Re: POLITICS - I'm out (was: Disturbing article)

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 2/19/04 11:06:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> Idol@... writes:

> > Like 's seemingly-insupportable distinction between second-class

> > relationships and second-class citizens, this seems like a very odd bit

> > of mental gymnastics to go through.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Discrimination based on behavior

is not the same thing as discrimination based on intrinsic qualities. All

I'm asking for is accuracy in language. Anyway, I'm done with this thread.

> > Using that logic couldn't we ban

> > homosexual sex entirely and claim that we're just discriminating

> against

> > homosexual relationships and that homosexuals are in no way either

> > discriminated against or second-class citizens?

Certainly. I see no problem with that characterization of such a law.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

-

>Why is this so hard for you to understand? Discrimination based on behavior

>is not the same thing as discrimination based on intrinsic qualities. All

>I'm asking for is accuracy in language.

In certain cases you're correct, there's a clear difference. For example,

discrimination based on skin color is clearly different from discrimination

based on, say, driving speed or tendency to play video games. However, in

other cases behavior is very much a result of intrinsic qualities, and

discrimination based on one effectively becomes discrimination based on the

other. One might say that a law requiring all people to be imprisoned

while menstruating discriminates based on behavior... or one might say it

discriminates primarily based on age and sex. Surely you can see that

while the former is technically true, the latter is effectively true.

>Anyway, I'm done with this thread.

Awww poo.

> > > Using that logic couldn't we ban

> > > homosexual sex entirely and claim that we're just discriminating

> > against

> > > homosexual relationships and that homosexuals are in no way either

> > > discriminated against or second-class citizens?

>

>Certainly. I see no problem with that characterization of such a law.

So again, I ask you this: what WOULD in your mind create a group of

second-class citizens?

-

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> Why is this so hard for you to understand? Discrimination based on

behavior

> is not the same thing as discrimination based on intrinsic

qualities. All

> I'm asking for is accuracy in language.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Homosexuality is an intrinsic quality for a subset of homosexuals,

probably the vast majority. This is the subset upon which all

arguments hinge. Distracting the issue by referring to a broader,

behaviorally-based classification of homosexuality has no impact on

the core case of ***congenital homosexuality***. Denying the

existence of congenital physiological determinants of homosexuality

ala (Mhysmith) has no impact either; flat-earth theorists just

get ignored.

INTRINSIC HOMOSEXUALITY + INTRINSIC HUMAN SOCIAL COGNITION =

INTRINSIC PSYCHO-SOCIAL EQUIVALENT TO HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

Please correct any inaccuracies in language.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/19/04 10:27:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> One might say that a law requiring all people to be imprisoned

> while menstruating discriminates based on behavior... or one might say it

> discriminates primarily based on age and sex. Surely you can see that

> while the former is technically true, the latter is effectively true.

>

This isn't analagous because menstruation is not a voluntary behavior or

engagement, and men don't have the opportunity to engage in it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/19/04 11:26:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

michaelantonparker@... writes:

> Homosexuality is an intrinsic quality for a subset of homosexuals,

> probably the vast majority. This is the subset upon which all

> arguments hinge. Distracting the issue by referring to a broader,

> behaviorally-based classification of homosexuality has no impact on

> the core case of ***congenital homosexuality***.

True as that may be, congenital homosexuals are in no way uniquely affected

by the current marriage laws. Bisexuals who wish to marry the same sex,

volitional or cultural homosexuals who wish to do the same, or anyone wishing to

reap the legal/contractual benefits of such a relationship without any sexual

relationship, with the same sex, all suffer the same consequences of the law.

This is somewhat like how alcohol prohibition would equally oppress a genetic

alcoholic and someone who drinks for pleasure.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/20/04 6:59:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >True as that may be, congenital homosexuals are in no way uniquely

> affected

> >by the current marriage laws. Bisexuals who wish to marry the same sex,

> >volitional or cultural homosexuals who wish to do the same, or anyone

> >wishing to

> >reap the legal/contractual benefits of such a relationship without any

> sexual

> >relationship, with the same sex, all suffer the same consequences of the

> law.

>

> And?

Thus, the law does not create a second-class citzenry, if such a phenomenon

is considered to be anything analagous to the status of women or blacks in

previous times in this country.

And thus, the law has an unfair impact based on one's desire to engage in a

certain relationship and attain certain legal benefits with it, regardless of

one's identity.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/20/04 7:14:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >This isn't analagous because menstruation is not a voluntary behavior or

> >engagement, and men don't have the opportunity to engage in it.

>

> So now, perhaps, we come to the crux of the matter -- that homosexuality is

> fundamentally voluntary.

Of course I never said such a thing, and you are continually conflating

" homosexual marriage " with " homosexuality. "

But what, really, determines what's > voluntary?

That's a good question. That question begins to close the gap between

discrimination against even homosexuals per se and, say, pot-smokers or

alcoholics.

Women can, if they really want, put a stop to their > periods.

This is true, but kind of silly. Homosexuals don't have an inherent desire

to engage in a relationship that is a pure legal construction. And, to the

extent that anything can be said to be inherent, menstruation is an intrinsic

property of a woman. Sure, with a degree of mutilation this isn't true, but a

certain degree of mutilation could likewise make a black person lack black skin.

And so what if men don't have the opportunity to > menstruate? Women

> don't have the opportunity to employ male anatomy either.

That's the whole point. Many different groups can desire a relationship have

legal benefits simlar to current marriage laws, but be barred from them

equally. Thus, there is no specific target group of current marriage laws.

But menstruation clearly is an intrinsic and uncontrollable physical property

of a woman that distinguishes her from a man, like possession of a penis

distinguishes a man from a woman. Any law specifically hinging on the

possession

of a penis or menustruation for conditional enforcement specifically targets

on or the other sex.

You don't see how these are two fundamentally different dynamics?

> The fact is that certain behaviors basically sort along lines of intrinsic

> nature; discrimination based on nature and behavior effectively overlap and

> even merge.

That's true, but not in this case, because marriage is a legal construction,

not an intrinsic property, and the multiplicity of relationships that fall

outside this legal construction have no clear relationship, as an aggregate, to

intrinsic properties of a group or groups.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>This isn't analagous because menstruation is not a voluntary behavior or

>engagement, and men don't have the opportunity to engage in it.

So now, perhaps, we come to the crux of the matter -- that homosexuality is

fundamentally voluntary. But what, really, determines what's

voluntary? Women can, if they really want, put a stop to their

periods. And so what if men don't have the opportunity to

menstruate? Women don't have the opportunity to employ male anatomy either.

The fact is that certain behaviors basically sort along lines of intrinsic

nature; discrimination based on nature and behavior effectively overlap and

even merge.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>True as that may be, congenital homosexuals are in no way uniquely affected

>by the current marriage laws. Bisexuals who wish to marry the same sex,

>volitional or cultural homosexuals who wish to do the same, or anyone

>wishing to

>reap the legal/contractual benefits of such a relationship without any sexual

>relationship, with the same sex, all suffer the same consequences of the law.

And?

-

[Guest guest]

>> That's true, but not in this case, because marriage is a legal construction,

not an intrinsic property, and the multiplicity of relationships that fall

outside this legal construction have no clear relationship, as an aggregate, to

intrinsic properties of a group or groups. <<

I'm not sure what the point of this is, as the courts have already long ago

decided that marriage is a right - in the cases that threw out the patchwork of

laws prohibiting mixed race marriage. This whole dispute may be of interest to

some, but I don't see that it's relevant.

I also don't see why the issue of " intrinsic " qualities even comes up, since

some things that are ENTIRELY voluntary, such as your religion, are protected

under law.

Christie

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> True as that may be, congenital homosexuals are in no way uniquely

affected

> by the current marriage laws. Bisexuals who wish to marry the same

sex,

> volitional or cultural homosexuals who wish to do the same, or

anyone wishing to

> reap the legal/contractual benefits of such a relationship without

any sexual

> relationship, with the same sex, all suffer the same consequences

of the law.

>

> This is somewhat like how alcohol prohibition would equally oppress

a genetic

> alcoholic and someone who drinks for pleasure.

>

> Chris

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Ah ha, so you're saying that not only group A but a superset B is

discriminated against by marriage/household union laws. Since A is a

subset of B, A is discriminated against too, and A is the group in

question. So instead of just admitting the point about group A is

correct, you imply it while making a separate point.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

So now, perhaps, we come to the crux of the matter -- that

homosexuality is

> fundamentally voluntary. But what, really, determines what's

> voluntary? Women can, if they really want, put a stop to their

> periods. And so what if men don't have the opportunity to

> menstruate? Women don't have the opportunity to employ male

anatomy either.

>

> The fact is that certain behaviors basically sort along lines of

intrinsic

> nature; discrimination based on nature and behavior effectively

overlap and

> even merge.

@@@@@@@@@

Homosexuality is not fundamentally voluntary. However, homosexual

sex is exclusively voluntary. Hunger is not voluntary, but eating

is.

I don't think we came to any cruxes there.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>Homosexuality is not fundamentally voluntary. However, homosexual

>sex is exclusively voluntary. Hunger is not voluntary, but eating

>is.

>

>I don't think we came to any cruxes there.

In the strictest, most fundamentalist sense, eating is voluntary, but since

the alternative is death, I think most reasonable people will agree that

there's not much actual choice there.

And if you think that, at least for many people (though I won't and can't

really hazard a guess about specifically) I assure you that the

notion that homosexuality and homosexual sex are choices is very much the

crux of the matter.

-

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@ Mike/:

> >Homosexuality is not fundamentally voluntary. However, homosexual

> >sex is exclusively voluntary. Hunger is not voluntary, but

eating

> >is.

> In the strictest, most fundamentalist sense, eating is voluntary,

but since

> the alternative is death, I think most reasonable people will agree

that

> there's not much actual choice there.

@@@@@@@@

Well, you're saying eating is **smart**, and of course most

reasonable people will agree with that, but voluntary is voluntary,

and the act of eating is still voluntary in the only meaningful

physiological sense. Instead of talking about sex in the narrow

sense, let's refer to homosexual social interaction as a broader

class of activity still quite distinct from homosexuality. This class

of activity would include things like emotional and psychological

bonds, general sensual pleasure, living together, raising a family,

etc. Now, for a homosexual, the alternative to homosexual social

interaction might be something nearly as grim as starving to death.

Of course, there's still a qualitative difference between the two

things, and I'm sure someone would always pick the food first!

@@@@@@@@@@@

> And if you think that, at least for many people (though I won't and

can't

> really hazard a guess about specifically) I assure you that

the

> notion that homosexuality and homosexual sex are choices is very

much the

> crux of the matter.

>

> -

@@@@@@@@@@@

Well, just to reiterate the point that I know you already accept,

homosexuality is fundamentally not a choice. In the relevant class

of people it is a congenital condition much like having a pancreas to

secrete digestive enzymes.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > >True as that may be, congenital homosexuals are in no way uniquely

> > affected

> > >by the current marriage laws. Bisexuals who wish to marry the same sex,

> > >volitional or cultural homosexuals who wish to do the same, or anyone

> > >wishing to

> > >reap the legal/contractual benefits of such a relationship without any

> > sexual

> > >relationship, with the same sex, all suffer the same consequences of the

> > law.

> >

> > And?

>

>Thus, the law does not create a second-class citzenry, if such a phenomenon

>is considered to be anything analagous to the status of women or blacks in

>previous times in this country.

>

>And thus, the law has an unfair impact based on one's desire to engage in a

>certain relationship and attain certain legal benefits with it, regardless of

>one's identity.

I've included the full backquote to be clear.

Are you really suggesting that homosexuals aren't second-class citizens due

to marriage laws because the marriage laws don't SOLELY discriminate

against homosexuals?

By that logic, women weren't second-class citizens during at least some of

the time before suffrage because other classes of people were also denied

the right to vote.

Also, by naming (presumably pre-emancipation) blacks and (presumably

pre-suffrage) women you're suggesting a threshold for reduced-class

citizenship without actually identifying it.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Homosexuals don't have an inherent desire

>to engage in a relationship that is a pure legal construction.

I'm not sure that's really a supportable statement. Humans aren't the only

species with lasting pair bonds, and marriage has been a cultural

institution for long enough that it may effectively be inherent on some

level. Perhaps more to the point, humans definitely have a drive to enjoy

equality with other humans.

-

[Guest guest]

Christie-

>I also don't see why the issue of " intrinsic " qualities even comes up,

>since some things that are ENTIRELY voluntary, such as your religion, are

>protected under law.

The issue is a waste of time, but I'm trying to figure out what exactly

would make someone a second-class citizen in their view, and it seems to

require discrimination based on intrinsic qualities.

-

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>Well, you're saying eating is **smart**, and of course most

>reasonable people will agree with that, but voluntary is voluntary,

>and the act of eating is still voluntary in the only meaningful

>physiological sense.

This reminds me of the argument that people with Tourette's are faking it

because their ticks are " voluntary " . My retort is always that their ticks

are voluntary in the same sense that a sneeze is voluntary -- yes, they

have some measure of control over it, but they don't choose to tick any

more than people choose to sneeze. I can decide, to a large degree, when

and where and what to eat, but I have little more ability to stop eating

for good than I have to stop breathing for good.

>Well, just to reiterate the point that I know you already accept,

>homosexuality is fundamentally not a choice. In the relevant class

>of people it is a congenital condition much like having a pancreas to

>secrete digestive enzymes.

Yes, I agree, but that wasn't my point. Many people believe that

homosexuality is a choice, and that belief has to be addressed. I think

that belief partly underlies Chris' position. Your response -- that it's

not a choice -- is a bit of a non sequitur.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/20/04 8:03:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> I'm not sure what the point of this is, as the courts have already long ago

> decided that marriage is a right - in the cases that threw out the patchwork

> of laws prohibiting mixed race marriage. This whole dispute may be of

> interest to some, but I don't see that it's relevant.

>

> I also don't see why the issue of " intrinsic " qualities even comes up, since

> some things that are ENTIRELY voluntary, such as your religion, are

> protected under law.

To either, I answer: who cares? This discussion is a purely semantic

discussion that I view as having no practical value whatsoever, and its subject

is

what constitutes a " second-class citizenry. " None of the people involved at any

point in this discussion asserted that the marriage laws were just or not

oppressive, so that is not at issue in any way.

Besides, a discussion about justice is entirely independent from a discussion

about law. What a court decides may be a just decision or an unjust

decision.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/20/04 8:35:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,

michaelantonparker@... writes:

> Ah ha, so you're saying that not only group A but a superset B is

> discriminated against by marriage/household union laws. Since A is a

> subset of B, A is discriminated against too, and A is the group in

> question. So instead of just admitting the point about group A is

> correct, you imply it while making a separate point.

I already addressed the issue of sets, but perhaps it wasn't to you. I'll

make the point again: Bisexuals could either be considered a separate set, or

could be considered a subset of homosexuals. If bisexuals are considered a

separate set, the above is invalid. If bisexuals are considered a subset of

homosexuals, it cannot be argued that homosexuals by nature cannot marry someone

they have the capacity to be attracted to, because a large portion of them have

legal options that are coincident with their capacity for attractions.

For the bisexual, they are only oppressed insofar as they choose to marry

someone of the same sex. If we make the logical jump for argument's sake that

loving someone requires marriage to them, then this is probably to some degree

beyond the control of said bisexual, but is certainly not an intrinsic quality,

but is left to random chance.

Furthermore, bisexuals are the only group I mentioned that could be

reasonably considered a subset of homosexuals.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/21/04 10:17:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I'm not sure that's really a supportable statement. Humans aren't the only

>

> species with lasting pair bonds, and marriage has been a cultural

> institution for long enough that it may effectively be inherent on some

> level. Perhaps more to the point, humans definitely have a drive to enjoy

> equality with other humans.

You keep conflating the personal and social aspects of marriage with the

legal and contractual aspects of marriage, which are independent.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/21/04 10:18:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Are you really suggesting that homosexuals aren't second-class citizens due

>

> to marriage laws because the marriage laws don't SOLELY discriminate

> against homosexuals?

> By that logic, women weren't second-class citizens during at least some of

> the time before suffrage because other classes of people were also denied

> the right to vote.

That's a good point. However, I don't find it entirely convincing. If

" white males " are given the right to vote, it's quite clear that " white " is

meant

to exclude " black " and " male " is meant to exclude " women. " That's just hitting

two birds with two different stones with the same slingshot.

I think the marriage laws are fundamentally different, in that they don't

have specific target groups for exclusion. Two homosexuals aren't excluded more

than two heterosexual female (fourth?) cousins. The former want marriage for

a legal sanction of a familial and sexual relationship, and say the latter

want a legally sanctioned marriage for entirely non-sexual reasons, but both are

barred by virtue of being the same sex.

> Also, by naming (presumably pre-emancipation) blacks and (presumably

> pre-suffrage) women you're suggesting a threshold for reduced-class

> citizenship without actually identifying it.

I think typically it is considered the absence of citizenship rights.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/21/04 12:00:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> The whole idea of laws in general is to protect its citizens. In the

> case of marriage, the purpose is to protect the family unit,

> particularly children. There's no question that children are best

> raised by their own parents together in their own home.

This is really entirely irrelevant from the issue for two reasons. First,

marriage does not correlate well to the presence or absence of children in a

home. There's no law saying that non-married people cannot have children, and a

large portion of chidren are of divorced or single parents.

Second, there are lots of rights that come with marriage regarding hospital

rights, taxes, inheritance, and a whole host of issues Christie expounded on at

length.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/21/04 1:25:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> Marraige as the joining together of a man and wife, the symbolic ceremonies

> and what not, was cultural tradition in Christian society. State

> recognition of those came secondary after they already existed.

This is a historical fallacy. The Roman Empire had marriages before the

Christian Church, and the Christian Church began recognizing state marriages

*long* before it instituted marriage as a so-called " sacrament " that the state

began recognizing.

But that's not really relevant. Your fundamental point is more or less

correct-- that contracts are made between private individuals or organizations.

Anyone should be able to engage in any kind of contract they want, and it should

be fully recognized by whatever body (civil gov't in our case) is the

arbitrating body with the responsibility of enforcing contracts. Period.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/21/04 3:46:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >You keep conflating the personal and social aspects of marriage with the

> >legal and contractual aspects of marriage, which are independent.

>

> No, they're not independent, they're linked phenomena.

They have a relationship, but they are independent, in that one can exist

without the other. Federal marriage laws are very complex, and do not

necessarily reflect marriage laws in, say, a tribal society.

In any case, I think homosexuals should have every contractual right that

heterosexuals do, and that both should have the right to enter into *any*

contract that they wish.

You keep > assuming that you can discriminate against certain homosexual

> behaviors (or institutions, or traditions, or whatever term you'd prefer)

> without

> discriminating against homosexuals.

Our disagreement is not only semantical, but is divided by such a thin thread

it really is just downright silly to keep arguing this, but for some reason I

continue. I'm going to bow out soon if this doesn't progress.

I'm not going to answer this in this email, because I think that I answered

it sufficiently in others that you're probably responding to now.

Chris