| Author | Message | ||
     maplescorp Citizen Username: Maplescorp Post Number: 111 Registered: 12-2005  |
Scrotis, I think you once implied that, with the success of "Will & Grace" and its entertainment progeny, prejudice against gay people was no longer relevant. Well, someone forgot to tell this fellow... http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/02/gay.shooting/index.html You'll probably say, "well this guy is deranged!," and he certainly is, but he gets his ideas from somewhere, he wasn't born a homophobe, and in that respect he's certainly not alone. If I mischaracterized your point of view, then I stand corrected. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 627 Registered: 2-2004 |
How do you know he wasn't born a homophobe? | ||
| maplescorp Citizen Username: Maplescorp Post Number: 112 Registered: 12-2005 |
Watch any group of toddler kids in a playground -- it illustrates that kids are not born with prejudice; Prejudice is learned, especially when the targets of prejudice look exactly the same as you do. This nutcase learned to hate gays from family, friends, colleagues, his personal church, music, TV, likely some combination thereof. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 617 Registered: 10-2005 |
Maplescorp, Unfortunately you have mischaracterized my position. Prejudice in all forms still exist and will never completely go away I am afraid. But the progress made over the last 50 years is nothing short of amazing. Your post is just one instance (not saying there aren't others) and an unfortunate one at that. It may be a silly indicator, but I honestly think that the success of such shows/movies like "Will & Grace" and "Broeback Mountain" only illustrates the growing tolerance toward the gay population. Don't you remember Ellen Degeneres (sp) show that was canceled a few years back apparently because she came out of the closet? But anyone who shows up at ANY bar with a hatchet and gun is in fact deranged... -SLK | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 629 Registered: 2-2004 |
I agree, but how do you KNOW he wasn't born predisposed? And what is the point of this thread other than you have let Scot get to you? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 959 Registered: 6-2001 |
maplescorp, When you watch any group of toddler kids in a playground, can you tell which ones were born homosexual? TomR | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5127 Registered: 8-2003 |
Two things -- "Will and Grace" is the equivalent of a black minstrel show in their stereotypical presentation. Some might argue that the show is a 'first step' for society. I'm not sure. Ellen DeGeneres' show wasn't canceled because she came out of the closet. It was canceled because it became an average to bad show almost exclusively about Ellen being gay instead of the original good show it used to be. And I think the show could have still been good if Ellen's character just happened to be gay. Rap music doesn't do anything to advance the black community's inability to embrace gays. I point to that because Alley Gator and others on this board tend to identify anti-gay movements and actions with republicans. Blue states have their own fair share of phobes, and have yet to pass gay marriage (if that's a barometer) legislatively. To deny that is to be a conservo-phobe. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 621 Registered: 10-2005 |
cjc- Unless you are black and on the "DL" of course...  | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 375 Registered: 8-2004 |
Tom R: What are you implying? Can you pick the straight ones out? Can you pick out the ones that will someday want the crust cut off their sandwhiches? Can you pick out the ones that will someday like John Coltrane? Can you pick out the ones that are lactose intolerant? I don't understand what you are getting at? | ||
| maplescorp Citizen Username: Maplescorp Post Number: 113 Registered: 12-2005 |
I apologize for calling out Scrotis so explicitly with this thread. It's just that we had talked about this issue and at the time I was looking for a recent example to illustrate my point. I'll actually grant that gay-acceptance has come a long way, but I still find it the most heinous and socially-acceptable form of social prejudice, mostly because how much it is officially tolerated if not condoned. For the record, blue-state homophobia is no less repulsive than red-state homophobia, but by and large, Democrats are more friendly to the GLBT community than Republicans are. The Log Cabin Republicans is an example of how intolerant, not tolerant, the party is toward gay Republicans. Not only does the party ridicule them, but they didn't even support the President in the last election. Clinton's support of DOMA notwithstanding, A democratic administration would never promote adding discrimination to the Constitution as the Bush Administration does. And I don't think I'm assuming too much to say that Scalia and Thomas, Bush's faves, are the least gay-friendly S.C. Justices. Although Alito may change that. I'm also stymied by TomR's question. Care to elaborate? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5128 Registered: 8-2003 |
Whether Scalia or Thomas are gay friendly or not, I think both of them would rather the "more friendly" Democrats or someone write and pass legislation protecting or granting whatever is wanted than putting the onus upon the Supreme Court. Democrats won't write or push that legislation because they'll hurt themselves with the black vote, and they need all the votes they can get. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 624 Registered: 10-2005 |
Maplescorp- I hear you for the most part, but you are speaking on strictly on political terms. I think as a whole, society has come along way reagrding gay tolerance. Some may not agree with the lifestyle, but the majority will leave them alone. Also, other forms of equally heinous prejudices still exist against other members of society(obsese, handicapped, etc.). GM is alot more complicated then you are making it out to be, so please don't automatically consider resistance to it as discriminatory. Personally, I don't think ANY marriage is a constitutional issue and it is silly to look at it in such a way. I think it was equally silly for the gay community to seek confirmation in the constitution (states included) as well as Bush trying to drum up a constitutional amenedment prohibiting GM. In fact, I think it was one of the stupidest proposals he ever made... Lastly, not to appear disrespectful maplescorp but what is driving you to put up such a fight for the the GC? Sometimes I talk to wife about the discussions on these boards and told her about you, a staunch fighter for the GC, is straight and married. Do you have a family member/good friend who is gay? Just curious... And no reason to apologize for "calling me out," it is nice to be in the spotlight every once in a while!  | ||
| maplescorp Citizen Username: Maplescorp Post Number: 114 Registered: 12-2005 |
When exactly did the gay community seek "confirmation" in the constitution, other than to have the same rights as everyone else? I missed that. Did they have an ERA bill or something to that effect? And I'm sorry, but I do find resistance to GM discriminatory on its face, just as resistance to interracial marriage would be. The first "out" gay friends I ever knew were friends of my wife. They are the smartest, kindest, most accomplished, and thoughtful people I know. Bar none. That's not because they are gay (though the more gay peope I meet, the more that proposition gains validity), but it galls me that their commitment is seen as unmarriage-worthy, that they couldn't adopt a child if they lived in Florida, that several states and companies would not grant them workplace benefits, that their very life is endangered if they act openly in certain parts of the country, that books depicting their lifestyle are banned in many public schools, that a large part of the country considers them sick or sinners, and unwelcome. All that is generally not true for any other minority because it wouldn't be tolerated. That's my definition of "most heinous". When's the last time an acceptable perspective on black or obese people was, as you stated, "Some may not agree with the lifestyle, but the majority will leave them alone." There's a difference between respecting a man and "leaving him alone." The former is an act of human grace, the latter is treating another human being as a tolerable nuisance or an animal. No, I'm not gay and there aren't even gay members of my family (to my knowledge). But there are three words that give me inspiration to act on behalf of affronted minorities of which I'm not a member: Chaney, Goodman & Schwerner. I know you were just being curious. I think it also helps the cause to have like-minded people involved who otherwise have no vested concern or interest, though I'm certainly interested in the world my children will grow up in, and not just if one of them turns out to be gay. I devote oodles more time to the cause of gay rights than I do to the cause of Anti-Semitism (which is none at all), even though I'm Jewish. Because all prejudices are not the same, as you seem to imply. In my personal philosophical triage, this rises to the top of the list. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 628 Registered: 10-2005 |
Maplescorp- Proponents of GM sought refuge in their state judicial system (rather than legislative body) that turned to its respective constitutions for an answer. There is no such thing as having a "constitutional right" to being married. As I have always said, I have no problem with gays getting married personally, they just went down the wrong road (judicial rather than legislative) to achieve this privilege (not right). Acts of "gay-bashing" do occur but are minimal and quite amazingly so, giving the size of the population. The majority of society do respect the gay population and that is what I mean't by "leaving them alone." | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12311 Registered: 1-2003  |
SLK, I disagree about the right to marry. The constitution is not an exhaustive list of our rights! Furthermore, don't you believe in the government keeping its damned nose out of our personal business unless necessary? The rate of gay bashing is one thing, but the severity is another. Name any crime, and you can probably cite a very low rate. That doesn't mean the crime isn't worth addressing. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 630 Registered: 10-2005 |
Tom- I like your other picture better...will the old Tom please come back? So we agree that the constitution is not an exhaustive list of our rights. Can someone please tell those gay marriage proponents that? Tom, I am probably misunderstanding you but are you saying that gay bashing is more severe of a crime than others? And nowhere have I said we shouldn't address such a crime. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12313 Registered: 1-2003 |
I think gays have the right to marry because they are alive. The fact that the constitution doesn't grant them the right is not evidence that they don't have the right. Same for straight people. No, I'm not saying that gay bashing is the most severe crime. It's just that you said that the incident rate is low, which sounded like you were dismissing it as serious. If I read you wrong, I'm glad to stand corrected. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 631 Registered: 10-2005 |
Tom Reingold- I agree that Gays should be allowed to get married but I don't think that existing law recognizes it. That is why GM proponents sought the consitutional route. In my opinion, the best route to take would be for the issue to go before the state legislatures to decide. I don't dismiss any type of crime that involves violence as not serious.... All I am saying is that with all the different types of people around, I am surprised that such crimes of bashing are not far worse than they actually are.... | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 960 Registered: 6-2001 |
maplescorp, You state that homophobia is a learned state of mind, and to demonstrate your point, inquire whether one can tell from observing toddler kids in a playground whether they have such a state of mind. I've been told, and have read, many times, including several times on these message boards, that homosexuality is not learned, but rather is simply innate to some persons. IF homosexuality is innate to some persons, my query is only whether homosexuality can be observed in toddler kids in a playground. Can it? If so, what characteristics demonstrate homosexuality in toddler kids in a playground? If not, why? And for what its worth, I agree that Jake Robida is not a well man, although, at this point, its not clear whether he has a psychological disorder, or suffers from some physiological problem. TomR | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 961 Registered: 6-2001 |
Noglider, With regard to your assertion that gays have the right to marry, I must ask whence this right eminates? We have the right to peaceably assemble and seek redress for grievances from the Government. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Soldiers can't be quartered in our homes in peacetime, without our consent. These are Rights guaranteed by our Constitution. There's a whole bunch more, the smart guys wrote them down just so we wouldn't forget. Every now and then, the "Nine Old Men" decide we have some other rights, like the "right" to be informed of our "Right" to remain silent, or the "right" to choose to have an abortion. But those "rights" were based, however imperpectly, upon something more than the petitioners being alive. So, I ask again, whence does the right to marry arise? Insofar as I'm aware, the "right" of gays to marry exists only under the Massachusetts' Constitution. Things may have changed, but whan I got married, I had to get a license; just like I did to drive. (As an aside, why do I need to renew my license to drive; but that license to marry keeps goin' n goin' n goin')? If we need a license, I don't think that the subject of the license can fairly be called a "right". I'm either missing something obvious; or you're using the term "right" much too loosely. TomR | ||
| maplescorp Citizen Username: Maplescorp Post Number: 115 Registered: 12-2005 |
"You state that homophobia is a learned state of mind, and to demonstrate your point, inquire whether one can tell from observing toddler kids in a playground whether they have such a state of mind." You misunderstand, TomR. The point about toddlers is to show how they don't fear or hate one another innately. It's not about what they do; it's about what they're not doing. They haven't learned anything yet and thus have no prejudicial state of mind. They simply play together without prejudice, unless one of them acts violently or steals a toy or whatever. But they are not born with prejudices toward another child. Prejudice is picked up by learning. "I've been told, and have read, many times, including several times on these message boards, that homosexuality is not learned, but rather is simply innate to some persons." You're getting it. Good for you! "IF homosexuality is innate to some persons, my query is only whether homosexuality can be observed in toddler kids in a playground." Uhhhh, no. But what's your point? My only point is that toddlers don't have such adult prejudices, whether they can see a difference (skin color, physical handicap) or not (homosexuality, social class). Those things are learned. "If so, what characteristics demonstrate homosexuality in toddler kids in a playground?" Huh? You lost me. | ||
| Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 136 Registered: 8-2005 |
TomR: "If so, what characteristics demonstrate homosexuality in toddler kids in a playground?" None. Gender identity starts asserting itself at around 3. Sexual identity (entirely different) comes later when the hormones kick in. You can't tell which one's will be for-sure heterosexual either at that young an age. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12316 Registered: 1-2003 |
TomR, toddlers don't display homosexuality in the playground because they don't display any sexuality in the playground. I don't mean we have legal mechanisms for marrying, but now that society is coming around -- just now -- to the fact that homosexuality is innate and that gays ought to be able to marry, they now have the right. Now here's something funny. I've used the word exhaustive on MOL a few times lately, and each time, people have not understood what I meant when I used the word. It means listing all attributes whereby no attribute is left out. So when I say the constitution and the bill of rights is NOT an exhaustive list, it means that we have other rights that are not listed. Same for the rights that the Supreme Court have spelled out. Just because those rights are not printed and haven't been addressed in the Court doesn't mean we don't have that right. I have a right to decide whether to vomit in my sink or my toilet. I don't need an amendment to state so. In fact, the tenth amendment says it well:
Which means, to me, "If it ain't listed here, the people already have the right." I admit it may -- MAY -- make sense to legislate an acknowledgement that people of the same sex may marry. I admit legislation may make sense than the courts making this decision. But either mechanism will be acknowledging a right, and it doesn't have to be listed. OK, is that clear? | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 634 Registered: 10-2005 |
Reingold- Stick with the ninth amendment. It would strengthen your position better... And don't forget that those rights reserve to the states are also subject to their own constitution and laws. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12318 Registered: 1-2003 |
Wow, you're right. The 9th amendment says it better. The 9th and 10th look redundant. What's the difference? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 786 Registered: 10-2004  |
cjc - totally agree with you. That was so hard to type... | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 637 Registered: 10-2005 |
Tom- 9th amendment-in laymen's terms, just because the constitution doesn't state specific rights doesn't mean you don't have them. 10th Amendment-pretty much state power over fed power. In our federalist system, it is the independent states that have more say and influence then the feds...if the const. doesn't state a specific matter it automatically left to the states... now apply this to such SC decisions as RvW and then you understand what the controversy is all about... | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12320 Registered: 1-2003 |
Thank you, SLK. I understand the RvW stuff is largely about state rights, and I know enough to know that I don't know enough to say how it should be decided. And the 9th amendment is good one. It says that the constitution and its amendments are not an exhaustive list, so I wonder why TomR asks me where the right to marry is listed. We don't need it listed for there to be such a right. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 640 Registered: 10-2005 |
TR- Well, TomR does have a point. One of the problems with the const. is that it does NOT list all rights which leaves the interpretation game to be played. Sometimes all kinds of "rights" are stuffed into the 9th amendment which may not necessairly belong there....or even exist. And one can argue that the RvW decision totally violated the 10th amendment (trumping 50 existing state laws on abortion). As I have said in previous posts, I don't believe my marriage to my wife is constitutionally protected and I am not sure if I want it to be. It is just a silly way to look at marriage of any kind. I tend to look at marriage as a privilege more than a right.... I don't believe abortion is a constitutional issue either, nor should it be.... That is why I personally prefer the states to deal with such issues as abortion/GM, etc....in a democracy, let the states ("people") decide these issues through the legislative process...that is true "power to the people" even if their vote does not give your preferrable outcome.... | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1467 Registered: 3-2004 |
scrotey Maybe this has been mentioned before. The Constitution is a tool for ensuring rights, not for taking them away, as an amendment prohibiting gay marriage might have done. I believe that there was only one amendment to the Constitution that took away something: the Prohibition amendment (18th Amendment) which was repealed by the 21st amendment, I believe. Other than that, the only amendment limiting something was the presidential term limit and succession amendment. But that did not prevent anyone from becoming president. Perhaps marriage is neither a privilege nor a right, but a free and willful contract entered into by two parties. It's not something the government can bestow, and it's certainly not something the government can take away. It seems to me the government can only protect our right to enter into that contract, not abrogate the right. What thinkest thou? | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 643 Registered: 10-2005 |
Inny- I agree for the most part, if not all. A Constitutional banning GM is such a silly idea. Unfortunately, marriage is being looked at in every other way the what it is-a willful contract between 2 parties, most recently by GM proponents who sought the constitutional route. I just breezed through the NJ Constitution and found no mention of marriage of any kind, but NJ state laws (like most-except HI and VT)use language with the assumption that the 2 marrying parties are of the opposite sex (bride and groom). Get the legislative body to change this language and then those pro GM should be in the clear. But "a willful contract between 2 parties" still must be monitored by some law or 18 year old Billy will be able to marry his 37 year old sister Joan. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2308 Registered: 5-2004  |
I would argue that the right of gay people to marry is explicitly derived from the 'right" of straight people to marry. To create a law differentiating this is bigotry, codified. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1469 Registered: 3-2004 |
Scrotey: I think you have something there re 18 year old billy marrying 37 year old sister joan, or 41 year old mommy sallie jean. I believe, however, that contracts can only be entered into by people with sufficient reasoning powers and age of responsibility to understand them. So we avoid the irresponsibly agreed contract, or we have the grounds to render it null and void. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 962 Registered: 6-2001 |
maplescorp, You state that homophobia is a learned state of mind, and to demonstrate your point, inquire whether one can tell from observing toddler kids in a playground whether they have such a state of mind. In turn, assuming arguendo that homosexuality is innate to some persons, I query how does one tell a homosexual from a hetrosexual when observing toddler kids in a playground. It was my intent to highlight the fallacy of your analysis. Observing toddler kids in a playground is not an effective methodology for determining the incidence of a psychological trait; and is no more, or less, an effective methodology for determining the sexual preference of a particular person. IF I understood your premise correctly, you assert that learned behaviour cannot be discerned in toddlers, because they haven't yet learned the behaviour. Such a premise requires the conclusion that behaviour which is not learned, but rather is innate to an individual, should be discernable I meant nothing more, nor anything less. TomR | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 963 Registered: 6-2001 |
Noglider, Assuming, arguendo that you are correct that homosexuality is an innate condition, you still fail to state the basis for your conclusion that gays now have the right to marry. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to our Constitution have been tossed about with about as much authority as your prior assertion that the right exists "because they are alive". I'll see your Ninth and Tenth, and raise you the Fifth and Fourteenth, and ask again, if I needed a license to marry, how can marriage be called a right? To address your analogy, of puking in the sink; you may puke in the sink, but you do not have the "right" to puke in the sink. Or put another way, until April 15, people may smoke cigarettes in any bar or restaurant which permits smoking. But they do not have, and never had, a "right" to smoke in said establishments. Whatever "rights" may be afforded by the Ninth Amendment, unless, and until, such "rights" are acknowledged by a court of competent jurisdiction, or the legislatures of the several States, those "rights" are inchoate, at best. TomR | ||
| maplescorp Citizen Username: Maplescorp Post Number: 116 Registered: 12-2005 |
"Such a premise requires the conclusion that behaviour which is not learned, but rather is innate to an individual, should be discernable" I think that you're saying that if toddlers aren't showing learned behavior then they must be exhibiting innate behavior. This may be true, but it certainly isn't true for ALL innate behaviors. Previous posts have put forth that sexuality isn't apparent for several years; that doesn't make it any less innate or biological. Saying that prejudice is learned and homosexuality isn't discernible in toddlers are completely reconcilable notions, because the two aren't particularly related. That you can't tell if a toddler is gay or not adds nothing to the discussion of the obvious fact that prejudice, including homophobia, is learned. Have you ever seen a toddler who exhibited prejudice against people based on anything other than their physical interactions? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2575 Registered: 6-2002 |
When the Supreme Court struck down the State laws against inter-racial marraige did they not find a Constitutional right to marraige? Was it Lovett v. Georgia? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2576 Registered: 6-2002 |
Loving v. Virginia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2577 Registered: 6-2002 |
From Loving v. Virginia: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Is it so much of a jump to day that the 14th Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious gender discriminations? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 964 Registered: 6-2001 |
maplescorp, No, I'm saying that using toddlers as an observerational test sample for homophobic or homosexual behaviour, is disingenuous, at best, if not calculated to mislead. TomR |
