dk

DARKTWIST: The fact remains, states cannot use law to discriminate or deny protection of specific groups, based solely on their belonging to that group. Examples could include Jim Crow laws.
dk: Forced segregation (jim crow) and forced integration (civil rights) laws order institutions to target groups on the basis of race. Child labor laws, sexual harassment, and several other criterions are routinely applied to selected groups to determine special treatment. You’ve been misinformed.

dk: I have nothing against gay people, in fact you seem to be slow to cozy up too.
DARKTWIST: My personal opinion of homosexuality is irrelevent to this discussion, as it was, I was merely pointing out that arguments for eliminating certain practices or people for the sake of the 'species' have been made before, IE Hitler.
dk: Exactly, once a government takes the initiative to target a group for special treatment, any group may become a target down the line.

DARKTWIST: How do you know I'm not gay, by the way?
dk: I don’t. How do I know your not gay?. For that matter how do I even know I’m not gay?

dk: So you are of the opinion that women can commit sodomy?
DARKTWIST: If the definition of sodomy requires male sexual organs, then no, women cannot perform sodomy on another person, but may in fact be sodomized. However, with the help of toys and other sexual aides, women could definately be capable of anal penetration of another being. Though, why this is an issue is beyond my grasp.
dk: So you’re not sure.

DARKTWIST: The nuclear family has only been a model because of the way humanity developed. The strong protected the weak. A man and a woman were required for reproduction. Children became assets for family protection and development. Kind of like a prehistoric worker state, where the prolitariet (sp) is reproduced from its own kind.
Over time, technology and certain social changes (like women entering the work place in record numbers, sexual liberation, affirmative action, etc.), have allowed persons to develop families that are non-nuclear. Single mothers, interracial couples, homosexual couples, etc.
These things have developed because our advanced society is not dependent on 'Man Get Food, Woman make babies' 'Children good for gathering and protecting home, and aged parents.'
dk: Whatever people were before they became human beings, now they are distinctly human. More to the point civilization was constructed with the nuclear family as its basic unit. Anthropologists can speculate “what if” from now till doomsday, but Western and Eastern Civilization are based upon the nuclear family, and all the other civilizations have ruined themselves. To bet against the necessity of the nuclear family quit frankly sounds rather irrational.

DARKTWIST: Much of this line of thinking can be found among the poor people of third world countries, where they are farmers, hunter-gatherers and nomads. A couple produces children, each child that lives contributes to the survival of the family. That is why the 'nuclear family' is self-replicating, and in some ways, natural. However, just because this may be natural, does not mean that it is healthy. At the risk of sounding blasphemous, perhaps these permutations of the term 'family' are a sign of advancement and not decline.
dk: To present a tautology as an answer to a question is nonsense. In fact there are several dead civilizations, and many more primitive cultures that barely survive under the most depraved circumstances by the skin of their teeth. As it turns out the myth of the noble savage was an invention of civilized man. The Hopi Indians were cannibals and the Aztecs and Mayans built their empires on terror, human sacrifice and war. North American indigenous people refuse to allow the ruins of other lost cultures and civilizations excavated for fear of what might be found. I fear you’ve been fed a loaf of cow pie. Whatever built modern civilization is unique in human history, and its unclear why? All we really know is 1) the nuclear family forms the basis of modern civilization, and 2) we know many derivations of the nuclear family formed the basis of many dead civilizations.
Peace.

dk

gay culture (might be) (is) the theatre, art, language, cloths, literature, museums, music, and icons with which gay communities identify themselves and patronize.

I can't prove the sun's going to rise tomorrow.

pleasant_darktwist

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dk
[B]DARKTWIST: The fact remains, states cannot use law to discriminate or deny protection of specific groups, based solely on their belonging to that group. Examples could include Jim Crow laws.
dk: Forced segregation (jim crow) and forced integration (civil rights) laws order institutions to target groups on the basis of race. Child labor laws, sexual harassment, and several other criterions are routinely applied to selected groups to determine special treatment. You’ve been misinformed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DARKTWIST Just because a law, such as sexual harrassment, is misapplied (less because of number of incidents, but rather social predjudice against men claiming to be harassed by a woman), does not mean that states can use laws that prohibit an activity by a group (i.e. women, homosexuals) based on an activity or something intrinsic in the nature of the group.

As for child labor laws, children are considered by the government to be wards of the parents, non-participants in the legal apparatus. This is why there are juvenile correctional facilities, courts, and records. Children are not consenting adults. Thus the responsibilty of the parents, and if not them, the state, must ensure that they are not exploited, hence laws about child porn, underage sexual conduct, etc.

Also these acts to not by their nature discriminate against a group. Child labor laws are now fairly well outdated. They were written during a time when children as young as four or five were working in textile mills, under dangerous machines or places that were inconvienient for an adult, not to mention states. The law is clear about what is a child, or rather, a minor, and as such all children have a special status (be they black, white, jewish, gay, whatever), thus this is not a law pertaining to a specific group as a means of discrimination, rather it disallows exploitation by those who should be protecting a child's interest (parent, employer, state, etc.)

Sexual harrassment laws, in theory, cover ALL PERSONS from unwanted sexual contact, employment or adjustments of such predicated on sexual favors or requests. Just because men bring cases less often, does not mean that they are not protected by the spirit and word of the law. It is social predjudice that causes this type of MISapplication, much as in the Texas sodomy laws.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dk: I have nothing against gay people, in fact you seem to be slow to cozy up too.

DARKTWIST: My personal opinion of homosexuality is irrelevent to this discussion, as it was, I was merely pointing out that arguments for eliminating certain practices or people for the sake of the 'species' have been made before, IE Hitler.

DK: Exactly, once a government takes the initiative to target a group for special treatment, any group may become a target down the line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DARKTWIST: DK, you have just murdered your own argument. If homosexuals are allowed to be targets of 'special treatment' by only outlawing sex between two men, what will they regulate next? No mutual masturbation between women (or men). Lay down and die by your own words, bub.

Thus, you open the door with the texas law, that any group can be targeted (negative 'special treatment' by a state and that the federal justice system is helpless to rectify a clear violation of the constitution.

Sodomy laws are not violations of the constitution. Laws that make sodomy illegal for one group and no other is a violation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dkHow do I know your not gay?. For that matter how do I even know I’m not gay?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DARKTWIST dk, if you do not know whether or not your are a homosexual, I firmly believe that you are posting on the wrong board...putting the cart before the horse :0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dk: So you are of the opinion that women can commit sodomy?

DARKTWIST: If the definition of sodomy requires male sexual organs, then no, women cannot perform sodomy on another person, but may in fact be sodomized. However, with the help of toys and other sexual aides, women could definately be capable of anal penetration of another being. Though, why this is an issue is beyond my grasp.

dk: So you’re not sure.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DARKTWIST No I'm sure, as long as sodomy is based on where an object is put, and not what is put there. Besides, we only need prove that sodomy can take place in permutations other than MALE on MALE. For if even one matching can be found, MALE on FEMALE, then the law is discriminatory because it targets a group, when there is more than one group. Thus laws about race, sex, etc., must not inhibit one group more than another. America is famous for having the idea that everyone deserves a 'level playing field.'

So I am sure: sure that you have destroyed your own argument, sure that whether females can sodomize each other is irrelevant because there is a group other than man on man where sodomy can (and does) occur. Just as I am sure that the law in texas is a violation, in word and spirit of the XIV Amendment to the Constitution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dk: Whatever people were before they became human beings, now they are distinctly human. More to the point civilization was constructed with the nuclear family as its basic unit. Anthropologists can speculate “what if” from now till doomsday, but Western and Eastern Civilization are based upon the nuclear family, and all the other civilizations have ruined themselves. To bet against the necessity of the nuclear family quit frankly sounds rather irrational.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DARKTWIST I never said that anything about pre-humanity. My argument was that the rize of civilization was due to the nuclear family, however, just because that's the way it was, does not mean that that is how it should be. I hate to be a logic book quoter, but I believe that that is an "appeal to tradition." Same argument was used for slavery, for as it has it been, so should it remain.

We have now evolved from a civilization point of view. Rome didn't fall because it forgot about the family (the thumpers would like you to believe it), neither did Greece. Hell, the Mormons are still around and they are polygamysts, so no, every society not based in your definition of the 'nuclear family' did not destroy or ruin themselves. Rather, they succumbed to the wills and ways of the arguably less civilized that thought they were right (can you say Conquistadors, there, I knew you could).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DARKTWIST: Much of this line of thinking can be found among the poor people of third world countries, where they are farmers, hunter-gatherers and nomads. A couple produces children, each child that lives contributes to the survival of the family. That is why the 'nuclear family' is self-replicating, and in some ways, natural. However, just because this may be natural, does not mean that it is healthy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dk: To present a tautology as an answer to a question is nonsense. In fact there are several dead civilizations, and many more primitive cultures that barely survive under the most depraved circumstances by the skin of their teeth. As it turns out the myth of the noble savage was an invention of civilized man. The Hopi Indians were cannibals and the Aztecs and Mayans built their empires on terror, human sacrifice and war. North American indigenous people refuse to allow the ruins of other lost cultures and civilizations excavated for fear of what might be found. I fear you’ve been fed a loaf of cow pie. Whatever built modern civilization is unique in human history, and its unclear why? All we really know is 1) the nuclear family forms the basis of modern civilization, and 2) we know many derivations of the nuclear family formed the basis of many dead civilizations.

DARKTWIST I think that the 'tautology' was meant as an example of how even if the nuclear family WAS the source of 'modern civilizations,' the civilizations that hold tightest too it are the LEAST developed, thus making the 'nuclear family' a necessity. However as we have, EVOLVED, this has become less necessary, and people are now free to choose what they want and are not pigeonholed by necessity.

Second, may the Natives believe that such sites just might be sacred, and should not be disturbed. Third, just because people are cannibals, does not mean they are not civilzed. Just look at the technological advances, math systems, etc. of the 'barbaric' aztecs, or the near perfection of the Egyptian pyramids. The nuclear family may have made these currrent derivations possible, but in the end the family is not what will make a civilzation great...rather, it might be that which is holding us back.
Maybe a more fruitful design could be found ;-)

Peace.

dk

You fail to grasp the nature of my response. From the 1st day the Constitution was ratified, to today, the US Federal Government has discriminated against people on the basis of national origins, race, sex, religion and age. This is an historical fact, not something that can be argued. To say the states or the federal government can’t discriminate against some group is a misnomer. You personally may think the government should protect gays with the institution of marriage, and protect gays by calling anal sex private, but now you’ve got to support your position. That’s a hard pill to swallow when anal sex spreads MDR microbes, hiv/aids, causes cancer, and many other chronic, incurable and deadly illnesses. Gays need to clean up their act.
dk: I have no idea where you’re coming from. You appear to believe the government to be an all powerful benefactor. That’s simply not the case in a free country. People make their own associations, enterprises, contracts, judgments and beds and then they sleep in them. The US Constitution doesn’t mention education, sex, family, or marriage if you want to get technical. What the constitution says is that powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states and people. What you have to do is figure out how the Federal Government became so powerful, and then reflect upon what it means. That’s another discussion.

Darktwist: Thus, you open the door with the texas law, that any group can be targeted (negative 'special treatment' by a state and that the federal justice system is helpless to rectify a clear violation of the constitution.
dk: It is not me that opened the door, and not the Commerce Clause. Something happened after WW II that changed the nature of the Federal Government granting them expansive powers. Most of FDR’s New Deal got axed by the Supreme Courts as unconstitutional, then after WW II suddenly the government got all kinds of power. Something happened, and what could it be?

DARKTWIST: Sodomy laws are not violations of the constitution. Laws that make sodomy illegal for one group and no other is a violation.
dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about, the Federal government has never passed a sodomy law. hint: what are blue laws?

dk: How do I know your not gay?. For that matter how do I even know I’m not gay?
DARKTWIST dk, if you do not know whether or not your are a homosexual, I firmly believe that you are posting on the wrong board...putting the cart before the horse :0
dk: Nobody can say whether I’m gay or anyone else, not the best equipped doctor, shrink, geneticist, lawyer or government bureaucrat.
dk: You’re don’t seem very sure, it took you multiple paragraphs to explain women can and can not commit sodomy, only to conclude it doesn’t matter. I don’t believe the 14th Amendment mentions sodomy or privacy, these are penumbra rights, based on conjecture gleamed from the vague shadows behind the text, that only Supreme Court Justices can see. What we have is the Supreme Court writing constitutional rights then amplifying the affect through the 14th Amendment to supersede states rights and jurisdiction. Oddly enough the 15th Amendment passed in 1870 specifically mentions race, but failed to deter the Supreme Court in Plessy v Ferguson (1900) from finding grounds to support Jim Crow Laws, or from doing a complete reversal to support forced integration in the 1960s. It doesn’t take a genius to see the hypocrisy. In a sense the Supreme Court overcomes the rigidity of the “rule of law”, by assuming the power to violate “the rule of law”. We live in interesting times.

dk: Whatever people were before they became human beings, now they are distinctly human. More to the point civilization was constructed with the nuclear family as its basic unit. Anthropologists can speculate “what if” from now till doomsday, but Western and Eastern Civilization are based upon the nuclear family, and all the other civilizations have ruined themselves. To bet against the necessity of the nuclear family quit frankly sounds rather irrational.
DARKTWIST I never said that anything about pre-humanity. My argument was that the rize of civilization was due to the nuclear family, however, just because that's the way it was, does not mean that that is how it should be. I hate to be a logic book quoter, but I believe that that is an "appeal to tradition." Same argument was used for slavery, for as it has it been, so should it remain.
dk: So you favor gay marriage to dissolve the nuclear family as the basis of society and that would be called social engineering.

DARKTWIST We have now evolved from a civilization point of view. Rome didn't fall because it forgot about the family (the thumpers would like you to believe it), neither did Greece. Hell, the Mormons are still around and they are polygamists, so no, every society not based in your definition of the 'nuclear family' did not destroy or ruin themselves.
dk: Rome fell because it couldn’t fill the ranks of the Roman Legions with loyal citizens, or they lost the capacity to raise children. Unable to field an army, they were forced to hire the barbarian mercenaries that overran Rome. Mormons aren’t polygamists, thought they did practiced polygamy for a short time.

DARKTWIST: Rather, they succumbed to the wills and ways of the arguably less civilized that thought they were right (can you say Conquistadors, there, I knew you could).
dk: The Aztecs practiced ritual cannibalism, human sacrifice and war. Cortez with about 400 conquistadors, ball and powder weaponry, 15 horses, and seven artillery pieces conquered an empire with millions of warriors. Historians are still at a loss to explain Cortez’s remarkable victory. Some historians estimate the Aztecs sacrificed a 1/4 million people/year, or about 1% of the population. Aztecs were very enlightened people.

DARKTWIST: Much of this line of thinking can be found among the poor people of third world countries, where they are farmers, hunter-gatherers and nomads. A couple produces children, each child that lives contributes to the survival of the family. That is why the 'nuclear family' is self-replicating, and in some ways, natural. However, just because this may be natural, does not mean that it is healthy.
dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dk: There are many examples of dead civilizations with advanced technology and science. Today only Western and Eastern Civilizations endure and they are both based upon the nuclear family. While polygamy is still practiced many places it isn’t the norm anywhere.

DARKTWIST: Second, may the Natives believe that such sites just might be sacred, and should not be disturbed. Third, just because people are cannibals, does not mean they are not civilzed. Just look at the technological advances, math systems, etc. of the 'barbaric' aztecs, or the near perfection of the Egyptian pyramids. The nuclear family may have made these currrent derivations possible, but in the end the family is not what will make a civilization great...rather, it might be that which is holding us back.
Maybe a more fruitful design could be found ;-)
dk: I’ll take that as a statement of queer dogma. The Egyptian and Aztecs civilization ruined themselves. I’ll grant you they had advanced technology and science, but that only proves science and technology didn’t preserve them.

Nowhere357

Every one of your arguments have been dismantled. Because you refuse to acknowledge this, instead just throwing personal attacks and assertions, it is clear that IN FACT your complaints are just rationalization for your bigotry.

This thread has served to reinforce the idea that gay "lifestyle" is of no threat to anyone. Except of course for the hateful intolerant self-righteous bigots of the world.

Your lack of thoughtful morals is disturbing.

dk

In a free country people are allowed to value their own opinion, even over the opinion of others. The difference between a bigot and a freeman is...

1. a bigot doesn't value others for their opinions
2. a bigot needs the government and social institutions to make their opinions legitimate

Jinto

Harumi

Aren't you describing yourself?

dk

No, I value your opinion, and recognize your right to hold it even if we disagree. I don't expect we'll end up in agreement on this issue, and that's ok. That's what freedom is about.

A bigot appeals to justice with rationalizations to force their opinions upon others, to make other people become like them. The KKK forced their opinion on others with Jim Crow Laws, and needed the Supreme Court's order to legitimize racism.

In Brown black families only wanted access to a public school their tax dollars built, a school within walking distance.

In forced integration (under the order of the 1960-80s courts) children were forcefully bused miles to be integrated, and denied admission to a public school even one block from their home.

Gays want the courts, schools and social engineers to force people to respect, accept and protect them no matter what social ills their conduct and values bring into a community. Gays proponents are bigots because they have no regard for others, and arguably no respect for one another. In an historical context that's why "separate but equal" and "forced integration" failed miserably as a policy and a remedy. In policy they institutionalized bigotry, and as a remedy they rationalizated injustice.

Harumi

That has got to be the most sick and twisted thing I have yet to read on this thread.

Thank you for making me sick.

It seems that it will be impossible to discuss anything more with you. I will now leave the discussion to more skilled debaters.