Oops, sorry to let the secret out. I mean, forget what I just said.Boot to the headMuch as some see porn and other such sexual behavior as empowering women to take over their sexuality and break the bonds of male driven society. To which I just have to shake my head. "Don't you realize that what men want you to do is run around naked, doing sexual stuff? You are falling right into their trap. No don't do that. Don't rub your lady parts on that other lady, please don't."Interestingly, some women in the 19th century viewed prostitution as a form of liberation. I suggest reading the book "Daughters of Joy, Sisters of Misery," for more details.I was noticing the other day that the past seems to be generally full of less attractive people. I don't know if this is because camera equipment wasn't very good yet, or simply because of disease, malnutrition, poverty, etc. But all things considered, I'm pretty glad to be alive right now.
I have taken that tour, are you sure it was just one? Because if not that was a couple of mighty ugly women.
I've been trying to get into this angle for a while. Unfortunately I haven't gotten my hands on much of this type of porn. In theory, I'd have to say it depends very much on who's behind the camera, as well as who is in front of it(redefining attractiveness, sex, etc, etc.).
Dear lord..she speaking in tongues!
Gah! It burns! I'm melting! Meeeeelting! Oh what a world, what a world!
Simply because all of our choices somewhere down the line affect others. All of our choices will. Notice I did not say if it is a right choice or not just that they do affect others.
That said, even if homosexuality is a choice, I think people should feel free to make that choice. After all, isn't that what freedom is all about? The freedom to make personal choices, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others? If someone decides that they'd be happier marrying someone of the same sex, and raising a family with someone of the same sex, shouldn't we grant them the freedom to make that choice for themselves?
A good examnple of this: my only objection to gay marriage is that it opens the door and provides precedent for polygamists to further expand the definition of marriage beyond two people (eg if you swtich the genders, then why not the numbers?)
If the LGBT movement can find a way around that, that'd be a very good thing.
My only objection with interracial marriage is that it opens the door to people marrying their pets.
This was an argument that was, indeed, used, at the time.
Simply because all of our choices somewhere down the line affect others. All of our choices will. Notice I did not say if it is a right choice or not just that they do affect others.
That said, even if homosexuality is a choice, I think people should feel free to make that choice. After all, isn't that what freedom is all about? The freedom to make personal choices, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others? If someone decides that they'd be happier marrying someone of the same sex, and raising a family with someone of the same sex, shouldn't we grant them the freedom to make that choice for themselves?
A good examnple of this: my only objection to gay marriage is that it opens the door and provides precedent for polygamists to further expand the definition of marriage beyond two people (eg if you swtich the genders, then why not the numbers?)
If the LGBT movement can find a way around that, that'd be a very good thing.
My only objection with interracial marriage is that it opens the door to people marrying their pets.
This was an argument that was, indeed, used, at the time.
Except pets can not give (legal) consent, more than 2 adults can.
Just my opinion but we have gone way off track. This thread really just needs to die.
I believe that it has accomplished its original purpose.
meow?
Except pets can not give (legal) consent, more than 2 adults can.Simply because all of our choices somewhere down the line affect others. All of our choices will. Notice I did not say if it is a right choice or not just that they do affect others.
That said, even if homosexuality is a choice, I think people should feel free to make that choice. After all, isn't that what freedom is all about? The freedom to make personal choices, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others? If someone decides that they'd be happier marrying someone of the same sex, and raising a family with someone of the same sex, shouldn't we grant them the freedom to make that choice for themselves?
A good examnple of this: my only objection to gay marriage is that it opens the door and provides precedent for polygamists to further expand the definition of marriage beyond two people (eg if you swtich the genders, then why not the numbers?)
If the LGBT movement can find a way around that, that'd be a very good thing.
My only objection with interracial marriage is that it opens the door to people marrying their pets.
This was an argument that was, indeed, used, at the time.
You're missing my point.
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy for a reason.
But, just for the sake of entertainment, have this video about it!
More to the point, and in fact, to quote from someone else:
"There's a reason "slippery slope" is listed among logical fallacies. Allowing people of the same gender to get married is no more a slippery slope leading to human-chimp hybrids than allowing people of different races to get married, or when marriage stopped being a property arrangement, with women as the property.
...Or when paleolithic humans FINALLY stopped f-bombing chimps.
Banning gay marriage isn't about saving straight marriage, it is about preventing gay people from being considered normal. Seeing two women kissing does contribute to the downfall of heterosexual marriage, but mostly because straight men can't stop staring long enough to actually bedazzle the livestock."
I have often wondered on the ramifications of this attitude. Will it result less children overall in the coming years? Will it force an, adaptation, of culture and society?So, yes, some suffragists were pro-abortion, others were anti-abortion. It is not "doubtful" at all.That is true even today.
In Asia (for instance) would not "Feminism" be strongly Anti-Abortion? Look at the gender tilt problem that has happened in China. The preference for male children actually resulted in the abortion of lots of girl babies.
Depends on where we are talking about and the overall culture. I read in the newspaper that the situation has already reversed itself in South Korea with expectant parents hoping for little girls. So here the bias was obviously not deep as it ended after a single generation of too many boys and not enough girls.
India, however, is a whole different kettle of fish. They've been leaving new born little girls out to die of exposure there for centuries (or in recent times aborting females). Early Europeans exploring/conquering the place noted the behavior and wrote about it. It's likely the practice goes back much further as well since the cultural issues that cause them to engage in this behavior go back a lot longer then a few centuries.
I'm not sure if it would reduce the rate of population growth, though I suppose logically it should. Even if it does however one suspects that no one would see that aspect as particularly problematic in generally overpopulated India.
In any case it seems clear that a bias in favour of boys has been historically sustainable in some cultures but clearly not in others.
@CJ: Yeah, there is an unfortunate connection between religion=politics in China. i think it would depend on the "kind" of Buddhism they'd be espousing.
There is a history of religious or quasi religious movements turning into outright revolt so this is somewhat understandable. Beyond that the CCP seems downright jittery these days. Between extremely rapid growth and then a sudden downturn there are a lot of instabilities in the system and the result feels as if it has the CCP jumping every time it sees its shadow.
Also, the history of Catholicism with Colonialism in China might make that religion extra suspect, since it originally came along with the Opium Wars and the fall of the empire.
Now I'm confused. The British where the ones fighting the Opium Wars and their Protestant.
His point was...
Whose point?
Sorry, I was in lecture mode. The political scientist part of my brain hates when someone constructs a strawman to call someone's argument a straw man.
Straw PERSON! End the sexism!
I've been trying to get into this angle for a while. Unfortunately I haven't gotten my hands on much of this type of porn. In theory, I'd have to say it depends very much on who's behind the camera, as well as who is in front of it(redefining attractiveness, sex, etc, etc.).
I saw a documentary on this some years back and the interesting point in the documentary was that the number of women behind the camera or in other development aspects of the porn industry is really quite high. By and large what happens is that the porn starlets get older and move on but it turns out that they are experts in the porn industry itself so they switch from being the person in front of the camera to the person behind it or the accountant that manages the companies books etc.
|
I saw a documentary on this some years back and the interesting point in the documentary was that the number of women behind the camera or in other development aspects of the porn industry is really quite high. By and large what happens is that the porn starlets get older and move on but it turns out that they are experts in the porn industry itself so they switch from being the person in front of the camera to the person behind it or the accountant that manages the companies books etc.
I've been trying to get into this angle for a while. Unfortunately I haven't gotten my hands on much of this type of porn. In theory, I'd have to say it depends very much on who's behind the camera, as well as who is in front of it(redefining attractiveness, sex, etc, etc.).
At this point though the industry is struggling with its market and free productions. Had an interesting story on Nightline last night about this very subject and how many of them are going out of business due to the technology that made them money in the first place.
oh and smurf
It is not a slippery slope falicy. To say that it is simply is an attempt to ignore discussing the issue. The issue is, what does something being a right mean. All you have talked about is bestiality. You have not addressed the substance of the argument that once marriage is defined as a right, then it must, by the nessecity of being a right, be allowed for everyone. In fact if you go back and read Loving V. Virginia they did not address the idea that marriage was a right, just that there is no compelling reason that interracial marriage should be banned.
To put it another way, I enjoy playing paintball. Suppose for a minute that my local municipality decided to outlaw paintball, and could show a compelling public safety reason why it should be banned. As the law is now, I would not have a leg to stand on in court because participating in sports is a privalige, not a right. However, if the Supreme Court decided that playing sports was a right, then my local municipality would have to allow paintball or appeal to the court to define sports in such a way that football and basketball were defined as sports but paintball was not.
That is why the argument that establishing marriage as a right would open up the flood gates to other groups is not a slippery slope argument. It is actually based in the fundamental definition of what a right is. A right by it's fundamental nature is something that cannot be possessed by one group and not another. However, the government, by requiring married couples to apply for and recieve a marriage liscence has established that marriage is not a right. This is because, in addition to being possessed by all, a right requires no permission from anyone to exercise.
Therefore rather than talking about a "right to marry" the argument from the the GLBT community should be that there is no compelling public interest in outlawing homosexual marriage. Make the opponents of such marriages prove a detriment to society. This not only will expose how silly such arguments are, but will also address the so called slippery slope concerns. That is all.
Good point. That said I think the whole thing falls very much into the same box as interracial marriage. I have a had time conceiving of any way in which this could some how destabilize society. In fact it should prove to be a positive good simply because married people, on average, are likely to be more stable and more likely to be engaged in the rather boring but stable behavior of getting a mortgage and paying taxes.
In any case there are a number of western societies that have adopted gay marriage. If the US waits around for a few years they can determine if those societies implode.
I removed a personal attack. Some long posts were also removed for containing the removed post in quotes. Posters should feel free to repost that material.
I'm wondering what I missed now.
Any thing good in the long non-personal attack posts?
|
I'm wondering what I missed now.
Any thing good in the long non-personal attack posts?
This.
It is not a slippery slope falicy. To say that it is simply is an attempt to ignore discussing the issue. The issue is, what does something being a right mean. All you have talked about is bestiality. You have not addressed the substance of the argument that once marriage is defined as a right, then it must, by the nessecity of being a right, be allowed for everyone. In fact if you go back and read Loving V. Virginia they did not address the idea that marriage was a right, just that there is no compelling reason that interracial marriage should be banned.
To put it another way, I enjoy playing paintball. Suppose for a minute that my local municipality decided to outlaw paintball, and could show a compelling public safety reason why it should be banned. As the law is now, I would not have a leg to stand on in court because participating in sports is a privalige, not a right. However, if the Supreme Court decided that playing sports was a right, then my local municipality would have to allow paintball or appeal to the court to define sports in such a way that football and basketball were defined as sports but paintball was not.
That is why the argument that establishing marriage as a right would open up the flood gates to other groups is not a slippery slope argument. It is actually based in the fundamental definition of what a right is. A right by it's fundamental nature is something that cannot be possessed by one group and not another. However, the government, by requiring married couples to apply for and recieve a marriage liscence has established that marriage is not a right. This is because, in addition to being possessed by all, a right requires no permission from anyone to exercise.
Therefore rather than talking about a "right to marry" the argument from the the GLBT community should be that there is no compelling public interest in outlawing homosexual marriage. Make the opponents of such marriages prove a detriment to society. This not only will expose how silly such arguments are, but will also address the so called slippery slope concerns. That is all.
|
|
It is not a slippery slope falicy. To say that it is simply is an attempt to ignore discussing the issue. The issue is, what does something being a right mean. All you have talked about is bestiality. You have not addressed the substance of the argument that once marriage is defined as a right, then it must, by the nessecity of being a right, be allowed for everyone. In fact if you go back and read Loving V. Virginia they did not address the idea that marriage was a right, just that there is no compelling reason that interracial marriage should be banned.To put it another way, I enjoy playing paintball. Suppose for a minute that my local municipality decided to outlaw paintball, and could show a compelling public safety reason why it should be banned. As the law is now, I would not have a leg to stand on in court because participating in sports is a privalige, not a right. However, if the Supreme Court decided that playing sports was a right, then my local municipality would have to allow paintball or appeal to the court to define sports in such a way that football and basketball were defined as sports but paintball was not.
That is why the argument that establishing marriage as a right would open up the flood gates to other groups is not a slippery slope argument. It is actually based in the fundamental definition of what a right is. A right by it's fundamental nature is something that cannot be possessed by one group and not another. However, the government, by requiring married couples to apply for and recieve a marriage liscence has established that marriage is not a right. This is because, in addition to being possessed by all, a right requires no permission from anyone to exercise.
Therefore rather than talking about a "right to marry" the argument from the the GLBT community should be that there is no compelling public interest in outlawing homosexual marriage. Make the opponents of such marriages prove a detriment to society. This not only will expose how silly such arguments are, but will also address the so called slippery slope concerns. That is all.
Good point. That said I think the whole thing falls very much into the same box as interracial marriage. I have a had time conceiving of any way in which this could some how destabilize society. In fact it should prove to be a positive good simply because married people, on average, are likely to be more stable and more likely to be engaged in the rather boring but stable behavior of getting a mortgage and paying taxes.
In any case there are a number of western societies that have adopted gay marriage. If the US waits around for a few years they can determine if those societies implode.
Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing against gay marriage, I am a supporter of it. I'm just saying that we should look towards other arguments that do not open up the playing field to things like polyamory and other strawman arguments. The right to marry argument is fraught with unintended consequences so I support going the route that was taken in the interracial marriage debate which is there is no good sociatal reason for it to be banned.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing against gay marriage, I am a supporter of it. I'm just saying that we should look towards other arguments that do not open up the playing field to things like polyamory and other strawman arguments. The right to marry argument is fraught with unintended consequences so I support going the route that was taken in the interracial marriage debate which is there is no good sociatal reason for it to be banned.
Agreed. I think the best route to change is through the legislative process and not the judicial process. Once you start down the road of having it be a right, you end up with a lot of open questions about what exactly the right is and what its implications are for analogous groups.
To stay off topic a bit, I would agree that same-sex unions are not the same as multiple-spousal ones (involving different sexes). That is because two people of the same-sex can live as a married couple, even where the state does not recognize such unions. Most of the laws outlawing homosexual conduct have been overturned, so there is no legal penalty for two people of the same-sex to say they are married, even if not given actual legal benefits of such a union. On the other hand, multiple-spousal relationships continue to be prosecuted by the government. Even in the cases of only adults being involved and no government sanctioned benefits being requested, these individuals can still be prosecuted and jailed for their unions. So, yes there certainly is a difference between the two types of relationships.
Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing against gay marriage, I am a supporter of it. I'm just saying that we should look towards other arguments that do not open up the playing field to things like polyamory and other strawman arguments. The right to marry argument is fraught with unintended consequences so I support going the route that was taken in the interracial marriage debate which is there is no good sociatal reason for it to be banned.
From a letter I wrote for my university's newspaper, refuting two common arguments against marriage between couples of the same sex.
Marriage Between Same Sex Couples Erodes Traditional Family Values
One of the common arguments against legalizing marriage between same sex couples is that it will destroy traditional family values. For example, in response to the United Supreme Court’s decision declaring all sodomy laws to be unconstitutional (Lawrence v. Texas), Stanley Kurtz, a prominent social commentator, asks, “If homosexual sex is declared private, why won't consensual adult incest fall under the same sort of protection?” (“The Libertarian Question” National Review, April 2003) While this may seem like a compelling argument at first glance, it’s important to remember that, prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2003, 36 states had already either repealed their sodomy laws, or had them invalidated by the courts; many of them decades prior. In fact, Illinois repealed its sodomy laws as early as 1962. Yet despite these changes, every, single state in the United States has some form of prohibition against incest. Given that this is the case, is it truly rational to conclude that if states repeal laws against marriage between same sex couples, that laws against incest (or polygamy, or bestiality, or sex with minors) will be next?
The California Supreme Court has declared homosexuality to be a suspect class; a minority group with a history of discrimination. Because of this, laws that potentially infringe on the rights of homosexuals must be subject to the highest level of scrutiny. (“In Re Marriage Cases” California Supreme Court, May 15, 2008) If we deny same sex couples the right to marry in this state, it will be the first time in our state’s history where the majority imposed its views on a recognized suspect class.
If preserving traditional family values is the true motivation behind denying same sex couples the right to marry, wouldn’t our energies be better spent denying alcoholics, child molesters, pedophiles, pimps, drug users, spouse abusers, etc. the right to marry; rather than a group with a history of discrimination? Surely, these individuals pose a greater threat to traditional family values than the marriage between two, consenting adults of the same sex.
Same Sex Couples are Less Capable Parents
Critics of marriage between same sex couples often defer to social science research that states children are better in families with both a mother and a father. While this claim is supported in some research studies, it is important to recognize that these studies do not compare children raised by heterosexual couples to children raised by same-sex couples. Rather, they compare them to children raised by single parents, stepparents, and/or parents in a cohabiting relationship.
The truth of the matter is social science research does not show that children suffer in any way from having gay or lesbian parents. In fact, a recent report, delivered by the American Academy of Pediatrics notes: “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” We think it is important to understand this because many people wrongly use these studies to dissuade same sex couples from adopting. This is unfortunate when you consider that the Center for Social Services Research estimates that 69% of children in foster care wait up to 24 months or longer before loving families adopt them. If people are truly concerned about the rights and well-being of children, they should be encouraging same sex couples to adopt, not dissuading them from giving a child a safe and comfortable home.
|
...[all kinds of stuff I agree with]...
I was in high school in the late 80s early 90s. There was this brother and sister whose mom was very obviously gay and they all lived together with their mom's 'sister.'
I watched these two kids undergo the most brutal peer maltreatment, and, no, I didn't participate, but I certainly am guilty of nodding my head and saying 'sucks to be them' instead of coming to their defense--and I'll say that my opinions on homosexuality were typical of a teen circa 1987-1991, and typically negative.
As I recall, these two kids did everything they could to marginalize themselves; to make themselves invisible, and it did little good.
Are children that different today, 20 years later? Are they sincerely more accepting?
Are children that different today, 20 years later? Are they sincerely more accepting?
I think a lot of how kids treat the LGBTQI community depends a lot on their cultural background. For example, if the parents and teachers are accepting of the LGBTQI community, then the kids tend to be more accepting as well. If the parents and teachers aren't accepting, then the kids aren't. Also, people under 30 tend to be more tolerant of the LGBTQI community, so it's possible that there is more acceptance (or at least tolerance) from kids to day.
On the other hand, because LGBTQI rights are such a hot-button issue, members of the LGBTQI community are experiencing a lot more backlash than they did previousl. Last year, for example, the number of reported murders of transgendered individuals doubled worldwide.
Whether any of these factors are translating over into our schools is something I don't know much about. However, if you're really curious, I know someone I can ask.
|
|
Now I'm confused. The British where the ones fighting the Opium Wars and their Protestant.
Also, the history of Catholicism with Colonialism in China might make that religion extra suspect, since it originally came along with the Opium Wars and the fall of the empire.
I kinda went back too far, using this reasoning: the costly Opium Wars led to further military weakness in the empire. The empire was forced to conceed and allow the Europeans "spheres of influence." This let missionaries move into the Shandong and Zhili regions. The French Jesuits got Zhili, and the Italian Franciscans got Shandong. Both were political time bombs before the missionaries came, but the missions gave certain sects, such as the White Lotus sect, a cover of "legitimacy" with which they could avoid persecution by the government.
Newly Baptized "former" White-Lotus member: "There are no criminals here; only us Christians. We've been forgiven our sins and are beyond persecution."Eventually Beijing had to go after them; the Empress herself couldn't do it, so the burning of churches, etc., was carried out by "reactionaries" (Which let the govt. save face, for a time). In other words, the churches were playing politics from the beginning, even if some of the missionaries themselves did not realize what they were doing when they converted the "heathens" to Christianity. At least, this is what I've gathered from reading Esherick's Origins of the Boxer Uprising.
|
|
For DoveArrow (and anyone else, of course):
I ask in reference to the idea that children aren't negatively affected by growing up in gay households.
As I recall high school (and middle school for that matter), kids were mean; almost evil-mean.
I'd certainly argue that the two kids I knew were negatively affected, not per se from the experience of growing up in a gay household, but from the effects of growing up in an intolerant environment. They had no--and I mean absolutely no--friends, and that was an effect resultant from blanket homophobia and the seemingly natural malicious predilection of the children around them.
There were plenty of kids with abusive parents, parents who didn't care, parents who were known drunks, even drug abusers and criminals, but no-one got it as bad as those two.
|
|
Now, if this helps the discussion at large. I am a married gay man, in Canada. Canada has had gay marriage since 2005, with little to no affect on traditional marriages or to religious institutions. Point is at the time it was a huge debate, and major fearmongering was going on, but after 5 years guess what? Nothing happened the world didn't end, religious institutions weren't forced to perform gay marriages, and societally we seem healthier for it.