[Natoma]

The vote is with regard to a measure that condemns discrimination based on sexual orientation. Other countries that are abstaining, or voting against the measure, are Cuba, Latin American countries, and the arab nation.

Well lookie there, our government has something in common with the terrorists and thugs of the world!

Bah!

[Silent_One]

Link please...

[John Reynolds]

And with Bush in the oval office that surprises you how?

Which ties into something that crosses my mind on occasion since I work on a large Air Force base. Any regular posters here ever serve in the US military? I spent 9 years in the OANG (OH air national guard) so I have an opinion or two on the constitutionality of our military's tradition of discriminating against homosexuals. The opinion is that the policy is unethical and unconstitutional. "Oh, but I don't want some fairy boy looking at my butt in the shower!", said a friend of mine who was once in the army. My reply? Trust me, buddy, no self-respecting gay man would've looked at you twice. While still in the guard I recall mentioning to the office that a friend of mine had AIDS and when asked how he got it I said, "He's gay, so he probably got infected via unsafe sex." The reactions from people I'd worked with and known for almost nine years was mind-boggling. "What?! You have a gay friend? Are you gay? WTF?!!" It felt like a lynch mob in the making. My reply? "Hello people. Liberal arts major, most of the guys I meet at college are gay. I've lived with my girlfriend/wife for how many years now?"

Oh, well, mini-rant over.

[MrsSkywalker]

While I personally feel that no one should be discriminated for anything that have no control over (i.e. race, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities, etc...) or their religion, I can see where the issue at hand gets very complicated. It's easy to for us to forget that religion=government in many countries. It's a delicate matter to tell millions that their thousands of years old religious docterine is wrong, especially when we are trying to create peace in a region that adheres to these teachings.

We lose any shred of respectbility we have with those we are trying to bring together in peace if we vote yes.

We get blasted by "everyone else" if we vote no.

Since "everyone else" is harping on us to make peace in a region that believes homosexuality is a sin, then what choice does that leave us?

The US has vowed not to try and block the resolution, just to abstain from the vote, and I think that is a smart move at this particular time.

IMO, there doesn't need to be such a law. The UN already has signed into international law the following on human rights:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/int18.htm

Do the have a specific law against discrimination of Jews? Muslims? Men? Women? They don't need to. This international law states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Are you saying that we should waste the time to vote on and list every single type of human that could possibly be discriminated against?

This was passed in 1948. Perhaps all they need to do is print it out and pass it around. Then maybe they'll remember what they are supposed to be doing instead of wasting time re-passing a 55 year old law law.

[Sabastian]

I am for discrimanting against people based on how people act and I reserve that right to make my own judgement. The UN shouldn't even be voting on it IMO it isn't their fu*king place.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Sabastian

I am for discrimanting against people based on how people act and I reserve that right to make my own judgement. The UN shouldn't even be voting on it IMO it isn't their fu*king place.

So you don't mind gay people. Just when we engage in relationships with one another like any other human being.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Silent_One

Link please...

Click "Bah!"

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by Natoma

So you don't mind gay people. Just when we engage in relationships with one another like any other human being.

Deny me my inherent right to be disgusted by anothers actions will you? You cannot outlaw discrimination against people based on the way a they behave no matter what the cause, it isn't worth it. Pedophiles need their love to but that doesn't make me appreciate their actions ether. Now the UN is taking on more then the organization ought to be and it is a good thing that there are governments that oppose the vote. Because the vast majority of the worlds population believe that it is wrong. .

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Sabastian

Deny me my inherent right to be disgusted by anothers actions will you? You cannot outlaw discrimination against people based on the way a they behave no matter what the cause, it isn't worth it. Pedophiles need their love to but that doesn't make me appreciate their actions ether. Now the UN is taking on more then the organization ought to be and it is a good thing that there are governments that oppose the vote. Because the vast majority of the worlds population believe that it is wrong. .

Oh you can have your backward ideals and close mindedness all you like. No one is trying to take that away from you. Keep yourself as unenlightened as you like.

The UN is basically saying you can't trod on those who 'disgust' you. I'm quite sure there are many christian fundamentalists that despise the heresy of the middle east, and vice versa. But they don't have the right to deny those other groups their rights.

Homosexuality is not a way of 'acting' anymore than Heterosexuality is a way of 'acting.' Seeing a guy and a girl go at it doesn't particularly light a fire in my bones, but you don't see me going out of my way to kill all the straights or deny all the straights their rights.

p.s.: I love how you try to bring pedophilia into a discussion of gay rights. Typical.

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Oh you can have your backward ideals and close mindedness all you like. No one is trying to take that away from you. Keep yourself as unenlightened as you like.

I will likely always discrimanate against people if I don't like their behavior. So will the rest of the world, if there is anyone whom thinks that they can simply change peoples minds by making laws about discrimanation they need to dig their head out of the dirt. Yeah me and my ignorance will most likely always think that discrimanation is something people do every day. Government (not to mention the UN.) should not be trying to jam these sorts of laws down peoples throats.

Originally Posted by Natoma

The UN is basically saying you can't trod on those who 'disgust' you. I'm quite sure there are many christian fundamentalists that despise the heresy of the middle east, and vice versa. But they don't have the right to deny those other groups their rights.

I am sorry, I don't intend to "trod" on anyone. I will however always discrimanate against people based on how they behave. Freedom of religion is not comparable .. but that certainly doesn't stop you or others form discrimanating against them via judgements and there should be no law forbiding it ether.

Originally Posted by Natoma

Homosexuality is not a way of 'acting' anymore than Heterosexuality is a way of 'acting.' Seeing a guy and a girl go at it doesn't particularly light a fire in my bones, but you don't see me going out of my way to kill all the straights or deny all the straights their rights.

If one behaves like a hetrosexual how is that not? There should be no laws of governance that say individuals cannot discrimanate against another based on actions or behavior. Is that more clear for you?

Originally Posted by Natoma

p.s.: I love how you try to bring pedophilia into a discussion of gay rights. Typical.

Why not? They use many of the same arguments that homosexuals use. I really was not trying to bring that into the argument but rather use it as a similar case where people are discrimanated against for their sexuality and their is no problem with it. BTW what percent of pedophiles are homosexaully inclined?

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Sabastian

I will likely always discrimanate against people if I don't like their behavior. So will the rest of the world, if there is anyone whom thinks that they can simply change peoples minds by making laws about discrimanation they need to dig their head out of the dirt. Yeah me and my ignorance will most likely always think that discrimanation is something people do every day. Government (not to mention the UN.) should not be trying to jam these sorts of laws down peoples throats.

The first step to changing a society's views is to change the laws. If you outlaw something, or make something legal, that will, over time, affect how society views it. Look at abortion as an example of something that was made legal. Or drunken driving as an example of something that was made illegal.

Anti-discrimination laws *do* have an impact on society because it becomes ingrained in the fabric of that society.

Originally Posted by Sabastian

I am sorry, I don't intend to "trod" on anyone. I will however always discrimanate against people based on how they behave. Freedom of religion is not comparable .. but that certainly doesn't stop you or others form discrimanating against them via judgements and there should be no law forbiding it ether.

How is freedom of religion not comparable? Someone who believes in a different religion will act differently. They may even behave in a manner that is, according to "your" religion, unseemly.

Think about what an islamic fundamentalist would have to say about women in our society walking around with short skirts and no facial coverings. The horror!

So tell me, how is religion not comparable? And btw, I don't discriminate against religious people. I don't like it when they try to force their bigoted beliefs on me. I could care less in who believes in what, but when those beliefs impact my ability to live my life to the fullest, that's where I draw a line in the sand.

Originally Posted by Sabastian

If one behaves like a hetrosexual how is that not? There should be no laws of governance that say individuals cannot discrimanate against another based on actions or behavior. Is that more clear for you?

What exactly is behaving like a heterosexual? What exactly is behaving like a homosexual? If you behave like something, then you're mimicking. If you *are* something, that's something totally different.

There most *certainly* should be laws to protect people who are homosexual, as there are laws to protect people who have certain religious beliefs. It's called protection of minorities.

Originally Posted by Sabastian

Why not? They use many of the same arguments that homosexuals use. I really was not trying to bring that into the argument but rather use it as a similar case where people are discrimanated against for their sexuality and their is no problem with it. BTW what percent of pedophiles are homosexaully inclined?

First of all, pedophiles (heterosexual pedophiles, homosexual pedophiles, male and female alike) are sexually interacting with beings that are, in general, too young to understand the psychological, emotional, and physical ramifications of their actions. *That* is what I do not agree with. That is what I think is not healthy.

Here are the different forms of pedophilia:

Fixated (or exclusive type) pedophilia. The fixated pedophiles consider themselves to be trapped in childhood. They usually have minimum relations with adult peers, and relate better with children. They are identified mainly as men and their primary interest is in boys, with whom they develop boy to boy relationships. They typically plan their activities to promote access to young boys through church, neighborhood, or sporting activities.

Regressed (or nonexclusive type) pedophilia. On the other hand, the regressed pedophile is not ordinarily attracted to children. Those with regressed pedophilia are typically heterosexual married males and most likely to sexually molest 8 or 9 year old female children. Some pedophiles complain of anxiety or tension related to employment or marital relationship as precursors to pedophilic impulses, as well as alcohol or drug usage. They view the child as an adult substitute, and relate to the child in an adult to adult manner. The first sexual encounter is usually sudden and unplanned.

Cross-sex pedophilia. Male pedophiles who sexually molest young girls are typically diagnosed with regressed pedophilia. They commonly befriend the young girl and gradually engage in sexually activities, enticing, rather than forcing, the child. The activities frequently include fondling the child, encouraging the child to fondle the male, and possibly oral stimulation, but rarely sexual intercourse.

Same-sex pedophilia. While most pedophiles who engage in or fantasize about same-sex children do not participate in heterosexual adult sexual relations, they also deny being homosexual. Instead, the pedophiles are more sexually aroused by male and female children than by either gender of adults. The average age of molestation among boys is between 10 and 12. Sexual activities typically involve fondling and adult masturbation and/ or oral stimulation of the boy, and anal sex with the adult male taking the active role.

Female pedophilia. Although the vast majority of pedophilia is among males, female pedophilia does exist. However, female pedophilia is not commonly reported, possibly because the female's affection shown toward a child is seen as maternal, as opposed to sexual in the males. Additionally, male children do not view sexual relations with adult women negatively, and therefore may not report the incident. However, it is reportedly fairly common for young males (12 years old or younger) to engage in sexual activities (usually sexual intercourse) with adult women, usually in their twenties, who are usually known by the boys and typically friends of parents, neighbors or baby-sitters.

And here is a study performed by the Journal of Pediatrics, published in July 1994 with regard to sexually abused children.

2% of the boys in the study were molested by gay males.

98% of the boys in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 75% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.

0.05% of the girls in the study were molested by a lesbian.

99.5% of the girls in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 80% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.

[John Reynolds]

Originally Posted by Sabastian

I am for discrimanting against people based on how people act and I reserve that right to make my own judgement. The UN shouldn't even be voting on it IMO it isn't their fu*king place.

So if I take Communion and you're a protestant it's okay for you to not hire me for that new position your company just opened up based on my actions, eh? I think I see what you meant but what you wrote can be widely misconstrued. Unless a person's actions harm another person, I don't think discrimination is warranted. But in this case since the act defines the person (same-sex sex) there's no way around it. I also reserve the right to have an opinion on others due to their actions but that doesn't give me some inalienable right to discriminate against them.

[RussSchultz]

I have severe reservations about the males molesting boys actually being heterosexual, and not closetted gays.

But anyways...as Sen. Santorum said, if you make sexual orientation a constitutionally protected right based on the right to privacy, what then would prevent a constitutional challenge for laws preventing truly deviant behavior between consenting adults?

Could laws prohibiting consensual adult incest survive? Beastiality? Could a divorce law that factored in fault be upheld? Would polygamy be a right?

[Silent_One]

There most *certainly* should be laws to protect people who are homosexual, as there are laws to protect people who have certain religious beliefs. It's called protection of minorities

Natoma
While I probably agree with you in principle please clarify "It's called protection of minorities". (After all women are not minorities in society yet laws are written under the guise of the Disadvantaged ).

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

I have severe reservations about the males molesting boys actually being heterosexual, and not closetted gays.

Males in prison have a high incidence of homosexual rape. Yet most of the males are indeed heterosexual. Pedophilia is in many ways more about the control factor, psychologically, than anything else.

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

But anyways...as Sen. Santorum said, if you make sexual orientation a constitutionally protected right based on the right to privacy, what then would prevent a constitutional challenge for laws preventing truly deviant behavior between consenting adults?

Could laws prohibiting consensual adult incest survive? Beastiality? Could a divorce law that factored in fault be upheld? Would polygamy be a right?

Adult incest should be kept outlawed because of the possibility of having children who are horribly deformed and/or retarded. If you notice, there are quite a few states that allow you to marry your 2nd cousin. Why? Because the genetic differences are high enough to where your children have about as good a chance of escaping genetic defects as two people who are completely unrelated.

Beastiality is not consenual sex between two adult human beings.

I'm not sure what you mean by the divorce law thing. Can you go into it further?

And polygamy, well, there are *many* religions around the world, including some sections of christianity *cough* mormonism *cough* that allow polygamy. The only reason it's outlawed in this country is because the dominant sub section of christianity is protestantism/catholicism, which sees polygamy as a sin.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Silent_One

Natoma
While I probably agree with you in principle please clarify "It's called protection of minorities". (After all women are not minorities in society yet laws are written under the guise of the Disadvantaged ).

Minority status is generally defined as those who are physically in a minority position (numbers wise), or those who are in a minority status due to their influence on the socio-political climate.

That's why you hear women and african americans, for instance, referred to as minorities, even though women comprise more than 50% of the population of the United States thank you very much wars of the past century.......

[RussSchultz]

"At fault" Divorce laws "punish" the party who is responsible for breaking up the marriage due to infidelity, etc. Generally the party not at fault has greater influence in determining child custody, alimony etc.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

"At fault" Divorce laws "punish" the party who is responsible for breaking up the marriage due to infidelity, etc. Generally the party not at fault has greater influence in determining child custody, alimony etc.

Oh ic. But how does that fit in? I'm still a little lost.

[John Reynolds]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

"At fault" Divorce laws "punish" the party who is responsible for breaking up the marriage due to infidelity, etc. Generally the party not at fault has greater influence in determining child custody, alimony etc.

Not sure I'm opposed to that. A person who's unfaithful in their marriage is certainly putting their wants ahead of the needs of their children and while not necessarily a bad parent isn't exactly my notion of an ideal parent.

[RussSchultz]

The "at fault" divorce fits in to the discussion because there are legal implications of bedroom activities. (infidelity causes you to lose legal rights)

If we proclaim that bedroom activities are protected by this growing "right to privacy", then laws such as this could be declared unconstitutional because the goverment has no right interfering with what goes on in the bedroom.

I don't think that is a good outcome.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

The "at fault" divorce fits in to the discussion because there are legal implications of bedroom activities. (infidelity causes you to lose legal rights)

If we proclaim that bedroom activities are protected by this growing "right to privacy", then laws such as this could be declared unconstitutional because the goverment has no right interfering with what goes on in the bedroom.

I don't think that is a good outcome.

Ah I understand now. No, I don't think this would cover that. Marriage is, at the coldest viewing, a legal contract entered into between two people. If you break that contract, you can be held legally responsible if the other party so chooses, just like any other contract.

So no, I don't think this would invalidate that.

[RussSchultz]

Yet at the same time I couldn't enter a contract with my child's teachers that required them to be straight?

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Yet at the same time I couldn't enter a contract with my child's teachers that required them to be straight?

Not anymore than you could enter a contract with your child's teacher that requires them to be religious, for instance. You can't contract something like that, or at least, you shouldn't be allowed to. I know the Boy Scouts can do that kind of thing because they are a private organization. But a public institution cannot.

[RussSchultz]

Like I said, if you base your constitutional protection of homosexuality on privacy, then other private activities become constitutionally protected also.

At that point, you could not contract fidelity into the marriage, regardless of the wellbeing of the children involved.

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

But anyways...as Sen. Santorum said, if you make sexual orientation a constitutionally protected right based on the right to privacy, what then would prevent a constitutional challenge for laws preventing truly deviant behavior between consenting adults?

Could laws prohibiting consensual adult incest survive? Beastiality? Could a divorce law that factored in fault be upheld? Would polygamy be a right?

Natoma covered some of this, but to build on what he said:

Polygamy refers to marriage, not sexual behavior. Marriage is a public function and is surely within the bounds of the state to regulate. (I happen to believe gay marriage should be legalized, but obviously the right to privacy has no bearing on that debate.) Instead the analogous question is whether threesomes (or, more generally, orgies) can be criminalized by the state, and the answer seems an obvious "no".

As for factoring in adultery in divorce proceedings (Natoma: "fault" in divorce law refers to taking account of whose fault it was--generally, who was cheating on whom--when divvying up the assets, children, etc. of the former couple), again that's completely out of the scope of the issue. Adultery already isn't illegal, and we would rightly recognize any law criminalizing it as a huge invasion of privacy rights. But it is very rightly recognized as an example of fault in divorce proceedings. So are many other non-illegal activities, e.g. not taking a shower for 10 years.

The prohibition on consensual adult incest, on the other hand, is much tougher to dismiss out-of-hand. The argument that a resulting child may have genetic defects seems promising, but doesn't hold as a general rule. For example, it is perfectly legal for two consenting adults to have sex even if they have some other genetic predisposition--either singly or as a pair--towards producing defective children. To bring it into sharper focus: as a woman gets older, and particularly above 42 or 43, the risk that a child born to her will have Down's Syndrome becomes extremely significant--probably higher than the risk of genetic defects with sibling parents. But it is certainly not illegal for pre-menopausal women over 43 to have consensual sex.

Hmm...