.

I'm always curious why people refuse to help people understand their argument by reiterating their points.

How was it not your intent to offend or be condescending by using the language you did? You didn't hurt my feelings by the way. I have to respect an opinion before my feelings can be hurt by it.

I apologised for any offence caused and said it was not my intention to offend. What more do you want?

You need to apologize not about hurt feelings but for being condescending to the religious.

I did no such thing. I am religious, yet what I said didn't condescend to me or anyone else based on religion. I accepted you found my term condescending to a certain POV, and I have apologised for that and said it was not my intent.

Then you'll be able to explain your quote.

Which quote would that be?

how about you explain your first approach, first?

Which approach? Saying that people should be allowed to do what they like unless there is a very good reason to stop them? Its one of those "free society" things... right up there with life, is liberty and the pursuit of happiness... if being allowed to do what you want because you want to doesn't fit in there, then I'd like to know what you think "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" entails? Or do you hold that people should not be allowed to do what they want unless it complies with the particular views of acceptibility of some arbitrary ruling authority?

 

[Skaloop]

You've already responded to my other points (arguments). You know what they are.

Yes, I do. Poor.

 

[Copperpennies12]

My argument that people should be allowed to live the life they choose for themselves, in peace, and have the ability to have the rights and privileges within that life they choose that others are afforded is certainly about values. It is about the ideal of freedom this country was founded on and the fact that denying people rights you enjoy is fundamentally wrong.

You speak about ideals of this country then you ignore its history. Homosexuality was had absolutely no place in the society of the founders except in a closet. I don't say that to be mean but to put homosexuality in the perspective of the founders. That was but one ideal they founded this country on. Conservative religious values. They then framed a government around it. Again, I refer you back to the Library of Congress link.

 

[b&wpac4]

While it didn't set a legal precedent, it was the opinion of the Supreme Court and presented as a given fact. Did you see a dissenting opinion in that case about the notion?

Also, you might want to review the other link to the Library of Congress.

It was about the founding of the colonies. If you read about the founding of the nation, you'll see that they were careful not to make many references in the Constitution to a specific religion. I mean, don't you think that would have been the ideal time to throw in "This is a Christian nation that accepts the rights of others to practice their religion, however, Christian values will always be the superior."

I find it telling that those men found it important not to put that in there, and to put that no law could be made to establish a national religion.

 

[LightHorseman]

The funny thing is that homosexual marriage doesn't effect me one bit. I'm not gay, I don't have any close friends or family who are gay. I just see it as a denial of rights and that bothers me. Nobody is going to have a single issue when I marry my fiance (well, except maybe certain members of our families, but one cannot escape that). I just feel it sad that I am allowed to pick the person I want to marry and I cannot imagine wanting to find another person when there are others out there right now who are being told "No, sorry mate, you gotta find someone else, we don't approve."

x2.

I seem to recall going to an unpleasant sandy place and killing people in the name of "Freedom"... I don't remember caveats of anyone elses approval being attached to said Freedom. Maybe its my PTSD acting up again, but I coulda sworn that would be the sort of thing I'd remember.

 

[Copperpennies12]

Because marriage is a contract, nothing more or less. If consent is not there, the contract is null and void.

Property need not consent. A parent can consent for a child. Consent ages are somewhat arbitrary.

I disagree. I support same sex marriage because I see it as a 'values' issue. I value equality. I value freedom. I value these ideals higher than I value my discomfort of seeing two men kiss.

Then you support incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages and since animals do no consent, a man marrying his property, right?

And in that case, we can agree to disagree but thanks for your view nonetheless.

 

[LightHorseman]

You speak about ideals of this country then you ignore its history. Homosexuality was had absolutely no place in the society of the founders except in a closet. I don't say that to be mean but to put homosexuality in the perspective of the founders. That was but one ideal they founded this country on. Conservative religious values. They then framed a government around it. Again, I refer you back to the Library of Congress link.

Actually... I seem to recall something about "seperation of Church and state" being one of the founding values, rather than "conservative religious values". Since much of the initial colonisation of America was done to ESCAPE from religious intolerance, you'd kinda think that religious freedom is far more a founding value than religious conformity and theocracy.

 

[b&wpac4]

You speak about ideals of this country then you ignore its history. Homosexuality was had absolutely no place in the society of the founders except in a closet. I don't say that to be mean but to put homosexuality in the perspective of the founders. That was but one ideal they founded this country on. Conservative religious values. They then framed a government around it. Again, I refer you back to the Library of Congress link.

A black man also had no place, except as a slave or, perhaps, a freeman who had no voice in the government. If you want to claim it is a Christian founded nation, then you must not ignore the history. Christianity then aided in the persecution and slaughter of the Native Americans. It aided in the propagation of slavery into the 1800s. You cannot back away from those ideas. Personally, I prefer to see it as a secular nation that made mistakes in those regards, but you are the one pushing for it to be a Christian nation.

The rule of law has progressed past the 1700s. Many cases have been settled between the case you listed, 1892, and today. The brilliance of the American government system is the ability for it to change and grow. You cannot simply ignore inconvenient history to push forth your own ideal.

 

[Copperpennies12]

The funny thing is that homosexual marriage doesn't effect me one bit. I'm not gay, I don't have any close friends or family who are gay. I just see it as a denial of rights and that bothers me. Nobody is going to have a single issue when I marry my fiance (well, except maybe certain members of our families, but one cannot escape that). I just feel it sad that I am allowed to pick the person I want to marry and I cannot imagine wanting to find another person when there are others out there right now who are being told "No, sorry mate, you gotta find someone else, we don't approve."

But marriage goes beyond a private intimate relationship. As has been precedent in other countries, recognition of gay rights leads to the denial of traditional rights.

Children now must submit to education about homosexuality. Religions are silenced for speaking against homosexuality under hate speech laws. Citizens must accomodate gays whether they find their behavior immoral or not. And so on.

Were it merely a matter of a private relationship, I'd have no problem.

 

[LightHorseman]

Property need not consent. A parent can consent for a child. Consent ages are somewhat arbitrary.


Then you support incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages and since animals do no consent, a man marrying his property, right?

And in that case, we can agree to disagree but thanks for your view nonetheless.

Incestuous, polygamous and inappropriate behavior with animals marriages involve a breach of consent. It is a social standard (arbitrary, maybe,m but thats the society we live in) that consent is more important than property rights in certain cases. For example, I OWN my dog, yet I am not permitted to skin him alive, beautiful though his coat may be, because he would not consent to the procedure. Likewise, I would not be permitted to marry him, because he doesn't consent.

 

[LightHorseman]

But marriage goes beyond a private intimate relationship. As has been precedent in other countries, recognition of gay rights leads to the denial of traditional rights.

I'd love a couple of examples of "traditional rights" that have been denied in the wake of acceptance of homosexual rights.

 

[Skaloop]

But marriage goes beyond a private intimate relationship. As has been precedent in other countries, recognition of gay rights leads to the denial of traditional rights.

Really? I'm in Canada. We've had SSM for a few years now. No rights have been denied because of it. In fact, nothing has changed at all apart from some same sex couples being in legally recognized marriages. So before you go getting all Chicken Little about things, could you please outline exactly what the negative effects are on Canadian society and citizens?

In fact, one could argue that because of the bill that legalized SSM, religious groups are now more protected than they were before because they have explicit protection for their opposition to homosexual behaviour.

 

[b&wpac4]

But marriage goes beyond a private intimate relationship. As has been precedent in other countries, recognition of gay rights leads to the denial of traditional rights.

Children now must submit to education about homosexuality. Religions are silenced for speaking against homosexuality under hate speech laws. Citizens must accomodate gays whether they find their behavior immoral or not. And so on.

Were it merely a matter of a private relationship, I'd have no problem.

Yes, I understand that the objections to education are a big concern. Personally, I would hope you would not object to children being taught that such families exist and it is not a good reason to beat up any child that comes from such a family, and I would most likely end it there at a child level. By the time High School comes around, most people are able to discuss social issues in the proper classes. I had a few classes that dealt with some law issues that I found very interesting.

The First Amendment promises you will not be silenced under hate speech laws unless you are inciting violence against these people. If a pastor wants to try to incite his congregation to violence against anybody, I have no problem with him being arrested for it. Many of the countries we talk about where people are arrested are not ones that have the same First Amendment rights we sometimes take for granted.

 

[LightHorseman]

In fact, one could argue that because of the bill that legalized SSM, religious groups are now more protected than they were before because they have explicit protection for their opposition to homosexual behaviour.

How does that work? Is there a specific clause in the legislation?

 

[Copperpennies12]

A black man also had no place, except as a slave or, perhaps, a freeman who had no voice in the government. If you want to claim it is a Christian founded nation, then you must not ignore the history. Christianity then aided in the persecution and slaughter of the Native Americans. It aided in the propagation of slavery into the 1800s. You cannot back away from those ideas. Personally, I prefer to see it as a secular nation that made mistakes in those regards, but you are the one pushing for it to be a Christian nation.

I am pushing for it to be a Christian nation? Where?

I have absolutely no desire to dictate to anyone what their religious activities be or that they have any at all. I merely support the nation founded by the founding fathers.

The rule of law has progressed past the 1700s. Many cases have been settled between the case you listed, 1892, and today. The brilliance of the American government system is the ability for it to change and grow. You cannot simply ignore inconvenient history to push forth your own ideal.

Yes and no. I agree that our government was designed to be able to change. Unfortunately it changes more through judicial activism than the appropriate ammendment process.

When you examine Freedom of Speech, it was a right to protect political speech, to dissent against the government yet it has evolved to include things like pornography and this wasn't an evolution based on an ammendment but an evolution created out of thin air by creative reinterpretation of the Constitution.

The Supreme Courst has repeatedly reinterpreted the Constitution creatively to make up for where it was lacking.

It makes abundantly clear sense that no one should be able to yell fire in a crowded theater and it's clear by the original intent of the founding fathers that no right ever existed. The same can be said for porn as a matter of free speech. Under original intent it never existed. If someone wanted that as a right, they needed to either move to a state where there were no restrictions or they needed to ammend the Constitution but instead the courts decided that it was more expedient to just read into the Constitution rights that never existed.

But we are off on a general discussion of homosexuality and have somewhat derailed the thread. We need to get back to the topic of what does science say about homosexuality.

Thanks all for the good discussion.