Putting the gay in ugag

jwsavhGT

jwsavhGT

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
4,526
Location
Savannah,GA
OMG. I can't believe I read thru 3 pages of that crap. I must be fricking bored or it's like looking at a wreck on the highway...just couldn't help myself.:banghead:
 
GTNavyNuke

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
9,904
Location
Williamsburg Virginia
I got through 3 posts. Disgusting. You would think it was the 60's in the south rather than 2015.

There are so many much bigger problems in the world than sexual orientation ....
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
GTNavy said:
I got through 3 posts. Disgusting. You would think it was the 60's in the south rather than 2015.

There are so many much bigger problems in the world than sexual orientation ....
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think the third post was where I stopped too.

I'm glad they moved this to the lounge because I didn't want to respond on this topic in a sports forum. But, I did want to respond.

First of all, as someone who grew up in the South during the 60s and 70s, I could not agree with you more regarding bigotry in 2015, whether it's against people for their sexual preferences or because they're German. Disgusting is the right word.

However, I don't agree with on how you moved from that truth to an apparent dismissal of the significance of the political issues arising from recent discussion of sexual orientation. The recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage was an assault on the founding political philosophy of our country. I mean that with no hyperbole.

Our founding political philosophy was that human rights were natural, whether you believe they came from a creator or not. Furthermore, Natural Rights were guaranteed and protected by Natural Law. These two concepts informed one another. In Natural Law, the connection between sexual activity and reproduction was obvious. People had a Natural Right to marriage because sexual reproduction was how society continues from one generation to the next. Marriage was not about an individual's feeling of self-worth but about family and the context for birth of children.

Indeed, the concept of Natural Law in the West developed in concert with the observation of the Law of Nations, that is the observation by Romans that peoples of various societies all shared some common laws, against murder, theft, etc. Well, another law shared by every known society in human history has been the formal official recognition of marriage as the basis of legal family. The words for husband and wife in Ancient Greek were the same as the words for male and female, as we also see in German's Mann und Frau, and old English's Man and Wife. That's why talking about different states having different minimum ages or about laws regarding interracial marriage as previous re-definitions of marriage is a red herring to comfort the ignorant. Marriage has now been redefined.

Government has had an interest in promoting marriage because it is in the best interest of children that they grow up in stable two person families. Governments that care about all people as equal, like America believed at its founding, want to promote that context for all children. However, by redefining marriage so that it no longer images the relationship which serves as the basis of biological family, it can no longer serve the purpose for which Government has an interest. Look at what's happened already with the sexual revolution and the legalization of no-fault divorce. The urban and rural poor have been the hardest hit as tax-payer support has actually incentivized the destruction of family, stacking the odds against the next generation. While many single parents do a fantastic job, it is not in the best interest of children to make that the new normal.

Moreover, it lays the groundwork for further attack on conservative Christian institutions. In 1983, the SCOTUS ruled that the IRS could remove the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of their stand on interracial marriage. So, with this ruling, the Tax-Exempt status of any Christian University, and perhaps church, which teach that homosexual activity is sinful and that therefore speak against same-sex marriage, is at risk. While Bob Jones was largely alone and had a policy that was not well established nor supported in the Bible of Christian history. The fallout from this decision could strike a significant blow to many parochial schools, grade school through university. The SCOTUS decision allowed that the speech of religious institutions was still protected but that's not the same thing.

Finally, the yet little discussed issue arising from this decision is the next sexual orientation which may look for rights, the pedophiles. By granting 14th amendment protection to people based on their sexual orientation, the court implicitly gave that to pedophiles too. Appeals to the interests of the child and consent have always relied on the Natural Law and traditional connection between sexual activity and procreation and consequent family. However, those connections have been eliminated and replaced by a 14th amendment right to dignity owed someone with their sexual orientation.

So, you may think that none of this is a big deal. I think you are wrong.
 
GTNavyNuke

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
9,904
Location
Williamsburg Virginia
AE 87 said:
Yeah, I think the third post was where I stopped too.

I'm glad they moved this to the lounge because I didn't want to respond on this topic in a sports forum. But, I did want to respond.

First of all, as someone who grew up in the South during the 60s and 70s, I could not agree with you more regarding bigotry in 2015, whether it's against people for their sexual preferences or because they're German. Disgusting is the right word.

However, I don't agree with on how you moved from that truth to an apparent dismissal of the significance of the political issues arising from recent discussion of sexual orientation. The recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage was an assault on the founding political philosophy of our country. I mean that with no hyperbole.

Our founding political philosophy was that human rights were natural, whether you believe they came from a creator or not. Furthermore, Natural Rights were guaranteed and protected by Natural Law. These two concepts informed one another. In Natural Law, the connection between sexual activity and reproduction was obvious. People had a Natural Right to marriage because sexual reproduction was how society continues from one generation to the next. Marriage was not about an individual's feeling of self-worth but about family and the context for birth of children.

Indeed, the concept of Natural Law in the West developed in concert with the observation of the Law of Nations, that is the observation by Romans that peoples of various societies all shared some common laws, against murder, theft, etc. Well, another law shared by every known society in human history has been the formal official recognition of marriage as the basis of legal family. The words for husband and wife in Ancient Greek were the same as the words for male and female, as we also see in German's Mann und Frau, and old English's Man and Wife. That's why talking about different states having different minimum ages or about laws regarding interracial marriage as previous re-definitions of marriage is a red herring to comfort the ignorant. Marriage has now been redefined.

Government has had an interest in promoting marriage because it is in the best interest of children that they grow up in stable two person families. Governments that care about all people as equal, like America believed at its founding, want to promote that context for all children. However, by redefining marriage so that it no longer images the relationship which serves as the basis of biological family, it can no longer serve the purpose for which Government has an interest. Look at what's happened already with the sexual revolution and the legalization of no-fault divorce. The urban and rural poor have been the hardest hit as tax-payer support has actually incentivized the destruction of family, stacking the odds against the next generation. While many single parents do a fantastic job, it is not in the best interest of children to make that the new normal.

Moreover, it lays the groundwork for further attack on conservative Christian institutions. In 1983, the SCOTUS ruled that the IRS could remove the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of their stand on interracial marriage. So, with this ruling, the Tax-Exempt status of any Christian University, and perhaps church, which teach that homosexual activity is sinful and that therefore speak against same-sex marriage, is at risk. While Bob Jones was largely alone and had a policy that was not well established nor supported in the Bible of Christian history. The fallout from this decision could strike a significant blow to many parochial schools, grade school through university. The SCOTUS decision allowed that the speech of religious institutions was still protected but that's not the same thing.

Finally, the yet little discussed issue arising from this decision is the next sexual orientation which may look for rights, the pedophiles. By granting 14th amendment protection to people based on their sexual orientation, the court implicitly gave that to pedophiles too. Appeals to the interests of the child and consent have always relied on the Natural Law and traditional connection between sexual activity and procreation and consequent family. However, those connections have been eliminated and replaced by a 14th amendment right to dignity owed someone with their sexual orientation.

So, you may think that none of this is a big deal. I think you are wrong.
Click to expand...

If you read my post again, I never mentioned SCOTUS. Only "....There are so many much bigger problems in the world than sexual orientation ....". I believe that Americans have an excessive focus on sex. I should be glad for it since pornography was the driving force in expanding the internet in the early days (tic). Look at what passes for entertainment on most public TV shows now.

As far as SCOTUS, they have a really hard job interpreting what the Constitution means in a very different world than they lived in. Given the SCOTUS decision was a 5-4 one, reasonable people did disagree. I do agree that SCOTUS ruling can have a profound impact on how our country develops. This ruling will probably have little impact as most of our institutions are already recognizing domestic partners. If there are side effects you are concerned about, there will be other cases and SCOTUS seems to have limited their rulings in the past to make adjustments for unintended consequences. In other words, this is a setback for what I think are your views, but I don't think the last word by any means.

I'm careful to say what the founding father meant in today's world. If I wanted to follow what exactly most of the founding fathers believed was necessary, I should have no problem with going back to only white male landowners having the right to vote (tic).
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
GTNavyNuke said:
If you read my post again, I never mentioned SCOTUS. Only "....There are so many much bigger problems in the world than sexual orientation ....". I believe that Americans have an excessive focus on sex. I should be glad for it since pornography was the driving force in expanding the internet in the early days (tic). Look at what passes for entertainment on most public TV shows now.

As far as SCOTUS, they have a really hard job interpreting what the Constitution means in a very different world than they lived in. Given the SCOTUS decision was a 5-4 one, reasonable people did disagree. I do agree that SCOTUS ruling can have a profound impact on how our country develops. This ruling will probably have little impact as most of our institutions are already recognizing domestic partners. If there are side effects you are concerned about, there will be other cases and SCOTUS seems to have limited their rulings in the past to make adjustments for unintended consequences. In other words, this is a setback for what I think are your views, but I don't think the last word by any means.

I'm careful to say what the founding father meant in today's world. If I wanted to follow what exactly most of the founding fathers believed was necessary, I should have no problem with going back to only white male landowners having the right to vote (tic).
Click to expand...

First, I agree with you that outside of our current historical context, there are much bigger issues than the sexual preferences of 2-3% of the population.

However, you made your statement within the particular historical context in which a private bakery lost a judgment in lawsuit because they did not want to provide a cake for a same sex wedding.

So, "sexual orientation" as construct for discussion has one of the most important issues today. It has been recognized as bringing 14th Amendment protection even though it's very problematic and subjective.

That's what prompted my response. However, you seem to misunderstand how the Constitution was designed to work. It can be amended. For example, the 14th Amendment said no man over the age of 21 not guilty of rebellion etc must be allowed to vote, and the 19th gave suffrage to women. So, though tic, your response betrays a buy-in to rhetoric of those who want to use the courts to by-pass the democratic process.

It also misses the bigger point that I was making about the political philosophy from rule of law based on natural law and natural rights to rule of lawyers based on elitist whim.

If the rights come from the government rather than being natural, then they can be taken away by the government. Your response, "Let them go to court," I suspect is shared by many.
 
OldJacketFan

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
AE 87 said:
So, "sexual orientation" as construct for discussion has one of the most important issues today. It has been recognized as bringing 14th Amendment protection even though it's very problematic and subjective.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I grasp what your meaning is by placing sexual orientation in quotes. Is your point to define it as something subject to whim? Would you quote gender then same way?
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
OldJacketFan said:
I'm not sure I grasp what your meaning is by placing sexual orientation in quotes. Is your point to define it as something subject to whim? Would you quote gender then same way?
Click to expand...

I put it in quotes because I was referring to the term. The term is a construct in that it constructs a way of seeing the related issues. Before the 20th century, people could talk about inclinations and behaviors without a category of identity which "sexual orientation" has become.

The nature of conversation differs if you discuss responding to inclinations and responding to who you are.
 
Top