by Perry 42 Replies latest jw friends
I totally agree Joel Bear. The founding fathers knew that the majority can and would be wrong at times. Many of them really didn't trust the public very much. We've seen the bill of rights do what it was intended for, and has at times overturned the will of the majority, rightly so.
So, the question is really if the issue meets the standard of the bill of rights and its' applicability to this document.
UADNA-TX
Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
Sorry Perry, you're absolutely right, you did mention that in your initial post. My apologies.
I'm just bothered by your phrasing; "homosexuality most likely can be socialized in many cases" (emphasis mine) seems to leap into a more tabloid mode of discourse, asserting a greater foundation to your beliefs than you actual have.
If you want to be fair I would suggest;
"In approximately half of the cases, homosexuality may be caused by socialisation, or conversely that homosexuality may be prevented by socialisation".
... as that's all the statistic prove.
As you realise, your parrallel with Sparta cannot be taken too far, as modern soceity is far more diverse than regimented barracks. But, as an ex-cultist, I'm happy to agree virtually anything can be socialised into someone!
However, I still think saying that;
... as a result of society placing a stamp of authenticity on same sex marriages ... your child who might otherwise be hetero, becomming homo.... is making an awful unsupported streach. The gay people I know... well, their sexual identity seems deeper and more profound than just a fad, and the testimony of many homosexuals who knew from the earliest age they were different seems to indicate my friends are not atypical, and that socialisation is the smaller part of the issue, and that trend-oriontated instant life-long changes in sexual oriontation are... well, YOU find one...
In the absence of such compelling evidence [that homosexuality is 100% genetic], it is not only the right but the democratic responsibility for society to state what it believes to be its ideals.There seems to be a tacit assumption in that sentence that if homosexuality is NOT 100% genetic, then it's somehow wrong, and under such circumstances it's "the democratic responsibility for society to state what it believes to be its ideals". Er, why? Whose ideals? Which society? Beliefs? What, you mean unproved opinions?
Sorry, this constituent of democratic soceity thinks differently from you!
I thought HARM to third parties was the main decider over whether individuals' actions were right or wrong! Now I find out it's beliefs! Aren't beliefs, as distinct from facts, what got us into this mess in the first place?
I am very happy to admit I wouldn't care IF homosexuality WAS just a fad. It's consensual sex between people. What more do I need to know?
I think anyone who is trying to impose their opinion or value judgement on peoples' consensual sexual activites is missing the point. We are are human, we "contain multitudes", to quote old Walt Whitman, and that many of these multitudes have no difference in their moral rightness or worth. Heterosexuality and homosexuality being such an example.
Sorry if I am honest enough to show my bemusement and humour when discussing the topic with who someone can't see what I think is obvious. Shall I pretend that racists have a good arguement next time I get in a discussion with one of them? Bullshit!! I think you're big enough and smart enough to survive me not agreeing with you and using a little bit of humour at times. I was taking the piss out of SYN's habit at the same time, so don't take on so!
You say;
To simply laugh them away without examining the basis is tantamount to how we were treated as a non persona in the WBTS. I can't believe anyone here would really want that.Perry, [that is surely playing the gallery!! No one's done that! There's a description for statements like that, that we both know, isn't there? Or am I taking on so now??
People have discussed the 'basis', so why do you say people haven't I don't know. It's just some don't agree with you, and some think being so gung-ho to get people to agree that "No, it can't be proved to be 100% genetic, so we must continue to accept and purpeterate an age-old societal bias (that just happens to be homophobic because we are talking in a Judaeo-Christo-Islamic context)" is a dumb arguement, and are quite happy to say that.
Isn't it great we don't have to pretend everyone has a good opinion any more? Under your definition, homosexuality could be right in one country and wrong in another. Does that make sense?
And, yes, you can think I have a dumb arguement, and might even be right at times!
You say;
Proof that homosexuality is 100% genetic is the only way to totally take the issue away from the democtatic process. I will be the first to lead the discrimination charge in the issue of gay marriage if that can be proven.Now, here you seem to say that if homosexuality IS 100% genetic it can't be wrong. Therefore, are you saying that if something is 100% genetic it can't be wrong? Or that if something is NOT 100% genetic it is wrong. Bang goes ice-cream and Bach!
I see no basis for making this assertion, if indeed you are, and if you are just applying this rule of thumb to homosexuality, then I think it is is suspect logic unless you can prove otherwise. 100% genetic has NOTHING to do with right or wrong!!
Harm to others is a good rule-of-thumb for right and wrong, not what society where you happen to be thinks.
On the other side of this topic you ask; "What is your acceptable criteria for overturning the will of the majority in a democracy?"
I would say the Bush Presidential Election is a good example of verturning the will of the majority in a democracy.
But that's not MY acceptable criteria...
I give the example of Germany. After the war, as mentioned elsewhere, they stopped executing criminals. At the time the majoriity of the public were still in favour of capital punishment. Now, the vast majority are against the death penalty, having grown up in a society where is was not done. A good example of overturning the will of the majority being acceptable. The criteria I imagine the goverment used was;
"Well, we know, unavoidably, we will kill innocent people if we carry on judicial killing, as no legal system is perfect. As it is not acceptable such an injustice be done in the name of law, it is best to have a justice system where mistakes may to some extent, be compensated for. Our people have grown up in a violent society, where it is acceptable to kill, and these arguements won't convince them, but give it a few decades to show people that you won't have a collapse in society if you stop killing people in the name of law, and they'll agree."
We live in REPRESENTATIVE democracies. We don't really have a voice, we give our voice to another, who might use it in individual instances to support action we do not, and often do (the above example is an extreme one, governments or elected individuals go against their consituents wishes regulary; get a list of issues your MP or Representative has voted on and see how many times you would have voted differently... if it's above 75% in agreement I'll be amased).
This question leads me to developments in politics...
For me, the most interesting thing is the potential development of PARTICAPATORY democracies, where an elected legislature would present bills they have come-up with themselves, or that invidual citizens had been able to generate enough support for. The elctorate would vote on the indivdual issues, maybe two or three a week, and would get a tax break for taking part in more than 80% of elections, to make sure most people do.
Switzerland has had something approaching this for years, they have referendums like other countries have rain. With the advent of ICT, and increasing educational standards making such a thing reasonable, within a century we will have our first genuine democracies. I'd bet on Iceland, Switzerland, or New Zealand being first.
I believe the thet correct coarse would be to chose a).
All men should be treated in the same way we want others to treat us. I believe we should not trample on the rights of other we don't agree with.
I feel gay marriages should be honored the same way we honor regular marriages.
And I say this only for the help it provides I am not gay but feel we should learn to accept one another for our differences.
I'm trying to be a Christian and as a Christian I would have to try to treat other as I would want to be treated.
Join the Watchtower or you will die.
Only Jehovah's Witnesses have the TRUTH all other religions EVIL and from the Devil.
You must beleive the Watchtower or you're going to die a painful death forever, isn't that really GOOD NEWS?
