Ok, first of all, a disclaimer: this is a gay thread. So if your contribution to this thread is going to consist of pointing out how I start gay threads etc., go somewhere else; you don't have to read it.
Having said that, I have been thinking a lot lately how using the American civil rights or women's rights struggle as a sort of "template" or "blueprint" for arguing in favour of gay rights is not exactly useful, especially as religious rights (freedom of religion) seem to be a much better analogy to use. Of course it is not a perfect metaphor but think about it:
- both have a mixed biologically-cultural genesis (we are not sure of the biological origins, but we know that both a tendency to be religious and a tendency to be of a non-heterosexual orientation has some biological basis; but at the same time there is also a recognized cultural element; so it is both nature and nurture);
- the trait is discrete - it is not as immediately visible as it is in the case with race or sex, for example; and it can cut across races, families and ethnicities;
- people seem to have it in various degrees (some people stay one religion for life; some convert), and there is a certain level of fluidity - but despite it being able to change in some circumstances, it is not technically a "choice" - one cannot suddenly choose, by sheer will, to believe in God or convert to another religion;
- unlike the case with race or sex, discrimination is based more on a prohibition against certain practices connected with who you are, than just 'being' who you are - and from the perspective of another group, such practices seem often bizarre, immoral and sinful - yet we recognise that people who "are" something but are unable to engage in practices that are connected with that something are unhappy and it is evil to deny them a right to do so, unless they harm others;
- from the perspective of the society as a whole, it would probably make more sense to have everybody be of the same dominant religion or to be heterosexual - yet we recognize the need to give them all the same right to exist; and
- there are actually social and cultural differences between these groups (unlike, say, between races) which means that again technically, depending on your point of view, you could find one preferable over another from the point of view of the public interest - yet we recognize the need to treat all of them equally.
What do you think?
There is of course an extra bonus of being able to use it nicely to disarm religious people.
I mean, from the point of view of a devout Christian, surely a gay couple raising their son gay (assuming there was a casual link at all) would be putting their son's soul in much less of a danger than a Muslim straight couple raising their son Muslim, no? :P
Discrete or discreet?
Quote from: The Brain on November 07, 2009, 07:00:48 AM
Discrete or discreet?
I always confuse the two. :blush:
Edit: I guess both usage work for what I was saying, but I meant "discreet". :P
To equate an abomination like homosexuality with the worship of god is offensive.
You're clouding the issue, Marti. The question is not which guaranteed right would most closely model homosexuality; the question is whether sexual orientation, irrespective of origin, is such a fundamental defining trait of an individual that it should be held to be a protected class as race and gender are.
I, for one, accept Martinus as our new Gay Pope Overlord! :pope:
We need to add a specific gay icon for the topic title column on the front page to the message board, so Marty can have his little queerisms. Question marks and exclamation points just aren't going to cut it. Let's use, like, a pink triangle, or a smiley with a cock in its face.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2009, 09:52:49 AM
We need to add a specific gay icon for the topic title column on the front page to the message board, so Marty can have his little queerisms. Question marks and exclamation points just aren't going to cut it. Let's use, like, a pink triangle, or a smiley with a cock in its face.
Or a tiny, tiny foot.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieatpaint.com%2Faim%2Fimage.php%3Fimg%3Dlittlepony.jpg&hash=0311dafb0e8bfc1665311337c971612dcda4bcb4)
In 20x20:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hoocoodanode.org%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2Fpony.png&hash=bc9cfd0354a3a08f0f179bb991d2127be2b4f142)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileys.on-my-web.com%2Frepository%2FLove%2Fbear-176.gif&hash=45d8544181281ade4de44b9ca35c9698d5c14e59)
How about this one?
Many of these arguments also apply to racial minorities, though.
As for the main topic I'll say what I usually say to blacks who bemoan racism; you don't want to be discriminated against because you're black? Stop being black!
In other words, stop defining yourself by that one characteristic and you'll see that most people will stop seeing you as just that. And when you stop insisting on your difference their justifications to deny you certain rights based on that difference will crumble.
It has worked for me all my life. I've always had it known I am homosexual everywhere I go - as matter of factly as possible. At work everyone know I'm a devout homophile and I never got any grief. The technique is called drowning the fish.
What too many homosexuals fail to understand is that it's not being 'gay' (how I despise that label!) that turns most straight people (especially guys) off - it's being ashamed of it. It's appearing vulnerable because of it. People hate weakness far more than they hate this or that difference and many will latch on to the merest hint of such weakness to hammer on it more or less subtly.
G.
I don't see what changing the analogy accomplishes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2009, 12:14:25 PM
I don't see what changing the analogy accomplishes.
IMO there is merit to in the gay marriage debate. One of the reasons listed in the House Committee report on the Defense of Marriage Act was to uphold Judaeo-Christian norms. With the implication being, of course, that rabbis, Episcopalians, Quakers, and now Lutherans aren't part of Judaeo-Christian society. It is very interesting to me that we are comfortable with a government deciding which religion's are wrong.
There are a lot of fascinating colonial and revolutionary american parallels to this, interestingly.
Of course, the other question is why Americans feel we can criticize Arab nations for the role religion plays in their society when we're quite happy with it here.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 07, 2009, 12:22:46 PM
Of course, the other question is why Americans feel we can criticize Arab nations for the role religion plays in their society when we're quite happy with it here.
I don't know? Honor killings? Terrorism? Lack of equal rights for woman? Killing of homosexuals?
I am uncertain perhaps you could enlighten me.
I'm with G. on this one. "drowning fish" I like that.
Quote from: Strix on November 07, 2009, 12:44:13 PM
I don't know? Honor killings? Terrorism? Lack of equal rights for woman? Killing of homosexuals?
I am uncertain perhaps you could enlighten me.
Yeah, "religion playing a role in their society" isn't the problem, it's the specific ways in which it does so.
Waste of a thread.
Quote from: Strix on November 07, 2009, 12:44:13 PM
I don't know? Honor killings? Terrorism? Lack of equal rights for woman? Killing of homosexuals?
I am uncertain perhaps you could enlighten me.
I never said the Islamic world is better than America. The place absolutely sucks. But it seems like a difference of degrees. The religious right has pretty been dead set against treating gays and lesbians as equals for decades; it was only thirty years ago that they tried to pass a law so that gay and lesbians couldn't become teachers; they support the right to fire people on the basis of sexual orientation at every chance, lest society "approve" of an immoral lifestyole; they oppose the ability for me to adopt a child, because somehow me, a twenty-something lawyer in New York making a six figure salary is a worse parent than most people; and that any relationships I have don't deserve teh same protections as everyone else.
The basic rationale for all of this, is that God hates fags. So I'm glad that I'm no longer killed, but let's not pretend the goal isn't to make me a second class citizen based on God hates fags.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2009, 12:14:25 PM
I don't see what changing the analogy accomplishes.
I don't know either since Marty hates all religions.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 07, 2009, 01:15:31 PM
Quote from: Strix on November 07, 2009, 12:44:13 PM
I don't know? Honor killings? Terrorism? Lack of equal rights for woman? Killing of homosexuals?
I am uncertain perhaps you could enlighten me.
I never said the Islamic world is better than America. The place absolutely sucks. But it seems like a difference of degrees. The religious right has pretty been dead set against treating gays and lesbians as equals for decades; it was only thirty years ago that they tried to pass a law so that gay and lesbians couldn't become teachers; they support the right to fire people on the basis of sexual orientation at every chance, lest society "approve" of an immoral lifestyole; they oppose the ability for me to adopt a child, because somehow me, a twenty-something lawyer in New York making a six figure salary is a worse parent than most people; and that any relationships I have don't deserve teh same protections as everyone else.
The basic rationale for all of this, is that God hates fags. So I'm glad that I'm no longer killed, but let's not pretend the goal isn't to make me a second class citizen based on God hates fags.
How do you account for my desire to turn you into a second-class citizen?
Quote from: Neil on November 07, 2009, 01:23:21 PM
How do you account for my desire to turn you into a second-class citizen?
Rational extension of your belief that everyone other than you and your (favored) sires being second-class citizens?
Quote from: Faeelin on November 07, 2009, 01:15:31 PM
me, a twenty-something lawyer in New York making a six figure salary is a worse parent than most people;
That has nothing to do with you being gay and all with you being a lawyer.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 07, 2009, 01:15:31 PM
I never said the Islamic world is better than America. The place absolutely sucks. But it seems like a difference of degrees. The religious right has pretty been dead set against treating gays and lesbians as equals for decades; it was only thirty years ago that they tried to pass a law so that gay and lesbians couldn't become teachers; they support the right to fire people on the basis of sexual orientation at every chance, lest society "approve" of an immoral lifestyole; they oppose the ability for me to adopt a child, because somehow me, a twenty-something lawyer in New York making a six figure salary is a worse parent than most people; and that any relationships I have don't deserve teh same protections as everyone else.
The basic rationale for all of this, is that God hates fags. So I'm glad that I'm no longer killed, but let's not pretend the goal isn't to make me a second class citizen based on God hates fags.
Thank you for proving my point. The US is a country founded in deep religious principles and practices. It's founders realized that could lead to future issues and created safeguards.
This is why the "God hates fags" crowd is losing and will inevitable lose. You correctly pointed out attempts by a segment of society to oppress another segment of society that did not succeed. That is what's great about this country and it's government. Is our society perfect? No, of course not. It's making strides year by year and day by day to overturn older notions that no longer have a place in the world (Sorry Neil).
How much has the Islamic world changed in the last few years? decades? centuries?
Quote from: Strix on November 07, 2009, 02:45:25 PM
How much has the Islamic world changed in the last few years? decades? centuries?
Well, the did get kicked out of Spain. Sorta.
I like the my Little Pony one! :w00t: :wub:
I think I gave away my ponies though. :(
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2009, 06:18:16 PM
I like the my Little Pony one! :w00t: :wub:
I think I gave away my ponies though. :(
A friend at school had all the Transformers, Masters of the Universe, Mask etc. toys. Imagine my surprise when I once opened an incosnpicuous closet in his room to find what looked like the interior of a dollhouse with his sister's My Little Pony collection in it.
Last I heard he's a mysogynist bodybuilder who hooks up with girls to mentally mess them up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2009, 12:14:25 PM
I don't see what changing the analogy accomplishes.
In purely intellectual/logical way, many of the arguments levied against equal rights for non-heterosexuals can be equally well used against granting equal rights to people of other religions. So using a better analogy means it can't be as easily debunked as an analogy to, say, the civil rights movement which is not similar in some ways.
From a purely PR perspective, many of the gay rights' opponents are religious people - so they may be more receptive to comparing it to the freedom they hold very dear but one that also does not make sense from their faith's point of view - after all, from a point of view of a Christian, someone who is a Muslim or a Buddhist is damning his or her soul much more than someone who is gay.
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2009, 07:01:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2009, 12:14:25 PM
I don't see what changing the analogy accomplishes.
after all, from a point of view of a Christian, someone who is a Muslim or a Buddhist is damning his or her soul much more than someone who is gay.
You know that this is not so, right?
That coming from a countryman of the lesbian bishop of Stockholm. :P
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2009, 07:01:20 AM
From a purely PR perspective, many of the gay rights' opponents are religious people - so they may be more receptive to comparing it to the freedom they hold very dear but one that also does not make sense from their faith's point of view - after all, from a point of view of a Christian, someone who is a Muslim or a Buddhist is damning his or her soul much more than someone who is gay.
"Our desire to have sex with men is just like the oppression Christians have faced for centuries!"
Mmm. I am not convinced this will have the effect you think it will.
I always hated the civil rights comparison for gay rights.
It does gay rights no favours, its facepalm worthy.
Quote from: Tyr on November 08, 2009, 10:36:43 AM
I always hated the civil rights comparison for gay rights.
It does gay rights no favours, its facepalm worthy.
It's kind of a hybrid of both, as I see it- it's certainly not just an inherent characteristic like race, but this is as much about freedom from being discriminated against as part of the identified group as it is the freedom of the individual to express oneself as being homosexual.
Quote from: Tyr on November 08, 2009, 10:36:43 AM
I always hated the civil rights comparison for gay rights.
It does gay rights no favours, its facepalm worthy.
How is it a bad analogy?
Quote from: Tyr on November 08, 2009, 10:36:43 AM
I always hated the civil rights comparison for gay rights.
It does gay rights no favours, its facepalm worthy.
But it is about civil rights. I'm not sure where the problem is. :unsure:
The bible doesn't say black people can't get married. ;)
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 08, 2009, 10:36:43 AM
I always hated the civil rights comparison for gay rights.
It does gay rights no favours, its facepalm worthy.
But it is about civil rights. I'm not sure where the problem is. :unsure:
I explained it in the first post. :huh:
Quote from: Faeelin on November 08, 2009, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 08, 2009, 10:36:43 AM
I always hated the civil rights comparison for gay rights.
It does gay rights no favours, its facepalm worthy.
How is it a bad analogy?
Because the nature of discrimination in both cases is different, at least to the extent it is a current Western issue. It is not about law telling a gay person he or she can't enter some establishments, have a right to vote, hold certain offices etc.
It's not about gay people not having the same rights as straight people - after all you could retort that we have exactly the same rights, as a gay guy can marry a woman just as a straight guy can.
Instead, the nature of our goals is to get analogous rights to express ourselves in an analogous way as straight people - e.g. by being able to marry a person of the same gender just as they can marry a person of a different gender. This makes it akin to the freedom of religion/religious worship; after all, freedom of religion is not about everybody being able to worship Jesus - it's about everybody being able to choose the form and object of their religious practice, that is not the
same, but
analogous, too.
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2009, 01:09:25 PM
It's not about gay people not having the same rights as straight people - after all you could retort that we have exactly the same rights, as a gay guy can marry a woman just as a straight guy can.
Instead, the nature of our goals is to get analogous rights to express ourselves in an analogous way as straight people - e.g. by being able to marry a person of the same gender just as they can marry a person of a different gender. This makes it akin to the freedom of religion/religious worship; after all, freedom of religion is not about everybody being able to worship Jesus - it's about everybody being able to choose the form and object of their religious practice, that is not the same, but analogous, too.
So I suppose desegregation of the military and the Civil Rights Act nondiscrimination provisions have no analogies to things today?
As I see it, the main problem with Marty's analogy is that it's too broad. (A secondary problem is that religious freedom is also a civil rights issue, and Marty seems to think that it's not. It is, it's just that as Marty correctly points out, sexual orientation and religion are generally less obvious than race or gender.) Our model of civil rights has come to be largely based on being a member of a protected class, and the argument about gay rights is about whether or not sexual orientation should be the basis for a protected class. That a non-protected group has some analogous characteristics in common with a protected class is at best a weak argument for making them a protected class.
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2009, 07:01:20 AM
In purely intellectual/logical way, many of the arguments levied against equal rights for non-heterosexuals can be equally well used against granting equal rights to people of other religions. So using a better analogy means it can't be as easily debunked as an analogy to, say, the civil rights movement which is not similar in some ways.
From a purely PR perspective, many of the gay rights' opponents are religious people - so they may be more receptive to comparing it to the freedom they hold very dear but one that also does not make sense from their faith's point of view - after all, from a point of view of a Christian, someone who is a Muslim or a Buddhist is damning his or her soul much more than someone who is gay.
Except I don't think the opponents of gay marriage hold freedom of religion very dearly. Their ability to practice some variant of Christianity has never been under threat in this country. And they usually view the constitutional seperation of church and state as barrier to the public expression of their faith, not as a protection.
The only people it might swing are old school polygamist Mormons.
Quote from: Martinus on November 07, 2009, 06:55:14 AM
Ok, first of all, a disclaimer: this is a gay thread. So if your contribution to this thread is going to consist of pointing out how I start gay threads etc., go somewhere else; you don't have to read it.
Having said that, I have been thinking a lot lately how using the American civil rights or women's rights struggle as a sort of "template" or "blueprint" for arguing in favour of gay rights is not exactly useful, especially as religious rights (freedom of religion) seem to be a much better analogy to use. Of course it is not a perfect metaphor but think about it:
- both have a mixed biologically-cultural genesis (we are not sure of the biological origins, but we know that both a tendency to be religious and a tendency to be of a non-heterosexual orientation has some biological basis; but at the same time there is also a recognized cultural element; so it is both nature and nurture);
- the trait is discrete - it is not as immediately visible as it is in the case with race or sex, for example; and it can cut across races, families and ethnicities;
- people seem to have it in various degrees (some people stay one religion for life; some convert), and there is a certain level of fluidity - but despite it being able to change in some circumstances, it is not technically a "choice" - one cannot suddenly choose, by sheer will, to believe in God or convert to another religion;
- unlike the case with race or sex, discrimination is based more on a prohibition against certain practices connected with who you are, than just 'being' who you are - and from the perspective of another group, such practices seem often bizarre, immoral and sinful - yet we recognise that people who "are" something but are unable to engage in practices that are connected with that something are unhappy and it is evil to deny them a right to do so, unless they harm others;
- from the perspective of the society as a whole, it would probably make more sense to have everybody be of the same dominant religion or to be heterosexual - yet we recognize the need to give them all the same right to exist; and
- there are actually social and cultural differences between these groups (unlike, say, between races) which means that again technically, depending on your point of view, you could find one preferable over another from the point of view of the public interest - yet we recognize the need to treat all of them equally.
What do you think?
There is of course an extra bonus of being able to use it nicely to disarm religious people.
I mean, from the point of view of a devout Christian, surely a gay couple raising their son gay (assuming there was a casual link at all) would be putting their son's soul in much less of a danger than a Muslim straight couple raising their son Muslim, no? :P
One reason this won't work is because you will have a hard time convincing people that religion has a genetic component.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2009, 12:58:23 PM
The bible doesn't say black people can't get married. ;)
No, it just says they can't marry whities. :contract:
@ alfred: I dunno, the House Minority Leader ocnsiders it an immutable characteristic...
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 03:42:13 PM
One reason this won't work is because you will have a hard time convincing people that religion has a genetic component.
It's considered an immutable characteristic.
Also, who ever said homosexuality is "genetic"?
I said biological - that's two different things.
Quote from: dps on November 08, 2009, 01:28:50 PM
As I see it, the main problem with Marty's analogy is that it's too broad. (A secondary problem is that religious freedom is also a civil rights issue, and Marty seems to think that it's not. It is, it's just that as Marty correctly points out, sexual orientation and religion are generally less obvious than race or gender.) Our model of civil rights has come to be largely based on being a member of a protected class, and the argument about gay rights is about whether or not sexual orientation should be the basis for a protected class. That a non-protected group has some analogous characteristics in common with a protected class is at best a weak argument for making them a protected class.
Err, man, I know that. I used the expression "civil rights" because "civil rights movement" is used to denote Martin Luther King/blacks' struggle. :huh:
Quote from: Faeelin on November 08, 2009, 04:45:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2009, 12:58:23 PM
The bible doesn't say black people can't get married. ;)
No, it just says they can't marry whities.
It doesn't.
Anyway, that's just one, totally minor aspect of it. Discrimination against blacks was about numerous other issues than just ban against interracial marriage - and even then it was equally discriminatory against all races. Whereas anti-gay-marriage ban is an issue that is quite central to gay rights, because the nature of the sexual orientation is closely tied with marriage and sex, obviously.
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2009, 04:52:44 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 08, 2009, 04:45:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2009, 12:58:23 PM
The bible doesn't say black people can't get married. ;)
No, it just says they can't marry whities.
It doesn't.
I'm not sure why I should trust you over white ministers from the 1960s and the decades beforehand. I don't know if it's because you're not American, but you seem to think that this is the first time religion's played a role in American civil rights struggles, on either side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oxfOncYiag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oxfOncYiag)
Yeah, I don't really know what point this makes. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2009, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 03:42:13 PM
One reason this won't work is because you will have a hard time convincing people that religion has a genetic component.
It's considered an immutable characteristic.
Also, who ever said homosexuality is "genetic"?
I said biological - that's two different things.
Okay, but for our minority leader saying religion is immutable, do you think he would say that because we are biologically conditioned that way, or because hod has put the spark of religion in each of our hearts?
Quote from: Faeelin on November 08, 2009, 05:01:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2009, 04:52:44 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 08, 2009, 04:45:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2009, 12:58:23 PM
The bible doesn't say black people can't get married. ;)
No, it just says they can't marry whities.
It doesn't.
I'm not sure why I should trust you over white ministers from the 1960s and the decades beforehand. I don't know if it's because you're not American, but you seem to think that this is the first time religion's played a role in American civil rights struggles, on either side.
Err, are you saying there were people arguing, in the US, that interracial marriage is against the Bible? :lmfao:
OMFG that's so surreal. :lmfao:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 05:06:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2009, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 03:42:13 PM
One reason this won't work is because you will have a hard time convincing people that religion has a genetic component.
It's considered an immutable characteristic.
Also, who ever said homosexuality is "genetic"?
I said biological - that's two different things.
Okay, but for our minority leader saying religion is immutable, do you think he would say that because we are biologically conditioned that way, or because hod has put the spark of religion in each of our hearts?
I think it doesn't matter. The fact is it is similar to sexual orientation in that, while we don't know how it happens (and is likely a complex process with elements both biological and cultural), it is not a matter of choice.
Incidentally, I think they found that whether one has a tendency to be religious or not is somehow reflected in the way our brains are built.
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2009, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 05:06:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2009, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 03:42:13 PM
One reason this won't work is because you will have a hard time convincing people that religion has a genetic component.
It's considered an immutable characteristic.
Also, who ever said homosexuality is "genetic"?
I said biological - that's two different things.
Okay, but for our minority leader saying religion is immutable, do you think he would say that because we are biologically conditioned that way, or because hod has put the spark of religion in each of our hearts?
I think it doesn't matter. The fact is it is similar to sexual orientation in that, while we don't know how it happens (and is likely a complex process with elements both biological and cultural), it is not a matter of choice.
Incidentally, I think they found that whether one has a tendency to be religious or not is somehow reflected in the way our brains are built.
You convinced me.
But your analogy is never going to work on the religious anti-gay segment of society, because it is too complicated and involves concepts that aren't understood by most people. You will end up in shouting matches over whether religion derives from biology rather than whether gays deserve equal rights.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 08, 2009, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 08, 2009, 10:36:43 AM
I always hated the civil rights comparison for gay rights.
It does gay rights no favours, its facepalm worthy.
How is it a bad analogy?
They're total opposites. To take the marriage example.
Inter-racial marriage: Something which has traditionally never been much of a issue. Inter-racial marriage has historically usually been totally fine, no one really cared about race too much. The development of institutionalised racism in the US was a product of the modern world.
Gay marriage: Something which has traditionally never been accepted. Even the Greeks for all their encouragment of man-love still expected that to be just a bit of fun on the side of your proper marriage. Just having homosexual relationships out in the open and accepted is a product of the modern world.
Quote from: Tyr on November 08, 2009, 05:40:34 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 08, 2009, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 08, 2009, 10:36:43 AM
I always hated the civil rights comparison for gay rights.
It does gay rights no favours, its facepalm worthy.
How is it a bad analogy?
They're total opposites. To take the marriage example.
Inter-racial marriage: Something which has traditionally never been much of a issue. Inter-racial marriage has historically usually been totally fine, no one really cared about race too much. The development of institutionalised racism in the US was a product of the modern world.
Gay marriage: Something which has traditionally never been accepted. Even the Greeks for all their encouragment of man-love still expected that to be just a bit of fun on the side of your proper marriage. Just having homosexual relationships out in the open and accepted is a product of the modern world.
Well, that's actually a horrible explanation.
Besides, Elagabalus married two guys. :P
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2009, 04:49:41 PM
Quote from: dps on November 08, 2009, 01:28:50 PM
As I see it, the main problem with Marty's analogy is that it's too broad. (A secondary problem is that religious freedom is also a civil rights issue, and Marty seems to think that it's not. It is, it's just that as Marty correctly points out, sexual orientation and religion are generally less obvious than race or gender.) Our model of civil rights has come to be largely based on being a member of a protected class, and the argument about gay rights is about whether or not sexual orientation should be the basis for a protected class. That a non-protected group has some analogous characteristics in common with a protected class is at best a weak argument for making them a protected class.
Err, man, I know that. I used the expression "civil rights" because "civil rights movement" is used to denote Martin Luther King/blacks' struggle. :huh:
Civil rights legislation in the U.S. involves a heck of a lot more than just race, though of course race was our biggest civil rights issue.
Probably for the over-arching genre of gay rights, I'd say it doesn't work.
For certain things, the most obvious being gay marriage, it could I think.
I mean, the government recognizes the marriages performed by the religions who refuse to marry gays. But if a religion decided it was fine with performing gay marriages, then the government won't recognize those. They can't have it one way and not the other, so maybe there's a freedom of religion argument there.
Edit: Maybe freedom of association would be the closest fit for gay rights as a whole?
I think freedom of homosexuals is much less important than freedom from homosexuals. Can't they just pray away the gay?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 09, 2009, 04:03:22 PM
Probably for the over-arching genre of gay rights, I'd say it doesn't work.
For certain things, the most obvious being gay marriage, it could I think.
I mean, the government recognizes the marriages performed by the religions who refuse to marry gays. But if a religion decided it was fine with performing gay marriages, then the government won't recognize those. They can't have it one way and not the other, so maybe there's a freedom of religion argument there.
Edit: Maybe freedom of association would be the closest fit for gay rights as a whole?
That argument would work if the government deferred to churches on who can get married. For example, if churches were allowed to perform publicly recognized marriages of 10 year olds, or first cousins, or multiple spouses. But they aren't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 04:10:38 PM
That argument would work if the government deferred to churches on who can get married. For example, if churches were allowed to perform publicly recognized marriages of 10 year olds, or first cousins, or multiple spouses. But they aren't.
Here's the difference, though. I can think of plenty of reasons to not allow people to refuse to let you marry children. I have yet to hear a reasonable articulation of why gays shouldn't be able to marry.
Moreover, it is pretty clear that there is a strong 1st amendment issue at play in the same-sex marriage cases. I don't know if it's as strong as equal protection, but let me give you an example of the reasons for the Defense of Marriage Act, quoting from the House Committee Report:
"For many Americans, there is to this issue of marriage an overtly moral or religious aspect... the fact that there are distinct religious and civil components of marriage does not mean that the two do not intersect." Noting that civil law entailed a moral judgment about homosexuality, the House Report noted the "moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality."
The Judaeo-christian line is not mine and is in the report by the United States Congress. And tis indeed a weird world where Episcopalians, many Jews, Quakers, and IMO Presbyterians within 10 years are not part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
Now I will grant you this was only one of the reasons DOMA was justified. The other reason in the House Report was that it preserves scarce government resources, which is questionable on many, many grounds that, being a bright chap, should be obvious to you.
QuoteThey're total opposites. To take the marriage example.
Let's not, for a moment. How is the fight to serve openly in the military significantly different than the effort to end segregation in the armed forces? Or the right to not be discriminated against in employment and housing?
QuoteInter-racial marriage: Something which has traditionally never been much of a issue. Inter-racial marriage has historically usually been totally fine, no one really cared about race too much. The development of institutionalised racism in the US was a product of the modern world.
This statement is to me a bit iffy. First, when was interracial marriage not a problem? Sure, it wasn't in 14th century England, but they didn't have that many Africans lying around...
I suspect there are other people who would be willing to discuss Medieval, Roman, and arab ideas on race, but I agree it wasn't as much of an issue as it was in america.
QuoteGay marriage: Something which has traditionally never been accepted. Even the Greeks for all their encouragment of man-love still expected that to be just a bit of fun on the side of your proper marriage. Just having homosexual relationships out in the open and accepted is a product of the modern world.
I would disagree that "open" homosexuality is a new phenomenom; there are plenty of situations in world history where it happened. (Oddly real big in Late Ming China among the literati).
Now I would agree with you that the idea of two guys or girls marrying each other is a recent development. My problem is, so what? So's the idea of a universal vote, or that women should be the equal of men. Just because an idea is new does not make it somehow real or right.
(Or wrong, admittedly).
Secondly, I would suggest your statement about how "gay marriage" is a new development is true, but also ignores one of the main reasons for marriage in premodern societies, which was in a large part economic and for purposes of inter-community ties.
In any case, sure, gay rights isn't a carbon copy of the Black Civil rights movement. Nor were black civil rights carbon copies of the feminist movement, or abolitionism. The unifying goal is a struggle by its members for greater freedom and equality in a society which has consistently taken its founding principles further than the first Americans would have thought.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 04:28:17 PM
Here's the difference, though. I can think of plenty of reasons to not allow people to refuse to let you marry children. I have yet to hear a reasonable articulation of why gays shouldn't be able to marry.
There are undoubtedly others. But not related to the freedom of religion argument that we were specifically discussing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 04:34:54 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 04:28:17 PM
Here's the difference, though. I can think of plenty of reasons to not allow people to refuse to let you marry children. I have yet to hear a reasonable articulation of why gays shouldn't be able to marry.
There are undoubtedly others. But not related to the freedom of religion argument that we were specifically discussing.
What others, pray tell? Let's hear it.
Any way, you still haven't actually rebutted freedom of religion. The government has decided the marriages of some faiths are acceptable, and the marriages of other faiths are not. This by itself might not be problematic, if it had a valid reason to do so. But it's certainly sending a sign as to which faiths are and are not "proper."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 04:10:38 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 09, 2009, 04:03:22 PM
Probably for the over-arching genre of gay rights, I'd say it doesn't work.
For certain things, the most obvious being gay marriage, it could I think.
I mean, the government recognizes the marriages performed by the religions who refuse to marry gays. But if a religion decided it was fine with performing gay marriages, then the government won't recognize those. They can't have it one way and not the other, so maybe there's a freedom of religion argument there.
Edit: Maybe freedom of association would be the closest fit for gay rights as a whole?
That argument would work if the government deferred to churches on who can get married. For example, if churches were allowed to perform publicly recognized marriages of 10 year olds, or first cousins, or multiple spouses. But they aren't.
True. But the government doesn't perform the marriages. The churches do. So if a church that is certified to perform marriages, and has performed many legal marriages in the past, one day decides that they will perform a gay marriage---then the government which recognized all the other marriages they had performed will suddenly not recognize this one. Up until that point, the government had not interfered with the church's religious rite of marriage, but now that the marriage is a gay one, they do.
Yes, I suppose the same would be true if they tried to marry an underage person or whatever, but it's there nonetheless.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 09, 2009, 04:49:44 PM
True. But the government doesn't perform the marriages. The churches do. So if a church that is certified to perform marriages, and has performed many legal marriages in the past, one day decides that they will perform a gay marriage---then the government which recognized all the other marriages they had performed will suddenly not recognize this one. Up until that point, the government had not interfered with the church's religious rite of marriage, but now that the marriage is a gay one, they do.
Yes, I suppose the same would be true if they tried to marry an underage person or whatever, but it's there nonetheless.
Of course, the government merely licenses the power to churches to perform marriages. But it is an interesting question. Suppose tomorrow the state of Texas decided that no more Jews could get married by rabbis, and henceforth they wouldn't be given marriage licenses.
Jews can still get married, of course. They just have to go to a Baptist minister. Religious freedom issue, or not?
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 04:40:29 PM
What others, pray tell? Let's hear it.
It was a throwaway line. I don't even know what you were comparing when you said here's the difference.
QuoteAny way, you still haven't actually rebutted freedom of religion. The government has decided the marriages of some faiths are acceptable, and the marriages of other faiths are not. This by itself might not be problematic, if it had a valid reason to do so. But it's certainly sending a sign as to which faiths are and are not "proper."
The government did not decide the marriages of some faiths were acceptable because it bowed to the preferences of those faiths. The institution of (heterosexual) marriage predates American independence and the creation of the Christian church.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 04:58:45 PM
The government did not decide the marriages of some faiths were acceptable because it bowed to the preferences of those faiths. The institution of (heterosexual) marriage predates American independence and the creation of the Christian church.
Since when does age matter? So does slavery and keeping women as inferior to men, but that doesn't mean they were good, no?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 04:58:45 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 04:40:29 PM
What others, pray tell? Let's hear it.
It was a throwaway line. I don't even know what you were comparing when you said here's the difference.
Oh, and I was comparing the comparison between letting peopel marry ten year olds and two consenting adults.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 09, 2009, 04:49:44 PM
True. But the government doesn't perform the marriages. The churches do. So if a church that is certified to perform marriages, and has performed many legal marriages in the past, one day decides that they will perform a gay marriage---then the government which recognized all the other marriages they had performed will suddenly not recognize this one. Up until that point, the government had not interfered with the church's religious rite of marriage, but now that the marriage is a gay one, they do.
Yes, I suppose the same would be true if they tried to marry an underage person or whatever, but it's there nonetheless.
The government doesn't interfere with any church's right to perform religious rites. Churches can and have performed ceremonies under a variety of titles for gay couples.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 05:04:07 PM
The government doesn't interfere with any church's right to perform religious rites. Churches can and have performed ceremonies under a variety of titles for gay couples.
I don't think you understand enough constitution law to understand why choosing to give out benefits based on religious preferences of the majority is a disquieting issue.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 05:00:39 PM
Since when does age matter? So does slavery and keeping women as inferior to men, but that doesn't mean they were good, no?
The age matters because the US's decision to continue to uphold the institution of hetereosexual marriage at the time of independence was not a deferral to the wishes of one faith over another.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 05:07:22 PM
I don't think you understand enough constitution law to understand why choosing to give out benefits based on religious preferences of the majority is a disquieting issue.
OK.
Fae, right now you sound kind of like Queequeg. You're so enamored with this idea(freedom of religion requires legal gay marriage!) that you don't care how ridiculous it is. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 05:11:48 PM
The age matters because the US's decision to continue to uphold the institution of hetereosexual marriage at the time of independence was not a deferral to the wishes of one faith over another.
I'm sorry, I don't see your point. I don't think anyone would dispute that same-sex marriage was not an issue at the time of independence.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 09, 2009, 05:12:45 PM
Fae, right now you sound kind of like Queequeg. You're so enamored with this idea(freedom of religion requires legal gay marriage!) that you don't care how ridiculous it is. :P
Eh. Maybe, maybe not. I was against it as Marti proposed it. I am merely saying it's pretty clear a lot of the opposition to same-sex marriage is religious in nature and is therefore troubling.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 05:13:16 PM
I'm sorry, I don't see your point. I don't think anyone would dispute that same-sex marriage was not an issue at the time of independence.
Answer me this question: at what point in history did the US government defer to any faith in recognizing the institution of monogomous heterosexual marriage? That seems to be the foundation of your argument. Since the government deferred on that, it's only fair to defer on homosexual marriage. But as you already said, it was not an issue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 05:23:42 PM
Answer me this question: at what point in history did the US government defer to any faith in recognizing the institution of monogomous heterosexual marriage? That seems to be the foundation of your argument. Since the government deferred on that, it's only fair to defer on homosexual marriage. But as you already said, it was not an issue.
Up until the 1780s; it was one of the major issues in the disestablishment of churches in the early American south, where only Anglicans were allowed to do so. Twas also, in Virginia, the last bit to die.
[England kept the practice going a bit later, until the 1830s].
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 05:29:59 PM
Up until the 1780s; it was one of the major issues in the disestablishment of churches in the early American south, where only Anglicans were allowed to do so. Twas also, in Virginia, the last bit to die.
[England kept the practice going a bit later, until the 1830s].
Without knowing the details, I'm assuming that doesn't answer the question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 05:34:47 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 05:29:59 PM
Up until the 1780s; it was one of the major issues in the disestablishment of churches in the early American south, where only Anglicans were allowed to do so. Twas also, in Virginia, the last bit to die.
[England kept the practice going a bit later, until the 1830s].
Without knowing the details, I'm assuming that doesn't answer the question.
What do you mean defer? You're asking at what point in American history did the United States not recognize heterosexual monogamous marries of other faiths, right?
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 05:35:29 PM
What do you mean defer? You're asking at what point in American history did the United States not recognize heterosexual monogamous marries of other faiths, right?
No. I'm asking when did the US bow to the wishes of any faith in recognizaing the entire institution of heterosexual monogomous marriage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 05:38:19 PM
No. I'm asking when did the US bow to the wishes of any faith in recognizaing the entire institution of heterosexual monogomous marriage.
I'm guessing you hate the way the Constitution and society have changed since 1787, then. I freely acknowledge that same-sex marriage wasn't on the table in the 1780s. But neither were plenty of other aspects of equality and freedom we have today. What makes the gays different?
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 05:38:57 PM
I'm guessing you hate the way the Constitution and society have changed since 1787, then. I freely acknowledge that same-sex marriage wasn't on the table in the 1780s. But neither were plenty of other aspects of equality and freedom we have today. What makes the gays different?
The advocates of other aspects of equality and freedom weren't trying to construct freedom of religion arguments.
There is no point debating with Yi - he is an obstinate homophobe and has always been. It's really useless.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 04:28:17 PM
Moreover, it is pretty clear that there is a strong 1st amendment issue at play in the same-sex marriage cases. I don't know if it's as strong as equal protection, but let me give you an example of the reasons for the Defense of Marriage Act, quoting from the House Committee Report:
"For many Americans, there is to this issue of marriage an overtly moral or religious aspect... the fact that there are distinct religious and civil components of marriage does not mean that the two do not intersect." Noting that civil law entailed a moral judgment about homosexuality, the House Report noted the "moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality."
The Judaeo-christian line is not mine and is in the report by the United States Congress. And tis indeed a weird world where Episcopalians, many Jews, Quakers, and IMO Presbyterians within 10 years are not part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
Now I will grant you this was only one of the reasons DOMA was justified. The other reason in the House Report was that it preserves scarce government resources, which is questionable on many, many grounds that, being a bright chap, should be obvious to you.
The problem with the First Amendment argument is that even though the Bible and religious traditions may be cited as justification, what one is really dealing with is bias and prejudice that has non-religious as well as religious roots. And from an Establishment Clause POV, it is OK for a piece of legislation to be motivated by bigotry. I don't see any way around bringing the 14th amendment into play.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2009, 05:49:20 PM
The problem with the First Amendment argument is that even though the Bible and religious traditions may be cited as justification, what one is really dealing with is bias and prejudice that has non-religious as well as religious roots. And from an Establishment Clause POV, it is OK for a piece of legislation to be motivated by bigotry. I don't see any way around bringing the 14th amendment into play.
Is it? I can think of quite a few cases where the court looked into a bill's legislative history to find it a violation of the Establishment clause.
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2009, 05:48:16 PM
There is no point debating with Yi - he is an obstinate homophobe and has always been. It's really useless.
:lol:
Nah, it's mainly that you're stretching a lot in some of these arguments. There are plenty of reasons to support gay marriage, but freedom of religion and gays being in denial aren't among them. :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 09, 2009, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2009, 05:48:16 PM
There is no point debating with Yi - he is an obstinate homophobe and has always been. It's really useless.
:lol:
Nah, it's mainly that you're stretching a lot in some of these arguments. There are plenty of reasons to support gay marriage, but freedom of religion and gays being in denial aren't among them. :contract:
I never said that gay rights movement is a freedom of religion issue. This is nonsense. I just said that the template is similar. Show me where I am "stretching this" like you describe.
re: entire thread
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 05:51:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2009, 05:49:20 PM
The problem with the First Amendment argument is that even though the Bible and religious traditions may be cited as justification, what one is really dealing with is bias and prejudice that has non-religious as well as religious roots. And from an Establishment Clause POV, it is OK for a piece of legislation to be motivated by bigotry. I don't see any way around bringing the 14th amendment into play.
Is it? I can think of quite a few cases where the court looked into a bill's legislative history to find it a violation of the Establishment clause.
What would this Court do on these facts is the relevant question. Based on the language you have cited, I don't think it is a close question. DOMA may fall, but not on the Establishment Clause.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 04:28:17 PM
The Judaeo-christian line is not mine and is in the report by the United States Congress. And tis indeed a weird world where Episcopalians, many Jews, Quakers, and IMO Presbyterians within 10 years are not part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
Many of them aren't. Left-wing politics has annihilated their religion impulse.
There's no analogy whatsoever that matches homosexuality/homophobia. There is no other minority group that has such an intimate relationship with the majority. Most black people do not have white parents. Most Jews do not have a gentile family. I think that makes it very different and it's those personal, human, intimate, familial relationships that's the key to the gays. It also means that gays have easier access to understanding straight culture than, say, a black kid in Brixton does white culture - and, arguably vice-versa. This makes ghettoisation very, very difficult.
That's why I think gay rights generally speaking moves very quickly. Though there's been some horrible attacks recently the UK has, generally moved from a situation even in the 90s when gays were quite ostracised and legally discriminated against to a point now, where the Sun ('The Voice of the Working Class') can have 'Elton Takes David Up The Aisle' as a celebratory headline and a situation in which the Daily Mail publishes a nasty insidious homophobic article becomes the most complained about article ever (23 000 complaints). I think once you reach a critical mass of gays who are out to family and friends it becomes more difficult to discriminate because the question ceases to be 'should homosexuals be able to marry/adopt' - while imagining a leather daddy creche - and becomes 'should they be able to marry/adopt'. When it's about your friend, your brother, your son you suddenly become a gay rights radical.
I think this also explains why certain cultures will take a longer time. In the UK gay rights and gay equality are entrenched, if you're middle/upper middle/upper class. I'm fine, but it'd be a lot more difficult in Tottenham or somewhere like Macclesfield
It's a very good point, Sheilbh. And yeah, that's why visibility matters.
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2009, 11:29:42 AM
It's a very good point, Sheilbh. And yeah, that's why visibility matters.
So are you out at work yet?
Quote from: Faeelin on November 16, 2009, 11:38:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2009, 11:29:42 AM
It's a very good point, Sheilbh. And yeah, that's why visibility matters.
So are you out at work yet?
To some people, yes. I never pretend I'm straight to others, either. I don't have a boyfriend at the moment so the question never arises.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 05:51:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2009, 05:49:20 PM
The problem with the First Amendment argument is that even though the Bible and religious traditions may be cited as justification, what one is really dealing with is bias and prejudice that has non-religious as well as religious roots. And from an Establishment Clause POV, it is OK for a piece of legislation to be motivated by bigotry. I don't see any way around bringing the 14th amendment into play.
Is it? I can think of quite a few cases where the court looked into a bill's legislative history to find it a violation of the Establishment clause.
I can think of even more where the Court has invalidated legislation on the basis of due process, privileges and immunities, and substantive due process. RFRA comes to mind.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 09, 2009, 04:40:29 PM
Any way, you still haven't actually rebutted freedom of religion. The government has decided the marriages of some faiths are acceptable, and the marriages of other faiths are not.
Say what?!?
Quoteit's pretty clear a lot of the opposition to same-sex marriage is religious in nature and is therefore troubling.
You could say the same about oppostion to racial segregation, or opposition to the death penalty. Strangely, a lot of people who find religious oopostion to gay marriage "troubling" seem to have no problem with a preacher denouncing racism, or calling the death penalty un-Christian.
You guys got another one.
Quotehttp://www.newser.com/story/167854/minnesota-senate-approves-gay-marriage.html
Odd that you picked to post this in a thread from '09.
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 07:27:33 AM
Odd that you picked to post this in a thread from '09.
I thought Buddha had come back to us for a second there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2009, 10:05:55 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileys.on-my-web.com%2Frepository%2FLove%2Fbear-176.gif&hash=45d8544181281ade4de44b9ca35c9698d5c14e59)
:boff:
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 07:27:33 AM
Odd that you picked to post this in a thread from '09.
Came up with the search