|
On October 12 2012 05:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 05:25 Derez wrote:On October 12 2012 05:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 05:17 heliusx wrote:On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me. Please tell me you are joking... Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here. We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it. That's not the issue at stake here at all. The issue here is equal rights for all groups. If society would be ok with people having sex on the street it would have to apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Society obviously draws an arbitrary line at some point, but that line needs to be applied to all different groups equally. I'd figure out of all people you'd appreciate that. Yes, that's a valid way to approach this problem. It's just that in practice, society has passed laws based purely on discomfort without regard to discrimination or equality under the law. I'm trying to think of a comparable example of a censoring law that has popular support and yet is discriminatory in nature. Can't think of any now, but if I do I'll be sure to bring it up.
It is the ONLY way to approach this issue. Yes, society has made discriminatory laws in the past, but that does not make them justified if you accept the principle of equal rights. This issue isn't all that different from discriminatory Jim Crow laws, segregation laws, you name it. One of the main principles of democracy is the extention of equal rights to every single individual.
If you reject the principle of equal rights on the other hand, there's nothing actually left to discuss. At that point we simply have incommensurable worldviews, and I'll just hope for the equal rights groups to eventually win out, which seems to be happening all over the world. Demographics are destiny after all.
|
On October 12 2012 06:08 cloneThorN wrote:
Well if it's a democratic process, then theres no point in discussing it is there? Say the anti gay side wins, then if any country whatsoever try to intervene, then it's basically an attempt to bypass the majoritys votes, and thus dictating what they decide.
Democracy works both ways. In a democratic society, then there is no such thing as argueing with the majority, even if they say somehing like "force everyone to stop studying and get forced on a job".
Democracy is just another type of control. Always remember that.
That's why the most important means to protect the rights of the people is a CONSTITUTION!!!
Unfortunately, the average attitude towards constitutions these days is to call them just antiquated pieces of paper written by backward men.
|
On October 12 2012 06:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 05:57 zalz wrote:
People keep avoiding the point.
Yes, we get it, you think sex is magic and blessed by angels.
The point is, at which point do you take your own opinions on sex, and declare them the standard. What gives you the permission to pass that threshold where you turn a personal view on a private subject, and decide that your view is the best of the best, in fact, it is such a good view, it needs to be the law of the land.
People that get off on dictating what other people's sexual positions ought to be should get their fix in an BDSM club, not pretend themselves to be godly.
Old fashioned? Let's just call it what it is, controlling, authoritarian, and totalitarian. If you believe yourself entitled to dictate what people's sex lives should be, you acknowledge that there is no limit to how far you are willing to reach in and control the private lives of other people. It's not private lives being discussed, it is public behavior. As has been mentioned before, I doubt you would support legal sex anywhere in public view. So it could be argued you yourself are imposing your discomfort on other people.
The act of sex and a pride parade are different, thus the argument falls apart. You're simply using some nonesense that they are both on some mythical "scale of sex."
Other than that, I don't really mind public sex or nudity all that much. I think it is somewhat akin to the heroin-argument when people talk about legalizing drugs. People pick the most extreme and act as if the law is the only thing keeping 90% of the people from going insane.
The truth is that if you made it legal to have sex in public, the same amount of people would probably be having sex in public.
The reason I'm not fucking in the middle of the train station isn't because the law tells me I can't.
Hell, it might even get you people over that fear of sex.
|
On October 12 2012 06:17 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 05:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 05:25 Derez wrote:On October 12 2012 05:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 05:17 heliusx wrote:On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me. Please tell me you are joking... Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here. We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it. That's not the issue at stake here at all. The issue here is equal rights for all groups. If society would be ok with people having sex on the street it would have to apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Society obviously draws an arbitrary line at some point, but that line needs to be applied to all different groups equally. I'd figure out of all people you'd appreciate that. Yes, that's a valid way to approach this problem. It's just that in practice, society has passed laws based purely on discomfort without regard to discrimination or equality under the law. I'm trying to think of a comparable example of a censoring law that has popular support and yet is discriminatory in nature. Can't think of any now, but if I do I'll be sure to bring it up. It is the ONLY way to approach this issue. Yes, society has made discriminatory laws in the past, but that does not make them justified if you accept the principle of equal rights. If you reject the principle of equal rights on the other hand, there's nothing actually left to discuss. At that point we simply have incommensurable worldviews, and I'll just hope for the equal rights groups to eventually win out, which seems to be happening all over the world. Demographics are destiny after all.
I'm guessing you aren't so passionate about repealing other discriminatory laws, such as affirmative action, or progressive taxation, but that's a separate topic.
If two straight men were to kiss in public, it would be treated the same as two gay men. So it's really a specific behavior if you want to get technical here. But I agree that this is discriminatory, and therefore I wouldn't support such a law.
In any case, there are numerous arguments taking place here at once, and the legal perspective is only one of them. I've been focusing more on the social views perspective and the claims of bigotry, etc.
Discomfort does not equal bigotry. When we ban blow jobs on TV, it is not due to bigotry towards heterosexuals. Nor when we prevented the I Love Lucy couple from sitting in the same bed. Neither is it bigotry when we censor violence or language. Discomfort is due in part to something being hidden from public, a lack of familiarity.
People keep repeating that this is about imposing your own sexual views on other people, but there are dozens of such laws that they would support. We all agree that at some point we should impose majority discomfort on everyone, but we all disagree on where to draw the line.
|
On October 12 2012 06:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 06:08 cloneThorN wrote:
Well if it's a democratic process, then theres no point in discussing it is there? Say the anti gay side wins, then if any country whatsoever try to intervene, then it's basically an attempt to bypass the majoritys votes, and thus dictating what they decide.
Democracy works both ways. In a democratic society, then there is no such thing as argueing with the majority, even if they say somehing like "force everyone to stop studying and get forced on a job".
Democracy is just another type of control. Always remember that. That's why the most important means to protect the rights of the people is a CONSTITUTION!!! Unfortunately, the average attitude towards constitutions these days is to call them just antiquated pieces of paper written by backward men.
Hm? That would depend on the constitution wouldn't it?
Every country have their own constitution, so generalizing and calling them outdated is a bold move.
Edit. Constitutions can be changed~
|
On October 12 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I'm guessing you aren't so passionate about repealing other discriminatory laws, such as affirmative action, or progressive taxation, but that's a separate topic.
If two straight men were to kiss in public, it would be treated the same as two gay men. So it's really a specific behavior if you want to get technical here. But I agree that this is discriminatory, and therefore I wouldn't support such a law.
In any case, there are numerous arguments taking place here at once, and the legal perspective is only one of them. I've been focusing more on the social views perspective and the claims of bigotry, etc.
Discomfort does not equal bigotry. When we ban blow jobs on TV, it is not due to bigotry towards heterosexuals. Nor when we prevented the I Love Lucy couple from sitting in the same bed. Neither is it bigotry when we censor violence or language. Discomfort is due in part to something being hidden from public, a lack of familiarity.
People keep repeating that this is about imposing your own sexual views on other people, but there are dozens of such laws that they would support. We all agree that at some point we should impose majority discomfort on everyone, but we all disagree on where to draw the line.
Again, entirely based on the falsehood that all these behaviours are part of this mythical "sex scale."
Casual nudity, sexual acts, fringe sexual behaviour, etc, all are their own unique thing.
Discomfort is not something by which you can dictate your own little worldview. Why are some people more important than others?
Why is that when you feel uncomfortable seeing two men kiss, it needs to be banned? Why asexual people having their feelings protected from having to see any people showing affection?
Don't clothe it in discomfort. You advocate majority rules.
You can't deprive individual liberty on the whim of being in the majority.
|
How about letting the country decide for itself?? You should not impose your own values on other's cultures.
You do realise that this is pretty much supported by a great majority over there.
|
On October 12 2012 06:34 zalz wrote:
Why are some people more important than others?
You can't deprive individual liberty on the whim of being in the majority.
1. Because they are.
2. Actually, if society wanted to they could, they just choose not to.
|
On October 12 2012 06:34 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I'm guessing you aren't so passionate about repealing other discriminatory laws, such as affirmative action, or progressive taxation, but that's a separate topic.
If two straight men were to kiss in public, it would be treated the same as two gay men. So it's really a specific behavior if you want to get technical here. But I agree that this is discriminatory, and therefore I wouldn't support such a law.
In any case, there are numerous arguments taking place here at once, and the legal perspective is only one of them. I've been focusing more on the social views perspective and the claims of bigotry, etc.
Discomfort does not equal bigotry. When we ban blow jobs on TV, it is not due to bigotry towards heterosexuals. Nor when we prevented the I Love Lucy couple from sitting in the same bed. Neither is it bigotry when we censor violence or language. Discomfort is due in part to something being hidden from public, a lack of familiarity.
People keep repeating that this is about imposing your own sexual views on other people, but there are dozens of such laws that they would support. We all agree that at some point we should impose majority discomfort on everyone, but we all disagree on where to draw the line. Again, entirely based on the falsehood that all these behaviours are part of this mythical "sex scale." Casual nudity, sexual acts, fringe sexual behaviour, etc, all are their own unique thing. Discomfort is not something by which you can dictate your own little worldview. Why are some people more important than others? Why is that when you feel uncomfortable seeing two men kiss, it needs to be banned? Why asexual people having their feelings protected from having to see any people showing affection? Don't clothe it in discomfort. You advocate majority rules. You can't deprive individual liberty on the whim of being in the majority.
I really don't see how you can claim this isn't all just a scale of sexuality and discomfort.
You don't believe people should be able to commit sexual acts in front of a school yard. You are in the majority. You and the majority are imposing your sexual views on whatever small minority want to commit such acts.
Now all of your statements can be turned back onto you. It really is just a matter of degree.
|
On October 12 2012 06:16 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On October 12 2012 05:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:On October 12 2012 05:24 arfyron wrote:
I like how decriminalization in 1991 is seen as the mark of a tolerant society. In my home state of Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed weren't repealed until 2003. There are still dozens of extremely antiquated laws on the books. When those laws are no longer enforced, then they are effectively repealed, even if not technically repealed. In other words, the tolerance of a society cannot be judged by the laws on the books. Ever been to Texas? It's a pretty accurate metric for tolerance. My point being that 1991 is actually quite early to have those laws struck down. Regardless of whether or not they were enforced. They were repealed in the 30's in Sweden at least... Ukraine couldn't do it earlier as they were a part of the Soviet Union though, so we can't hold that against them. Texas on the other hand is all kinds of fucked up.
About 40% or so of them still believe the planet we live on is 6k-10k years old, we might have to cut them some slack.
|
On October 12 2012 06:36 sickle wrote:
How about letting the country decide for itself?? You should not impose your own values on other's cultures.
You do realise that this is pretty much supported by a great majority over there.
Universalism is a big part of Enlightenment. So condemning them for having different values is a consequence of my cultural heritage. And therefore above criticism from everyone who is a relativist.
For the record I don't want them to change their laws. I just think they are horrible human beings and this part of their culture sucks.
|
Ukraine vs freedom of speech and freedom against oppression. Anymore countries standing in line to join the arab world in fighting freedom?
Hope you do the right thing . . .
On October 12 2012 03:55 Wrath 2.1 wrote:
that's good. Sex life should be something private and not something that needs advertising or parades.
Ah. By this logic no one should hold hands. If hand holding between 2 guys = sex, then it's the same thing for a boy and a girl.
If you're against freedom then please move to some oppressive country.
I think once you start taking away people's basic rights, civil war (or nazi germany) is inevitable.
Prosecuting minorities in the name of national security. Then you know your country is about to burn in civil war.
Let the hunger games begin.
|
On October 12 2012 06:38 S_SienZ wrote:
1. Because they are.
That isn't an answer, that is just re-stating the incorrect assumption.
2. Actually, if society wanted to they could, they just choose not to.
The question at hand isn't could, it's should.
I can murder someone, that doesn't make it right. Society can do a lot of things. Doing doesn't equate right.
So, repeatedly droning the same statement, and argueing for might-makes-right. You're not off to a good start.
|
On October 12 2012 06:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 06:34 zalz wrote:On October 12 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I'm guessing you aren't so passionate about repealing other discriminatory laws, such as affirmative action, or progressive taxation, but that's a separate topic.
If two straight men were to kiss in public, it would be treated the same as two gay men. So it's really a specific behavior if you want to get technical here. But I agree that this is discriminatory, and therefore I wouldn't support such a law.
In any case, there are numerous arguments taking place here at once, and the legal perspective is only one of them. I've been focusing more on the social views perspective and the claims of bigotry, etc.
Discomfort does not equal bigotry. When we ban blow jobs on TV, it is not due to bigotry towards heterosexuals. Nor when we prevented the I Love Lucy couple from sitting in the same bed. Neither is it bigotry when we censor violence or language. Discomfort is due in part to something being hidden from public, a lack of familiarity.
People keep repeating that this is about imposing your own sexual views on other people, but there are dozens of such laws that they would support. We all agree that at some point we should impose majority discomfort on everyone, but we all disagree on where to draw the line. Again, entirely based on the falsehood that all these behaviours are part of this mythical "sex scale." Casual nudity, sexual acts, fringe sexual behaviour, etc, all are their own unique thing. Discomfort is not something by which you can dictate your own little worldview. Why are some people more important than others? Why is that when you feel uncomfortable seeing two men kiss, it needs to be banned? Why asexual people having their feelings protected from having to see any people showing affection? Don't clothe it in discomfort. You advocate majority rules. You can't deprive individual liberty on the whim of being in the majority. I really don't see how you can claim this isn't all just a scale of sexuality and discomfort. You don't believe people should be able to commit sexual acts in front of a school yard. You are in the majority. You and the majority are imposing your sexual views on whatever small minority want to commit such acts. Now all of your statements can be turned back onto you. It really is just a matter of degree.
That is like saying that because the government makes laws against murder, it can make laws against everything it can conjure up.
A sexual act in front of a school ground, and a pride parade, are distinctly different.
Outlawing one does not comment on the other, nor does it grant permission to take an axe to individual liberty.
This nonesense that all these acts are inherently the same, because they share some trivial identifier, is simply insanity. It is up there with the slippery slope nonesense. Just because you "feel" it makes sense, doesn't actually mean that it does.
You might have to realize that approaching something as complex as human existence, from the perspective of a handful of sliders, isn't the most effective way of managing either human society, individual rights, or the rule of law.
|
majority should rule but it never did.
do you think 'the majority' started the crusade against homosexuals?. fuck, just get over yourself. the majority was always spoonfed with bullshit they didn't even cared about and still, they did what they always do: mind their own business and just 'go with the times'.
|
On October 12 2012 07:01 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 06:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 06:34 zalz wrote:On October 12 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I'm guessing you aren't so passionate about repealing other discriminatory laws, such as affirmative action, or progressive taxation, but that's a separate topic.
If two straight men were to kiss in public, it would be treated the same as two gay men. So it's really a specific behavior if you want to get technical here. But I agree that this is discriminatory, and therefore I wouldn't support such a law.
In any case, there are numerous arguments taking place here at once, and the legal perspective is only one of them. I've been focusing more on the social views perspective and the claims of bigotry, etc.
Discomfort does not equal bigotry. When we ban blow jobs on TV, it is not due to bigotry towards heterosexuals. Nor when we prevented the I Love Lucy couple from sitting in the same bed. Neither is it bigotry when we censor violence or language. Discomfort is due in part to something being hidden from public, a lack of familiarity.
People keep repeating that this is about imposing your own sexual views on other people, but there are dozens of such laws that they would support. We all agree that at some point we should impose majority discomfort on everyone, but we all disagree on where to draw the line. Again, entirely based on the falsehood that all these behaviours are part of this mythical "sex scale." Casual nudity, sexual acts, fringe sexual behaviour, etc, all are their own unique thing. Discomfort is not something by which you can dictate your own little worldview. Why are some people more important than others? Why is that when you feel uncomfortable seeing two men kiss, it needs to be banned? Why asexual people having their feelings protected from having to see any people showing affection? Don't clothe it in discomfort. You advocate majority rules. You can't deprive individual liberty on the whim of being in the majority. I really don't see how you can claim this isn't all just a scale of sexuality and discomfort. You don't believe people should be able to commit sexual acts in front of a school yard. You are in the majority. You and the majority are imposing your sexual views on whatever small minority want to commit such acts. Now all of your statements can be turned back onto you. It really is just a matter of degree. That is like saying that because the government makes laws against murder, it can make laws against everything it can conjure up. A sexual act in front of a school ground, and a pride parade, are distinctly different. Outlawing one does not comment on the other, nor does it grant permission to take an axe to individual liberty. This nonesense that all these acts are inherently the same, because they share some trivial identifier, is simply insanity. It is up there with the slippery slope nonesense. Just because you "feel" it makes sense, doesn't actually mean that it does. You might have to realize that approaching something as complex as human existence, from the perspective of a handful of sliders, isn't the most effective way of managing either human society, individual rights, or the rule of law.
(In general response to nested quote) Maybe it is a scale of discomfort. But when jews made Hitler uncomfortable, did it warrant genocide?
|
On October 12 2012 07:01 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 06:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 06:34 zalz wrote:On October 12 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I'm guessing you aren't so passionate about repealing other discriminatory laws, such as affirmative action, or progressive taxation, but that's a separate topic.
If two straight men were to kiss in public, it would be treated the same as two gay men. So it's really a specific behavior if you want to get technical here. But I agree that this is discriminatory, and therefore I wouldn't support such a law.
In any case, there are numerous arguments taking place here at once, and the legal perspective is only one of them. I've been focusing more on the social views perspective and the claims of bigotry, etc.
Discomfort does not equal bigotry. When we ban blow jobs on TV, it is not due to bigotry towards heterosexuals. Nor when we prevented the I Love Lucy couple from sitting in the same bed. Neither is it bigotry when we censor violence or language. Discomfort is due in part to something being hidden from public, a lack of familiarity.
People keep repeating that this is about imposing your own sexual views on other people, but there are dozens of such laws that they would support. We all agree that at some point we should impose majority discomfort on everyone, but we all disagree on where to draw the line. Again, entirely based on the falsehood that all these behaviours are part of this mythical "sex scale." Casual nudity, sexual acts, fringe sexual behaviour, etc, all are their own unique thing. Discomfort is not something by which you can dictate your own little worldview. Why are some people more important than others? Why is that when you feel uncomfortable seeing two men kiss, it needs to be banned? Why asexual people having their feelings protected from having to see any people showing affection? Don't clothe it in discomfort. You advocate majority rules. You can't deprive individual liberty on the whim of being in the majority. I really don't see how you can claim this isn't all just a scale of sexuality and discomfort. You don't believe people should be able to commit sexual acts in front of a school yard. You are in the majority. You and the majority are imposing your sexual views on whatever small minority want to commit such acts. Now all of your statements can be turned back onto you. It really is just a matter of degree. That is like saying that because the government makes laws against murder, it can make laws against everything it can conjure up. A sexual act in front of a school ground, and a pride parade, are distinctly different. Outlawing one does not comment on the other, nor does it grant permission to take an axe to individual liberty. This nonesense that all these acts are inherently the same, because they share some trivial identifier, is simply insanity. It is up there with the slippery slope nonesense. Just because you "feel" it makes sense, doesn't actually mean that it does. You might have to realize that approaching something as complex as human existence, from the perspective of a handful of sliders, isn't the most effective way of managing either human society, individual rights, or the rule of law.
Ah, ok.
Well, I don't really think that people should call each other "asshole." I think it is harmful and unproductive. And because there is no such thing as a slider called "freedom of speech" then there is no reason not to make the word illegal, or any of a hundred other things that we subjectively decide are good or bad on a moment's notice. It doesn't mean that we are going to start burning books, because there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Although, I don't think that burning the Communist Manifesto in particular is a bad thing, so we can do that without worry, since there is no "freedom of the press" slider either.
You call it "complexity," I call it insanity.
|
On October 12 2012 07:07 xM(Z wrote:
majority should rule but it never did.
do you think 'the majority' started the crusade against homosexuals?. fuck, just get over yourself. the majority was always spoonfed with bullshit they didn't even cared about and still, they did what they always do: mind their own business and just 'go with the times'.
Oh, come on. Eastern Europe and the Balkans are still deeply homophobic. Some of it is religious influence but that's certainly not all. There might be politicians who try to use it for their own purpose but it's been there all along.
|
On October 12 2012 07:18 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 07:07 xM(Z wrote:
majority should rule but it never did.
do you think 'the majority' started the crusade against homosexuals?. fuck, just get over yourself. the majority was always spoonfed with bullshit they didn't even cared about and still, they did what they always do: mind their own business and just 'go with the times'. Oh, come on. Eastern Europe and the Balkans are still deeply homophobic. Some of it is religious influence but that's certainly not all. There might be politicians who try to use it for their own purpose but it's been there all along.
are you trying to say that people in the Balkans are born homophobes?.
|
On October 12 2012 07:29 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 07:18 hypercube wrote:On October 12 2012 07:07 xM(Z wrote:
majority should rule but it never did.
do you think 'the majority' started the crusade against homosexuals?. fuck, just get over yourself. the majority was always spoonfed with bullshit they didn't even cared about and still, they did what they always do: mind their own business and just 'go with the times'. Oh, come on. Eastern Europe and the Balkans are still deeply homophobic. Some of it is religious influence but that's certainly not all. There might be politicians who try to use it for their own purpose but it's been there all along. are you trying to say that people in the Balkans are born homophobes?.
No, they learn it from their peers, their parents and everyone else around them. But it's not coming from a small group of individuals, it's deeply ingrained in society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
