GLBT issues continued

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian

Here's a response to your points. They are only "counter points," and not necessarily my feelings.

1) Proving that would be impossible

Yes, it would be pretty darned difficult to prove it one way or another BEFORE the fact. Those who fear your more utopian society understand it's a lot more easy to give rights and start programs than it is to take them away after the fact. (Exception to the rule - lowering of the drinking age from 21 to 18 and then raising back to 21. I was born at "the right time" on that experiment. )

2) The burden of proof should be levied such that people don't have to prove the impossible to become equal citizens

I'm not going to bite here, because you are presuming a lot with this statement.

* Are women not equal citizens because the Equal Rights Ammendment never passed?

* Are 19-year-olds not equal citizens because they cannot drink? Are older folks not equal citizens when we ask them not to drive any more?

* Mary Kay Laterno had no right to marry her boy student with whom she had 2 kids - while he was a minor - even though they both loved each other and probably now will marry. Is she not an equal citizen?

* I know this is a tired argument but... You have a right to marry a woman and have kids, just like everyone else.

Your definition of "equal" is highly relative, Ian. I empathize with you but...you are defining a different type of relationship. I have no more right to enter a same-sex marriage than you. We are equal in that way.

It *****, I know... You didn't ask to be born gay, and I didn't ask to be born without Roger Clemens' arm. Consequently we both are denied our childhood dreams.

This is an interesting philosophical argument that could go on and on and on. It isn't the slam dunk you make it out to be. Everyone is coming to grips with what it all means.

3) No plausible reason for an increase has yet been mentioned, unless you factor in that some people who might repress their feelings wouldn't if they didn't feel the weight of prejudice.

That is indeed the case, Ian. I pointed out Kinsey research that suggests individuals generally are not binary in their sexuality. His questionaires led to a classification of maleness vs. femaleness on a 7 category ordinal scale, and pointed to a spectrum of tendencies within each of the genders. You are the way you are because you fall far on the "yin" side of the scale, and cannot readily adapt as a "yang." History is repleat with examples in multiple cultures where gay and even pedophile activity was common because it was socially accepted.

4) Just being afraid of something isn't a good reason to legislate against it.

Here's one example, Ian. It took me all of 10 seconds to Google this up. I entered "fall of Rome morals" and Bam!, a whole list of items pop up. I could do the same for the Greek empire and probably get the same.

Here's the top-of-the-list item.

Reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire
All left Rome open to outside invaders

It's from an online World History course taught somewhere in Texas. The list of items include: decline in moral values (first on the list), public health, political corruption, unemployment, inflation, urban decay, inferior technology, and military spending. And then guess what? The student is asked to "Make a prediction about the future of the United States."

Good topic!

BTW, here's the assessment under "Moral Values"

Decline in Morals and Values

Those morals and values that kept together the Roman legions and thus the empire could not be maintained towards the end of the empire. Crimes of violence made the streets of the larger cities unsafe. Even during PaxRomana there were 32,000 prostitutes in Rome. Emperors like Nero and Caligula became infamous for wasting money on lavish parties where guests ate and drank until they became ill. The most popular amusement was watching the gladiatorial combats in the Colosseum. These were attended by the poor, the rich, and frequently the emperor himself. As gladiators fought, vicious cries and curses were heard from the audience. One contest after another was staged in the course of a single day. Should the ground become too soaked with blood, it was covered over with a fresh layer of sand and the performance went on.

Rome and Greece are the butt (oops ) of many jokes about sexual activity, no? They earned those reputations.

It isn't just fear, Ian. Right or wrong, good or bad, many people have given these issues serious reflection through the ages. The bad news is that we don't have a world playground in which we can do randomized trials with various political and cultural tweaks. The good news is that we have generations of free-running experiments that we can observe and learn from.

In our world experiment, many things have been tried, and many civilizations have failed. But we don't have enough examples of all possible combinations to know everything. So we can only use data and intuition to surmise what would happen if...

And intelligent people will disagree.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

Ian
It *****, I know... You didn't ask to be born gay, and I didn't ask to be born without Roger Clemens' arm. Consequently we both are denied our childhood dreams.

The argument that homosexuals can get married like anyone else is circular. It assumes the definition of marriage as opposite sex union, and ends with the conclusion that marriage should be defined as opposite-sex only. To use my own tired argument, a better example is if you had been born black with the arm of Roger Clemens, but you were prohibitted from playing.

A closer example than either of those is a world where baseball is prohibitted, and volleyball is the only socially accepted sport. If you were born with the arm of Roger Clemens, would you think it's fair that you there's a law against finding other people to start a baseball league with? Yeah, sure, you could go play volleyball instead, but that doesn't make it a just law.

Furthermore, this statement carries the assumption that heterosexuality is a is positive trait, and homosexuality is a negative trait. Certainly many people do think homosexuality is a negative trait, but again we come to the question: does the majority have a right to enforce its moral sensibilities on others, even if there's no provable harm?

Maybe the provable harm is the point you were offering with the bit about Rome, but if the argument is that homosexual marriage represents moral decay leading to the end of civilization. I think it's an exceedingly tenuous argument. Rome and Greece had their homosexual practices for a long time before Rome fell. Furthermore, there was no same-sex marriage in Rome or Greece, their activities were very much about dominance, as was their documented pedophelia.

However, if you were to argue that reality TV is the gladatorial combat of modern times, I'd be right there with you.

. I pointed out Kinsey research that suggests individuals generally are not binary in their sexuality. ... His questionaires led to a classification of maleness vs. femaleness on a 7 category ordinal scale

I would just note that my understanding of Kinsey is that the scale is of sexual preference, not gender. That is, being bisexual doesn't mean you're half man half woman, it means your sexual interest is equal in both. A person can be thoroughly male in bearing, body and personality and be interested in sex with other men.

History is repleat with examples in multiple cultures where gay and even pedophile activity was common because it was socially accepted.

Is it? I would definitely draw a strong distinction between acceptance of gay behavior, and acceptance of homosexual acts as dominance expression. The latter is what you find, I think.

Those morals and values that kept together the Roman legions and thus the empire could not be maintained towards the end of the empire.

This is the kind of absurd argument people use to scare people into thinking that something they don't like should be stopped. It's chicken little crying the sky is falling. If anything, I'd suspect that an all-homosexual army could prove to be more cohesive than an all-heterosexual army.

In our world experiment, many things have been tried, and many civilizations have failed. But we don't have enough examples of all possible combinations to know everything. So we can only use data and intuition to surmise what would happen if...

Are you seriously trying to offer as a possible viewpoint that homosexuality is going to bring an end to American civilization?

And yes, I fully recognize that all these arguments are not your true opinions.

[Bill Glasheen]

There you are... I presume you were just lurking, and enjoying the viewpoints of Dr. Ian.

Yes I am playing devil's advocate, Justin. I know just enough to know that I don't understand all that much here. And the more I probe, the less comfortable I feel with most any position on this matter. I challenge because frankly it's so easy to do so. If this were cut and dry, I think people would have agreed long ago.

I am debating and challenging to investigate an interesting issue.

The argument that homosexuals can get married like anyone else is circular. It assumes the definition of marriage as opposite sex union, and ends with the conclusion that marriage should be defined as opposite-sex only.

Actually it goes farther than that, Justin. Mary Kay Laterno couldn't marry the father of her last two children until he became of age and a judge removed the restraining order.

Yes, Virginia, the definition of marriage is subjective and defined by the society that applies both legal and religious significance to it.

this statement carries the assumption that heterosexuality is a is positive trait, and homosexuality is a negative trait

Not necessarily. It can be based strictly on objective scientific criteria related to procreation. Some people (myself included) probably never would have bothered to get married if procreation wasn't part of the equation.

Same sex and different sex unions are unique entities. I believe there are three separate entities here. A child can tell the difference.

Maybe the provable harm is the point you were offering with the bit about Rome, but if the argument is that homosexual marriage represents moral decay leading to the end of civilization. I think it's an exceedingly tenuous argument.

I wasn't singling out "homosexual marriage" and "homosexual acts" per se. Neither was the thesis entertained by the above (and many, many other) academic(s).

Funny that we should be talking about this now... As I was driving to Osaka's to get some lunch, I had Fox News on the XM radio. The annoucer was at the dedication of Bill Clinton's presidential library. And guess who was the guest accompanying the (female) Fox anchor? Nationally famous political science professor Larry Sabato of U.Va.

In talking about the Clinton years, the anchor of this cough, cough liberal network asked professor Sabato about some of the Clinton year achievements and failures. One of them discussed was the failure to capture and/or kill Bin Laden. The anchor presented two theories for the failure to Dr. Sabato, and asked him what he thought. They were related to ability, perception, and national attitude. Dr. Sabato acknowledged the two mentioned, but brought up a third theory. Basically he suggested that Bill Clinton was so involved with the aftermath of the activites of "little Willie" (Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones), that he was too distracted to tend to the safety of the nation. How does that teacher put it above??

All left Rome open to ouside invaders.

Indeed one EASILY can argue Clinton's "moral issues" left him distracted, and this country open to what materialized on 9/11.

Larry Sabato is no gay basher or Evangelical Christian, Justin. Far from it. Single professor. 'Nuff said...

To Christian Evangelicals, they see Lewinsky, gay marriage, gratuitous violence from Hollywood, and Janet Jackson's right breast all as one big ball of immoral wax.

Man, what company we put Ian in... To use his own words, "Eeewwww!!!"

Concerning open homosexuality in Greece and Rome, you've said this before, Justin...

their activities were very much about dominance, as was their documented pedophelia

...and I don't buy it. Why is it that other referenced examples of same-sex sexual expression are about "dominance", but not the utopian world you envision?

Heterosexual expression can be about dominance as well...or not.

Your points about Kinsey are well taken. You articulated the research better than I did. But you still argue my original point, Justin. The prevalence of various types of sexual expression are somewhat dependent on the social moors of the time.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian and Justin

My point all along is that folks in the GLB community - and those who support them - are going to need to understand and reach out to those who have the moral values agenda to find a solution. If it's about me being right vs. you being right, there never will be a happy solution.

See if you can find a transcript of Clinton's speech today at the dedication of his presidential library. He made a comment about creating unity in this country - one that captured what I was trying to communicate with my allusions to Covey teachings and such. Basically he stated that unity would happen with the reds drawing lines and the blues breaking barriers.

Find that middle ground! It's there somewhere.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

As I referenced in the above post, this is close to where I stand.

Note: I think John Edwards is a snake-in-the-grass for reasons I've stated earlier. Otherwise I'm with Bill Clinton here.

- Bill

we have to spend our lives trying to build a global community and an American community, of shared responsibilities, shared values, shared benefits.

What are those values? And I want to say this; this is important. I don't want to be too political here, but it bothers me when America gets as divided as it was.

I once said to a friend of mine about three days before the election -- and I heard all these terrible things. I said, "You know, am I the only person in the entire United States of America who likes both George Bush and John Kerry, who believes they're both good people, who believe they both love our country and they just see the world differently?"

What should our shared values be? Everybody counts. Everybody deserves a chance. Everybody has got a responsibility to fulfill.

We all do better when we work together. Our differences do matter but our common humanity matters more.

So I tell you we can continue building our bridge to tomorrow. It will require some red American line drawing and some blue American barrier breaking, but we can do it together.

Bill Clinton
Presidential Library Dedication Speech
19 Nov 2004

[IJ]

Sound, fury, signifying nothing...

"Are women not equal citizens because the Equal Rights Ammendment never passed?"

I would ask if there are specific laws in existance or proposed preventing them as a class from marrying the consenting adult of their choice, or prohibiting them from working in the military without concealing their gender.

"Are 19-year-olds not equal citizens because they cannot drink? Are older folks not equal citizens when we ask them not to drive any more?"

There should be a rationale or the restriction should be lifted. Note that we don't ask people to stop driving at any age, but when they can't. Note that everyone agrees there is a time when one is too young to drink, but they disagree on the threshold. Note that we ALL pass through this restriction into full liberties with alcohol. Note that LGBs are excluded, life long and as a class, from the liberties we discuss. Apples and orangutans.

Is Mary Kay Laterno not an equal citizen?

This is slippery slope repackaged. We've talked about the ability to consent. Done; if we are going to say that ANY change in marriage would throw us into Hades, we have to be willing to say we'd have barred all the laudable changes that have occured over our history--as people were enlightened.

"I know this is a tired argument..." That's for a reason. It's really not rewarding to hear people say something they don't need is of no significant value. Do we sit around and tell the person in a wheelchair that we're all equal before the stairs to get into the hospital, the court, the voting booth? Horse poopie.

"You didn't ask to be born gay, and I didn't ask to be born without Roger Clemens' arm. Consequently we both are denied our childhood dreams."

You're noting a deficiency. Read one way, that implies something went wrong with me & others. There is none. Fate or bad luck is not keeping me from my dreams. It's happening because other people are deliberately standing in my way. You had bad lluck; other people are getting picked on. Apples and skyscapers.

You agreed that accepting something may allow people to be themselves. We're still missing what's wrong with that. If we want, we can say that to limit people run mad, we should restrict all sexual imagery and contact to what it became in 1994--an act of loyalty to the state devoid of pleasure. That would fix abortion, single moms, welfare issues, address poverty, reduce STDs, any number of things. No one wants to live in that country--we'd rather be FREE. And FREE is precisely how the "morals" group would have us--with regards to EVERYTHING that matters to them, and with the exception of rights they don't desire. It's real easy to throw freedom in the trashcan when you barely know the people you're affecting.

As for Rome and Greece... how do you want to play this? Permissive societies that eventually fell. Shall I suggest that the homosexuality blamed for the fall was actually the cause of the greatness (Among the things they left behind valued as treasures: a heck of a lot of delicious nude male statues, for one)? Heck, correlation is not causation. How should we know which was which? How can you know it wasn't the 1000 other things you mentioned? How can you make a case for permitting some things and not others? Should they have had a puritan society to save the empire? What about all the other empires and nations that fell? The taliban's afghanistan was violently antigay, did that help them? Was there a horde of homos responsible for the end of the Ming dynasty? Mayan Incan Aztec? The native Americans? I'd be interested in a "moralistic" argument along these lines if they didn't start with their conclusion and fatuously cite Rome and Greece as proof that Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is going to undermine western civilization.

"It can be based strictly on objective scientific criteria related to procreation. Some people (myself included) probably never would have bothered to get married if procreation wasn't part of the equation."

We know this isn't true. We celebrate marriages between infertile people--the aged, the injured, the unlucky. We celecbrate those who chose not to have children when they can. And we sure as heck can't make the argument its about babies for the culture when we have too many already, and banning gay marriage won't improve fertility!

"If it's about me being right vs. you being right, there never will be a happy solution."

Actually, it's about live and let live. And: bar no one from the pusuit of happiness and from fairness without a good reason. The Defense rests; in lieu of substantive evidence or arguments from the Prosecution, I propose that LGB's are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the case be dismissed.

[Bill Glasheen]

You make me chuckle, Ian.

I will let you have the last word.

- Bill

[IJ]

Say it ain't so Bill... we haven't identified anything else to spar over just yet! Always a pleasure.

PS Above should read, "1984," (Orwell).

[Andrew Evans]

According to the United Church of Christ, CBS and NBC have banned their ad promoting acceptance, including the acceptance of people regardless of sexual orientation because the networks believe the ad is too controversial.

See http://stillspeaking.com/default.htm to view ad.

No matter how one feels about this ad, it is definitely a bold step for a mainline protestant denomination to take.

[Bill Glasheen]

Hmm... and banned by CBS? How funny!!

Funny how the almighty dollar works these days.

Also noteworthy of late is the Supreme Court refusing to hear a case concerning Massachusettes ruling allowing gay marriage.

Justices stay out of debate over gays

Told you so, told you so, Ian. States rights - of all things - may be your best and fastest short-term avenue to achieving your needs (if not your wishes). That's what Cheney has been saying all along.

This is a long way from the days of federal judicial activism.

- Bill

[Andrew Evans]

Bill is correct about states being an avenue to protect individual rights. Below is a liberal perspective on the subject.

The late Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, an adamant defender of civil liberties, gave a lecture on constitutional law regarding what he believed to be the erosion of individual rights and how states can still protect them. (See the October 1986 issue of the New York University Law Review for full speech.)

"Federal courts remain an indispensable safeguard of individual rights against governmental abuse. The revitalization of state constitutional law is no excuse for the weakening of federal protections and prohibitions. Slashing away at federal rights and remedies undermines our federal system. The strength of our system is that it provides a double source of protection for the rights of our citizens. Federalism is not served when the federal half of that protection is crippled."

"Federalism does not require that one level of government take a back seat to the other when the question involved is one of individual civil and political rights; federalism is not an excuse for one court system to abdicate responsibility to another. Indeed, federal courts have been delegated a special responsibility for the definition and enforcement of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. Our founders and framers, and here I include the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, took it as an article of faith that this nation prized the independence of its judiciary and that an independent judiciary could be counted upon to enforce the individual rights and liberties of our citizens against infringement by governmental power."

Regards,
Andrew

[IJ]

Bill, have I ever struck you as an opponent of state's rights? If the SCOTUS has chosen to address this difficult issue by not scuttling the MA victory, that's at least not a step backwards. Trust me, this is not the end of the issue, because Alabama is going to be arguing with its citizens when they return from a trip to P-Town claiming to be married. I've no quarrel with Cheney striking a middle of the road approach. Except that it might make his party appear to be more welcoming than it is. His opinion doesn't count for keeerap, and Bush is still fighting to pass his Federal AntiMarriage Amendment. My solution, again, is to take government out of marriage/church, and take church opinions out of civil unions. Here's how it would go:

"Religious organizations are free to marry whichever consenting parties they chose. These marriages have no governmental meaning, but all individuals considered married under current US law will also be considered to have a civil union. This is a partnership separately entered into by two consenting adults, of age according to appropriate state law, without restriction by gender, religion, race, creed, veteran status, you name it, and constitutes a legal relationship consisting of (what marriage currently means as defined by current state and federal laws)."

What's the harm in that?

As for the ad, it's really, really appalling what consitutes risque. Here's an organization which shows a totally benign ad, with no nudity, violence, profanity, or whatever, and offering shelter to everyone, and that's controversial, whereas networks happily display any amount of meaningless sex, trivialized relationships, glorified drug abuse, and endless violence during hours children watch. Sometimes, in a small room with a bunch of flatulent neighbors, you don't know how much the place stinks until you leave 'n come back.