Racism gene?

[LunarSolaris]

I would challenge the assertion that laws should only be changed as a result of legislature instead of the courts. How much longer would we have waited for school integration had it not been for the landmark court case Brown Vs. Board of Education and several others such as Rosa Parks. These were court cases which set the tone for a path toward social equality.

In addition, if we look at simple majority, I seem to recall that there are several polls that show the majority of americans are against abortion. However, Roe V. Wade is another supreme court case which set legal precedent allowing for abortions to be legal - and has been since 1973. To my knowledge, we have not had a vote on this subject as a nation as of yet.

So as I see it, I have no issues with *** marriage being fought in the courts. It follows the same precedent that many other social movements have demonstrated as created social change and a push for better equality.

And one last point regarding the difference between "fetishes" and homosexuality...

Things such as fetishes are a facet of sexuality, whereas heterosexuality and homosexuality are encompassing and transcend beyond the sex act. This is a key distinction. Pedophilia is not accepted by society not just because the vast majority is against it, but simply because children do not have the mental capacity to consent to these types of relationships. This has clearly been proven in the literature regardless of how "mature" one might claim a child to be. The fact remains that a child is not of developmental capacity to truly make informed decisions about whom they have sex with.

 

[cleanupguy]

I would challenge the assertion that laws should only be changed as a result of legislature instead of the courts. How much longer would we have waited for school integration had it not been for the landmark court case Brown Vs. Board of Education and several others such as Rosa Parks. These were court cases which set the tone for a path toward social equality.

I believe some people on this board (names will be withheld) actually believe that race separation is better because that is what people seem to want, believe it or not.

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

Things such as fetishes are a facet of sexuality, whereas heterosexuality and homosexuality are encompassing and transcend beyond the sex act.

Pedophilia is the same way. In fact it is more transcending than either of your examples in that it, as far as the definition is concerned, doesn't distinguish between genders at all.

Pedophilia is not accepted by society not just because the vast majority is against it, but simply because children do not have the mental capacity to consent to these types of relationships. This has clearly been proven in the literature regardless of how "mature" one might claim a child to be. The fact remains that a child is not of developmental capacity to truly make informed decisions about whom they have sex with.

Then why isn't there one age of consent for the US? You don't even have to leave your own country to find widely varying opinions of what constitutes a person too young to consent to sex, and God forbid you do look outside the US. Plenty of places have ages of consent set to 14 or lower, if there even is a legislated age of consent.

Your line of reasoning begs the question, what exactly is sex to you people that humans biologically ready for it are assumed mentally incapable of consenting to it? How much do you need to understand about sex before you're allowed to experience it, and what parts of that necessary understanding are above a 12 or 14 year old's comprehension?

Yeah! We never shoulda let them negros vote!

I'm thinking black people being given the right to vote wasn't a circumvention of democracy, and even if it partially was it's not nearly on the scale that you guys are advocating. It looks to me like some of us are praying that homosexual marriage never does come to a vote or follow any kind of due process.

 

[Lostprophet]

Should have figured this would happen.

I say that the governmeent stops issuing "marriages" to anyone, and instead issues "civil unions" to everyone, *** or straight. Marriage, the word and the attached service, are reserved for religious affiliated groups. Both marriages and civil unions enjoy equal rights. This would entail the government stripping ministers and clergy of their right to marry people via the state. People who married religiously would still have to apply for "civil union" status, to enjoy those benefits. Everyone is happy, because *** people enjoy equal civil unions and the rights entailed thereof, religious people conserve their sacred "marriage," and the government pulls a little farther into actual separation of church and state.

...

*gets slapped*

*wakes up from day dream*

Meh.

 

[Technetium]

IDuped, I pretty much agree with almost everything you have to say in this thread.

Then why isn't there one age of consent for the US? You don't even have to leave your own country to find widely varying opinions of what constitutes a person too young to consent to sex, and God forbid you do look outside the US. Plenty of places have ages of consent set to 14 or lower, if there even is a legislated age of consent.

Indeed, until very recently, it was 14 in Hawaii and one other state (I forget which). The change to 16 in Hawaii met fierce resistance. As you can see, such things are not even close to universally agreed upon. The age of consent in the Philipines is only 12, and it isn't even the sort of thing that is considered taboo there, as it is "part of their culture" (I'm not sure how, but it is what I have been told). In Spain and Japan it is 13 (though almost every local area in Japan has it's own law which is more around 16). Those are ages that, in this country, can put a person in prison for a very long time. Simply put, the world does not agree at all on this issue.

Your line of reasoning begs the question, what exactly is sex to you people that humans biologically ready for it are assumed mentally incapable of consenting to it? How much do you need to understand about sex before you're allowed to experience it, and what parts of that necessary understanding are above a 12 or 14 year old's comprehension?

He's probably referring to the "mental damage" commonly attributed to underage sexual activity. In Europe sexual activity amongst very young teenagers is commonplace and not shunned as it is here in the US. Yet countries like Sweden and Finland are not filled with young adults permanently scarred by their early sexual activity (they also have a much lower unwanted teen pregnancy level than we do, but that's another subject entirely). I strongly believe that the majority of the "damage" caused is due partly to the way our culture encourages males to "use 'em and lose 'em", and also in the way our culture causes young teens to feel ashamed for having sex.

I'm thinking black people being given the right to vote wasn't a circumvention of democracy, and even if it partially was it's not nearly on the scale that you guys are advocating.

The error with the assumption that true democracy would have denied women and/or blacks the right to vote is in the fact that true democracy could not have existed under such circumstances in the first place. You can't say "the majority would have voted against women's rights" because without everyone being able to vote on the subject in the first place (including women), it's not a democracy.

On the subject itself, I doubt that there is a gene which causes homosexuality and racism. However, people should not ever be afraid of research. If someone wants to try and find this out for sure, even if that person "hopes" to find the gene, the research should be encouraged. We should never fear discovering new truth. It is sort of like when some intelligence testing people came out with their conclusion that different ethnicities tend to score differently on intelligence tests, with most ethnicities having some particularly type of test that they do better on than the other ethnicities. Of course these researchers were branded as racists right away. I think that kind of attitude is unfortunate. What if it was true? Would it be better if we pretended it wasn't? We should always be ready to accept the truth, and be open-minded to new suggestions which challenge common thought, whatever it might be, and however much pain it might cause ourselves.

 

[Cygnus434]

I do believe that the earth needs Ænema to come true. hehe.

Ya, I'm a bastard.


*insert generalized, blanketing statement about how people are entitled to their opinions and blah blah blah.......*

 

[Technetium]

I do believe that the earth needs Ænema to come true. hehe.

And I suppose you have a suggestion to keep us all occupied? ;-D

Actually, debate threads like this are not pointless as so many seem to think. People like to say "no one's going to change their opinion" but I have changed many of my opinions based on well-thought out arguments made on forums on the internet like this one and including this one.

 

[Cygnus434]

And I suppose you have a suggestion to keep us all occupied? ;-D

Actually, debate threads like this are not pointless as so many seem to think. People like to say "no one's going to change their opinion" but I have changed many of my opinions based on well-thought out arguments made on forums on the internet like this one and including this one.

I'm not sure, but I am just starting to see the same things over and over and over.

Now that I'm actually getting out of my teenage years and such, I keep seeing the same things happen over and over and over. People like to keep these habits no matter on what scale they are. Particularly, in this case, I'm starting to believe that we humans would not exist if we did not have conflict. Conflict has spawned everything that we have...

Yet it is inherently, at least in the short span, stupid.

I just don't know anymore. My faith in humanity just seems to slip out of the window an inch every day.

The irony here is that my ranting will create conflict.

*sigh*

I'm done--for now.

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

Actually, debate threads like this are not pointless as so many seem to think. People like to say "no one's going to change their opinion" but I have changed many of my opinions based on well-thought out arguments made on forums on the internet like this one and including this one.

I'd second that. There's always somebody out there who can point out something you've overlooked, no matter how thorough and impartial you feel you may have been towards a subject. General yous.

I think in a way things like this lead very slowly to more educated populations. I have no doubt that the average OTFer's general knowledge and knowledge of current events is much higher than the nationwide average of any country represented here. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside, even when everyone in a thread goes away hating everyone else in the thread.

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

I'm not sure, but I am just starting to see the same things over and over and over.

Now that I'm actually getting out of my teenage years and such, I keep seeing the same things happen over and over and over. People like to keep these habits no matter on what scale they are. Particularly, in this case, I'm starting to believe that we humans would not exist if we did not have conflict. Conflict has spawned everything that we have...

Yet it is inherently, at least in the short span, stupid.

I just don't know anymore. My faith in humanity just seems to slip out of the window an inch every day.

The irony here is that my ranting will create conflict.

*sigh*

I'm done--for now.

I think that you're right, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Have you ever read the Art of War? The Chinese one, not Machiavelli's.

Whenever there are two or more groups or classes working together there will be friction, or conflict if you prefer, between those two groups. They'll have overriding goals which are similar, but (usually) smaller goals in which they differ, or they'll have the same goals entirely but differing ideas of how to achieve them. This is what causes the friction. The energy created by the friction can be harnessed positively or negatively, it's up to the people involved. However, no good would come of anything without this friction, just as the tire without friction with the ground would not move your car.

 

[Cygnus434]

I think that you're right, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Have you ever read the Art of War? The Chinese one, not Machiavelli's.

Whenever there are two or more groups or classes working together there will be friction, or conflict if you prefer, between those two groups. They'll have overriding goals which are similar, but (usually) smaller goals in which they differ, or they'll have the same goals entirely but differing ideas of how to achieve them. This is what causes the friction. The energy created by the friction can be harnessed positively or negatively, it's up to the people involved. However, no good would come of anything without this friction, just as the tire without friction with the ground would not move your car.

That's kind of interesting. I might have to look into that.

What you said pretty much captured what I was thinking.

But then again, the observation in your previous post was right on the money too, I should say.

 

[dantose]

the court cases that ended segregation were the enforcement of legislative action. Segregation was used to circumvent the requirement for equal treatment. The redefining of marriage is a completely seperate case since no law to that effect has been passed. As I've said before, the homosexual movement should follow the example of womens sufferage and the abolition of slavery. The court was never intended to be in the business of legislating.
EDIT: underseer brought up the point of the majority repressing the minority. This has not stopped women from getting the right to vote, nor has it kept blacks from gaining equality. So why then would it be inadequate for the homosexual issue? The legislature has lived up to their duties in the past and I see no reason to doubt the process now, that is unless it's just a matter of things not going the way you want them. What some people here don't seem to understand is that it isn't the result that I am against (*** marriage is a nonissue to me personally) but the process. if the situation was reversed and the courts wanted to do something I agreed with that had no supporting legislation I would argue the same case. When the writ of habeas corpus was suspended I think it was wrong. That doesn't mean I thought the south was right or that the north was wrong. It was wrong to lock up US citizens with out trial even though we were right to be fighting that war. When the allies fire bombed axis cities it was wrong despite us being on the right side of the war. The ends do not justify the means. The same applies here. It doesn't matter if *** marriage should be allowed or not, it is still wrong to have the courts demanding the legislature passes specific legislation. they should not be in that role.

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

Cygnus- I PMed you a little more info on a particularly good edition of the book, just in case you get bored some day and decide you want to track it down.

 

[LunarSolaris]

I don't know, Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) was a landmark case in which Dred Scott sued for his freedom. I'd argue that precedent has been set for quite some time in the U.S.

EDIT: Removed the word "successfully" before sued as this is innacurate. He sued for his freedom, but I believe lost if I recall.

 

[dantose]

I don't know, Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) was a landmark case in which Dred Scott sued for his freedom. I'd argue that precedent has been set for quite some time in the U.S.

EDIT: Removed the word "successfully" before sued as this is innacurate. He sued for his freedom, but I believe lost if I recall.

correct, he did lose. This was also a case of proper procedure as that he was chalenging it based on laws on the books. The courts never said that the congress must pass a specific bill in so many months time.

 

[Anakha1]

Since when did the majority have the moral fortitude to press their morality on the harmless actions of a minority? It's not like the majority are all that pure and saintly.

 

[dantose]

Since when did the majority have the moral fortitude to press their morality on the harmless actions of a minority? It's not like the majority are all that pure and saintly.

They have been allowed to o that around the same time the supreme court became a legislating body.

I think marriage should be something defined by the society. That's really all there is to it. I recognise this is not a purely christian country so the may not define it according to christian teachings. That is their choice. I see no reason to take this out of the hands of the democratic system. Democrasy worked to eliminate slavery, grant females the right to vote, and pretty much any other social advancement we've had. It's when people want to circumvent democracy that problems pop up (for example, the south worrying that slavery might be outlawed on the national level and trying a whole slew of things to prevent the natural democratic process (3/5ths, mason dixon line, stacking votes in new territories, ect.)

Let democracy work.