Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Gremln
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:28 am

Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Gremln »

What do the people here think about gay rights?

I think that homosexuality is perfectly natural. Any decent society should allow it.
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by oxytocinNA »

Group rights is s faulty premis. In a rational society there would not be subsets of "group rights"* (gay, minority, women's, etc.) - because "individual rights" covers it. Non coercive sexual preference (among consenting adults) does not stop another persons's ability to live their own life as they want*. So it is not a violation of another person's rights.

*A person may not like another person's lifestyle, or beliefs etc., but as long as they are not forcing it on anyone else - it is none of their business.

Individual rights in practice - no one may use force, or coercion on another - their interaction must be by mutual consent. This translates into all the categories typically thought of as group issues. People may not be enslaved or treated different do to their skin color (i.e. minority issues). People may not be barred from voting, or treated different etc. on the basis of their sex (i.e. women's issue - suffrage). On and on and on. It all translates, because everyone is an individual. Groups are a collection of ... individuals.

Problem is that people want to make laws based on social artifice and beliefs - as opposed properly abstracted concept. In doing so they are violating individual rights.
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cahoot »

Do you mean spousal rights for gays?
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Tomas »

-Gremln-
What do the people here think about gay rights?

-Tomas-
Personally, it's about as disgusting as it gets.


-Gremln-
I think that homosexuality is perfectly natural.

-Tomas-
Hey, if it works for you, so be it.


-Gremln-
Any decent society should allow it.

-Tomas-
It's already been around (like) forever .. what one does in the privacy of one's life is their business - no need to legislate morality. Take your stand and live with whatever consequences come with that stand.
Don't run to your death
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by oxytocinNA »

Cahoot wrote:Do you mean spousal rights for gays?
This goes to individual rights. I try to imagine everyone grasping the concept of individual rights. It is always dishonesty, and trampling of individual rights that lead to conflict.

You are trying to segregate people into groups. If people of the same sex want to be married they have the right to do so - or more to the point (because this is actually about reduction) - no one can take away such a choice from individuals. That violates the right to live as they choose.

The underlined: Segregating into groups is always for some sort of faulty policy. Other examples from history - slavery (oft rationalized by stating those enslaved are inferior). Then people try to fix the bad social policies / behaviors with laws the try to help the groups who have had their rights taken away. Here is the answer - Strike all laws that infringe on individual rights. This is the problem when you have a document (referring to the US constitution) that states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Individual rights is a concept that is from proper abstraction based on the nature to which it applies - our species. When you say something like self evident - it is like a bit of BS magic - POOF - "it is so". Well why is it so. You had better spell it out because there will always be plenty of dishonest people willing to take away from others.

The stance on social artifice (tradition - the much used attempt to deny someone of rights), or beliefs, are actually immoral in this case. How so? Individual rights are the fundamental moral of the species. Any attempt to deny individual rights is immoral. This is especially important in the creation of laws.

Again - you (anyone) do not have to approve of what people believe, or how they live their lives, it is their (the individual's) right to choose.

On a side note: I often wonder how people can spend their time deciding how others should live, when I have yet to meet anyone nearing perfection. People have no time to worry about how others are living, they have too much to improve in their own lives.
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cahoot »

oxytocinNA wrote:
Cahoot wrote:Do you mean spousal rights for gays?
This goes to individual rights. I try to imagine everyone grasping the concept of individual rights. It is always dishonesty, and trampling of individual rights that lead to conflict.

You are trying to segregate people into groups. If people of the same sex want to be married they have the right to do so - or more to the point (because this is actually about reduction) - no one can take away such a choice from individuals. That violates the right to live as they choose.

The underlined: Segregating into groups is always for some sort of faulty policy. Other examples from history - slavery (oft rationalized by stating those enslaved are inferior). Then people try to fix the bad social policies / behaviors with laws the try to help the groups who have had their rights taken away. Here is the answer - Strike all laws that infringe on individual rights. This is the problem when you have a document (referring to the US constitution) that states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Individual rights is a concept that is from proper abstraction based on the nature to which it applies - our species. When you say something like self evident - it is like a bit of BS magic - POOF - "it is so". Well why is it so. You had better spell it out because there will always be plenty of dishonest people willing to take away from others.

The stance on social artifice (tradition - the much used attempt to deny someone of rights), or beliefs, are actually immoral in this case. How so? Individual rights are the fundamental moral of the species. Any attempt to deny individual rights is immoral. This is especially important in the creation of laws.

Again - you (anyone) do not have to approve of what people believe, or how they live their lives, it is their (the individual's) right to choose.

On a side note: I often wonder how people can spend their time deciding how others should live, when I have yet to meet anyone nearing perfection. People have no time to worry about how others are living, they have too much to improve in their own lives.
Individualism has appropriated marriage as the culmination of Luv.

However as an institution, marriage is a social custom that exists by the group, for the group. Social customs are not free. The custom of marriage requires a license issued by the group. Licenses are restrictions by the group for the benefit of the group.

But you don't have to be a group kind of guy or gal. Do what you want, ignore the requirements of the group, demand the protections of the group, and perform the mental gymnastics required to justify freedom without responsibility.

Or, start your own society, like the Pilgrims, or the Mormons, or the Humane Society.

Or form a society comprised of those who live outside society ... is that even possible?

Or, raise the blades of your lawnmower to maximum height and perform all the steps necessary to cut the grass. Fill the tank, start the motor, walk the pattern, wave to your neighbor while responsibly paying close attention to the details of the task at hand for proper safety, all the while actually cutting no grass. While in the process contemplate the contrast of giving without getting to memories of getting without giving, and contemplate the beauty of the untrimmed bushes.
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by oxytocinNA »

Cahoot wrote: Individualism has appropriated marriage as the culmination of Luv.

However as an institution, marriage is a social custom that exists by the group, for the group. Social customs are not free. The custom of marriage requires a license issued by the group. Licenses are restrictions by the group for the benefit of the group.
There is a lot to respond to here.
"marriage is a social custom" - it is that - but it is an idea / concept
"Social customs are not free" - really - why?
"The custom of marriage requires a license issued by the group." - really - who decided that?
"Licenses are restrictions by the group for the benefit of the group." - or for the benefit of some people's opinions?

And what is a group? ... Individuals. Ideas exist because of individuals. They may share ideas in groups of individuals. These private individuals may decide what they want for themselves - but not for others. If a governing body allows itself to be co-opted by interest groups - it becomes a governing dictatorship by manipulation of said groups (of individuals) - privilege for some - restriction for others.
Again - it is thinking like this (group over individual) that allowed for slavery, and other despicable social constructs.

Nothing can over-ride individual rights.

"But you don't have to be a group kind of guy or gal. Do what you want, ignore the requirements of the group, demand the protections of the group, and perform the mental gymnastics required to justify freedom without responsibility."

I am an individualist. I live as an individual, defend individual rights, and individuals. Say we were back in time - just before the civil war (US). I would have been willing to fight to free slaves - not as a group of people - but as individuals who had had their individual rights taken from them.

"freedom without responsibility" I like this because it is often used in bad premises - such as in your post. *You demonstrate that you do not know what individual right is. It carries with it the responsibility that you do not trample the rights of others. Sounds simple - but you must pay careful attention. Say you start a factory and dump some of you waste into a nearby river thinking - it ain't much and look at the benefits I provide with my industry are great. Is your industry damaging other's lives. Maybe that waste is affecting other's health. I am taking this example from history - sort of. The early Chicago boom. The industries there exploded and polluted the river and severely damaged the lives of people in communities down river. Not acceptable - but they did it anyway.

*Then again - I may be wrong. Maybe you do understand individual rights, and reject it. But what is important is that it is an either or proposition. You either have individual rights, or you have privileges. Right now - you stand for privilege based social construct. I stand for individual autonomy. So we will not be in agreement.

"demand the protections of the group" I didn't demand this. This is inferior. I demand everyone understand and live by individual rights. Then all I have to worry about is thugs, who reject individual's rights, and cowards who will not unite (if need be, for the sake of individual rights) to quash such thugs as they pop up (and they always will).
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cahoot »

Can children of the same parents marry?

If not, why?

After all, these siblings have individual rights.

(The logic of the answer applies to gay spousal rights. The logic is, no benefit to the group.)

If you want to get married in Florida, the license costs $93.50, payable to the group. Not sure if Floridians can marry their sisters, though. The details of a particular group's requirements for marriage and what benefits the group vary from place-to-place and time-to-time.

The group is a compounded thing, comprised of groupies.
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by oxytocinNA »

Cahoot wrote:Can children of the same parents marry?

If not, why?

After all, these siblings have individual rights.


(The logic of the answer applies to gay spousal rights. The logic is, no benefit to the group.)

If you want to get married in Florida, the license costs $93.50, payable to the group. Not sure if Floridians can marry their sisters, though. The details of a particular group's requirements for marriage and what benefits the group vary from place-to-place and time-to-time.

The group is a compounded thing, comprised of groupies.
I was waiting for this one (a little misdirection to start). Not as clever a response as you probably think. We know why they shouldn't from scientific research and historical observation. Do you have the right to stop them - no. Just like you can't stop an alcoholic from drinking, or people from eating too much and getting obese. In fact there is a long list of really bad behavior that people engage in that they shouldn't. A pregnant woman who drinks, smokes, or does drugs. In fact a woman who is an addict, has a much worse chance of producing a damaged infant then from insest. This is a matter for good education!
So here is the real point - restated: People have the right to live their lives anyway they choose, so long as they do not hurt another person's.
So the main theme here was: people of gay persuasion getting married - who are they hurting?

Just an ironic after thought: You had better hope you do not end up in a society run by homosexual individuals, who think like you do - you would end up a permanent bachelor. Then again, people who have had rights taken from them, often end up being much more tolerant then those who do/did the taking.


Hmm - I wonder why the Florida reference? So - "license costs $93.50, payable to the group" Cart before the horse. You assume that because a license fee is charged - it must be correct. With this logic - before the civil war in the US - slavery must be OK, because it was being done.

Let's get something else out of the way before it pops up. Private institutions do not need to marry anyone they do not wish. The government however can not pick and choose who has rights and who does not.


Something I find humorous: In your last post you tried to infer that individualists wanted to have freedom without responsibility, and I pointed out the fallacy of that statement. You keep saying that a group should control individuals - where is the freedom? If individuals are subordinate to a group - they are not exercising responsibility - they are abdicating it to a collective. You do understand that you are stating you are a collectivist. Actually there is a lot more to say on this but I have to get back to some work.
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cahoot »

What's the purpose of homosexual marriage?

In other words, since marriage is not required for homosexual sex, or for homosexual companionship, or for the economic benefits of homosexual cohabitation, why would a homosexual such as yourself want to marry a guy?
Oxyticin wrote:Something I find humorous: In your last post you tried to infer that individualists wanted to have freedom without responsibility, and I pointed out the fallacy of that statement.
Then you should appreciate this ... You have every right to improperly use the tool, "infer." Because, decent society allows it.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cahoot »

Follow the logic now ... The purpose of homosexual marriage is ... because decent society allows it. The social institutions that comprise a decent society are conferred decency by being part of a decent group. And for some reason, perhaps beyond the economic benefits of spousal rights, homosexuality as a political force now requires the identity of decency. Whether or not anyone personally considers the conduct decent or indecent is irrelevant to the societal issue, which is the fact that in the past homosexuality was known to exist and yet not condoned by so-called middle class, or straight (down the middle) values. To now be a political force representing a small minority and get homosexual behavior legally condoned, that is, recognized by the values of the middle class and written into law, that's the logical direction of any forward moving political organization.

Interesting what thoughts appear when attention turns to a new topic. Though this is all probably basic stuff to seasoned activists.

Also interesting to consider that homosexuality is nothing but a concept.
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by oxytocinNA »

Cahoot wrote:What's the purpose of homosexual marriage?

1) In other words, since marriage is not required for homosexual sex, or for homosexual companionship, or for the economic benefits of homosexual cohabitation, 2) why would a homosexual such as yourself want to marry a guy?
Oxyticin wrote:Something I find humorous: In your last post you tried to infer that individualists wanted to have freedom without responsibility, and I pointed out the fallacy of that statement.
Then you should appreciate this ... You have every right to improperly use the tool, "infer." Because, decent society allows it.
1) What is the purpose of marriage - regardless of sexual persuasion? Government has no place in rewarding or penalizing people who get legally married of cohabitate.
2) LOL - presumptuous of you - and incorrect. Is this because I am defending their (gays) rights? I defend individual rights as a matter of principle.
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by oxytocinNA »

Cahoot wrote:Follow the logic now ... The purpose of homosexual marriage is ... because decent society allows it. The social institutions that comprise a decent society are conferred decency by being part of a decent group. And for some reason, perhaps beyond the economic benefits of spousal rights, homosexuality as a political force now requires the identity of decency. Whether or not anyone personally considers the conduct decent or indecent is irrelevant to the societal issue, which is the fact that in the past homosexuality was known to exist and yet not condoned by so-called middle class, or straight (down the middle) values. To now be a political force representing a small minority and get homosexual behavior legally condoned, that is, recognized by the values of the middle class and written into law, that's the logical direction of any forward moving political organization.

Interesting what thoughts appear when attention turns to a new topic. Though this is all probably basic stuff to seasoned activists.

Also interesting to consider that homosexuality is nothing but a concept.
Society does not allow. Individuals fight for the power of creating regulation. This regulation doles out priviledge or takes away.

So we are at an impasse.
You stand for collectivist mob rule. What ever mob influence is the flavor of the day tells people what their privileges will be.
I come at it from the only other direction - individuals have the rights inherently, and they cannot be regulated by another -or a group of others.
What you describe is the way it has always been. What I am describing is the way it should be.

Good discussion. Last word is yours.
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cahoot »

The way it should be is the way it is. Now you just need to keep working on those labels.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cahoot »

Evidence indicates that censorship, boycott, career threats, and other forms of attack are possible effects resulting from, the questioning of, certain groups. That's the way of the world, as they say.

University Draws Fire After Placing Official on Leave for Signing Marriage Petition

http://www.christianpost.com/news/unive ... ion-83140/
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cathy Preston »

I'd sign a petition banning marriage... oops I read that wrong. Interesting she's called the "chief diversity officer."

Governments have conferred several rights and protections to citizens based solely on marriage, so by denying same sex couples the right to marriage they deny those rights and protections to citizens, such as survivor benefits. If marriage is to remain solely the domain of a God who abhors homosexuals then those rights and protections must be removed.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cahoot »

Since marriage is an institution created by the group for the group, then the requirements to participate in the institution of marriage are decided by the group, which may or may not lay claim to the munificence of a divinity smiling upon the arrangement, (even though others may not approve of the group's requirements and think that the God claim is a is a bunch of hooey.)
Cathy Preston wrote:If marriage is to remain solely the domain of a God who abhors homosexuals then those rights and protections must be removed.
Consistent with the tone and logic of your premise … if life is to remain solely the domain of a God who abhors newborn infants, then because abortion saves God the trouble of dealing with newborns, the societal rights and protections of life regarding all others who are alive must be removed.
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cathy Preston »

Well that's my point, there are no God given rights. If some members of the group have benefits conferred simply through the act of "marriage" then the ability to challenge that status is also conferred.

I really don't understand your last sentence at all. Nothing wrong with abortion, and since rights and protections are not God given then what God likes or dislikes is irrelevant.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cahoot »

Cathy Preston wrote:If marriage is to remain solely the domain of a God who abhors homosexuals then those rights and protections must be removed.
Then we can say, God's abhorrence of homosexuals and infants is irrelevant.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Jamesh »

This thread is about the "The trails and tribulations of herd behaviour - the organisation of status".

The more equality those once weakly organised, lowly gay folk obtain the closer they are to our status, which signifies a loss in mean status.

I think gay marriage will increase the level of feminisation of society as it will lead to more kids being brought up in a feminised environment. So I would be against gay marriage, as intrinsically unfair as it is, were it not for the fact that the further loss of masculinity is obviously going to occur anyway via technological “advancement”, coupled with globalised business propaganda machines limiting opportunity for masculine experiences.

As love is only the fulfilment of some desires, that means one “makes the decision of being in love” once they believe what they lack in themselves can be achieved by a union with another. This sort of equation also exists in primate behaviour, which ultimately means that homosexuality is genetically a part of all of us, and manifests in a similar fashion to other human genetic differences.

In our tree of life, it is rather obvious as to why homosexuality exists now, and existed in what we were prior to becoming classified as human.

As mentioned, herds require recognition of status. A herd cannot exist without a hierarchy. We know acceptance by a female of a mating partner in most animals is determined by the display of superiority in some form over other males. We also know that head males will choose young females to add to their harem.

As herd animals do not die when unfilled sexually, yet determination of status is still intrinsically a necessity then those not chosen to procreate will choose to exercise power over others in whatever means possible, which includes sexual domination.

Leaders attract competition, so they get killed more often, and winners of fights often die from injuries, which creates freedom for the lower rungs to procreate.

So we see that the aggressive nature of male competition results in homosexuality (reckless fucking and domination appears to be more common per capita in gay culture), and the butch (the no-longer-desired post-bearing-age older female) relates to the opportunity to exercise power over non-presently fuckable females thus lifting ones position in the herd.

(as an aside, I’m pretty certain that butch lesbians are more predatory for “teens” than would be gay males, but it is far less noticed as they do it in manner that is not recognised as abusive due to their need to demonstrate care as an attractive agent – they seek a partner for power not a fuck for the genetic survival causing emotions).

This is a causal effect that occurred over millions of years. Of course it is a genetic thing and if it is a genetic thing, then that means it should have the same rights the same value as other non-destructive sexual “love reflections of what is felt to be lacking in oneself”.

Love is merely genetically induced habitual behaviour.
Genius also only arises via similar causes related to sexual rejection.
These causes commenced prior to birth.

Horses for courses.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Bobo »

Jamesh wrote:The more equality those once weakly organised, lowly gay folk obtain the closer they are to our status, which signifies a loss in mean status.
Here, you are saying that if gay folk are to gain status we (the herd?) must lose status. If status can be gained by status deprivation, whoever inflicts more loss in status is rewarded with greater status, that is, if you want to gain status you must take it from someone else. So what would be gain, loss and mean status?
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by oxytocinNA »

Jamesh wrote:This thread is about the "The trails and tribulations of herd behaviour - the organisation of status".

This was interesting enough to jump back into this thread. Everyone seems concerned about groups - not individuals - as if a group is an entity, when in fact, there is just individuals. Individuals may subjugate their mind to mob opinion - it does not change the fact that a group is not an entity.
Jamesh wrote:The more equality those once weakly organised, lowly gay folk obtain the closer they are to our status, which signifies a loss in mean status.
What is the value of status / image - compared to fact / substance?
Jamesh wrote:I think gay marriage will increase the level of feminisation of society as it will lead to more kids being brought up in a feminised environment. So I would be against gay marriage, as intrinsically unfair as it is, were it not for the fact that the further loss of masculinity is obviously going to occur anyway via technological “advancement”, coupled with globalised business propaganda machines limiting opportunity for masculine experiences.
This is an incredible stretch. It also discounts the outright potential abilities of the human mind.
First up: Please describe and or enumerate on "masculine experiences"
Second: How can one persons lifestyle affect another - if there is no mob rule (people thinking enough people of similar thought in a particular area gives them the right to force other to go along with them).
This just strikes me as insecurity in who one is.
Jamesh wrote:As mentioned, herds require recognition of status. A herd cannot exist without a hierarchy. We know acceptance by a female of a mating partner in most animals is determined by the display of superiority in some form over other males. We also know that head males will choose young females to add to their harem.
This does deal with primitive behavior. No mention of intellectual construct as value.
Jamesh wrote:Genius also only arises via similar causes related to sexual rejection.
Would you care to elaborate on these related causes? I am certain there is more to respond to when more specifics of what you are thinking is presented.


Everything you are stating comes from a presumption of a limited intellect.
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cahoot »

In parts of Florida this thread would sound like:
Your Attitude Toward Gay Rats
oxytocinNA wrote:... the fact that a group is not an entity.
Now there's a "fact" for inquiry.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Kunga »

It's anti-constitutional & inhumane to deny the pursuit of happiness to any human being. ( Excluding those that abuse others,
child predators & those committing atrocities/henious crimes etc.)
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Cahoot »

Kunga wrote:It's anti-constitutional & inhumane to deny the pursuit of happiness to any human being. ( Excluding those that abuse others,
child predators & those committing atrocities/henious crimes etc.)
Is that a pickup line down at the bar ... association, or what they teach girls these days.
Locked