LDS and Prop 8

[no-body]

Your use of "conceding" is a most interesting word. Cognitive conditioning exist in any species capable of "learning". Humans are not the only species capable of "learning".

BTW - thank you for trying to keep this highly charged topic rational.

Zadok

So basically "cognitive conditioning" is seen in any species with a brain.

So when animals engage in homosexual behavior they have conditioned themselves to like it and are I assume you are implying going against nature (WHAT)

 

[Mr Cheese]

So when animals engage in homosexual behavior they have conditioned themselves to like it and are I assume you are implying going against nature (WHAT)

bigotry will use any means neccessary to justify itself...

 

[Autodidact]

Same sex marriage is not a retention of the meaning, but a change of the meaning. It expands the definition from the tradition which has been cross gender to include single gender.

When you change the people who are allowed to participate, it does not change the content of the institution/status/contract. When African-americans are allowed into a whites-only club, by your terminology they change the meaning of the club, which is no longer a club for whites, but a club for everyone. The meaning of marriage, legally, is the relationships, rights and duties contained in it, such as tax status, inheritance and so forth. Same-sex marriage does not seek to change those in any way, and misportraying them as doing so is a tactic to scare people into finding some non-existent relationship between letting two women marry and changing their own marriage in some way.

Per Loving: I think anti-miscegenation laws are wrong. I think race is a false category. I think the Court was right to overturn Pace v. Alabama. The Reconstruction Era Amendments were concerned with removing race as a category for legal discrimination. Even so, I think some of the rationale of the court opinion is problematic. There is no right to marry per the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on the topic. Marriage predates the state. There is nothing that requires the state take up marriage as a category of interest: that it has done so is fine, but the necessity is missing.

You view is not law in the United States. You may advocate for it, but it's irrelevant to this discussion, which is based on U.S. law. The SCOTUS has held on several occasions that marriage is a fundamental right. Under the Constitution, it is their role and right to do so. Therefore, here in the U.S., marriage is a fundamental right.

For that reason, it doesn't matter whether homosexuals are a protected class (although they should be.) Limitation of a fundamental right triggers strict scrutiny. Again, it doesn't matter whether or not you like it, that's the law. It's also common sense, and I support the court's rulings in that respect.

 

[Autodidact]

See my comment in the prior post on Loving. Let me know if you have questions on my position.

I take that as a yes, you disagree with the Supreme Court. Well, good luck with that, and in some alternative universe you can use it as an argument against same-sex marriage. In this one, those rulings are law.

I do think homosexuality falls into the fetish/addiction arena. I don't take the view to offend, but because I think it is the root of the behavior (at least with men, female sexuality is a different creature in some regards). I think the rhetoric surrounding the gay lobby while interesting is flawed. It is generally anachronistic. The Modern portrayal of homosexuality is new. It finds no corollary in the past. Even with more sexually open societies of the past.

I wonder if you realize that you have contradicted yourself here? In any case, don't worry about it. I think Mormonism falls into the fetish/addiction area too. Fortunately, neither of us has the right or ability to restrict each other's rights based on our thoughts about each other's fetishes. In other words, what you think about homosexuality is also irrelevant, unless you can persuade us that it's true.

Meanwhile, back in reality, my homosexual life is all about love. I really don't care what anyone thinks about my sex, it's my relationship I'm seeking legal recognition for. There is no relevant feature of my primary relationship that justifies the state in discriminating against it, as I'm sure you're aware several state courts have held.

 

[Autodidact]

See my comment in the prior post on Loving. Let me know if you have questions on my position.



I do think homosexuality falls into the fetish/addiction arena. I don't take the view to offend, but because I think it is the root of the behavior (at least with men, female sexuality is a different creature in some regards). I think the rhetoric surrounding the gay lobby while interesting is flawed. It is generally anachronistic. The Modern portrayal of homosexuality is new. It finds no corollary in the past. Even with more sexually open societies of the past.

I would be most interested if you can produce even one scientific study that any sexuality (including homosexuality) in humans is unrelated to acquired cognitive behavior studies.

Let’s take this discussion out of the dark ages into a discussion based on real scientific studies and away from opinions and prejudice.

I submit that sexuality is an acquired cognitive behavior. My initial argument is that if sexual behavior is not related to cognitive awareness – how would anyone even know if they were homosexual or heterosexual? My next point is that since sexuality is cognitive it can be acquired or conditioned.

I would like to know what you mean when you say homosexual is natural? Do you mean the natural result of cognitive conditioning?

Zadok

You're the one making this bizarre, unsupported claim, which, if true, would lead to rapid extinction of the human race. You cite your studies.

Among other things, homosexuality has been observed in every mammalian species studies for it. Is that a result of cognitive conditioning?

 

[Orontes]

Out of curiosity, how long until it's not "new"?

Same-sex marriage is legal in several US jurisdictions and has been legal in other countries for quite some time. Several religions and denominations recognize same-sex marriage and allow their members to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies.

It is already recognized that the US Constitution allows same-sex marriage, even if it doesn't require the right to marriage to be extended to all same-sex couples. The practice of same-sex marriage has been established; at some point, this practice would rightly be considered a "tradition".

So... where's that point? If the state of the law and the widely-held definitions of society really are the basis of denying the right to same-sex marriage now, then it stands to reason that as these things change over time, at some point they'd demand a right to same-sex marriage.

Over time a sustained practice can become a tradition. In the political arena, if enough people support gay marriage then it will find an established place. If the modus operandi is a minority trying to force their claims on a majority, then social and civil tension will be the rule of the day.

 

[Orontes]

It's interesting that this argument about having a secular state just happens to dovetail nicely with your completely separate avowal that "the LDS Church considers homosexuality a sin" while the Unitarian church and many others do not. I would argue one can easily appeal to Nature, the "natural state of man", or even to an unspecified 'Creator' to justify basic rights, and still be secular.... but let's not get stuck there.

Question: you charge begging the question a few times in the last post. How are you using the term? Begging the question is a logical fallacy referring to circular reasoning. There is no circular reasoning on my part. What do you mean?

The thread's author began with citing an article and a hope LDS attitudes toward gay marriage would change. My first post focused on things LDS in response. The views and positions of other faiths has not been a focus. The thread (or my part in it, or those that have engaged me) has moved more to a legal discussion.

Natural law rights clams do typically require an appeal to a larger metaphysic. Using that mechanic in a secular society and/or in the arena of law is problematic.

You're missing the point, and let me explain:

You are talking about how, in practice, laws should be applied. You are saying the process should be democratic, like a vote to change the law or a Court decision consistent with the Constitution, which was originally passed by majority. By disagreeing with cases like Plessy and agreeing with cases like Brown, you are demonstrating that it is legitimate (in your view) for the Court to make a decision which might not carry majority support at the moment, but which is consistent with Constitutional law (which was originally passed by majority support).

I don't think anyone disagrees that this is how laws, in practice, should be applied. However, the issues at hand are very different: (1) should same-sex marriage be a right in principle? And, (2) are Court rulings that same-sex marriage is a right consistent with Constitutional law, the highest law in the land, which (as you know) was passed democratically by popular consent? You keep repeating that law should not be invented outside the democratic process, everyone agrees with you there, but you are begging both of these questions.

To the missing the point charge: there have been posts in this very thread that have rejected majoritarianism. Moreover, judges inventing rights goes to the heart of the Prop. 8 Campaign. I have had a number of discussions on the subject of Prop. 8 (several on these boards). I have noted there are many whose loyalty to the issue of gay marriage trumps the way it comes about or loyalty to democratic process.

My answer to your two questions:

1) No.
2) No.

I think this response is far too facile. Race as a category for legal discrimination was not rejected by the amendments, the issue was equality. Nowhere in the Constitution did it say the races *had* to be mixed, but only that they had to be equal under law. The argument in the South was "separate but equal" and therefore Constitutional. The counter-argument was not that races couldn't be separate, but that in practice they could never be truly equal while separated.

I agree. I should have been more careful in my language. I was thinking in terms of the Court's overturn of Plessy and rejecting the notion that separate but equal was a viable option.

Right, "a state controlled status acting as licenser". Current law discriminates against Episcopelians, Unitarians, and other religious groups arbitrarily when they try to set up these contracts, simply because "the LDS Church considers homosexuality a sin", among others. This clearly contradicts both civil rights and Constitutional law, which (as you know) was passed by popular consent. Furthermore, if the Courts determined a plausible state interest in establishing same-sex contracts (as it did for hetero-sex contracts), then you would agree that is within the legitimate bounds of the democratic process, in spite of the fact that "the LDS Church considers homosexuality a sin".

I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you arguing that the state serving as licenser and guarantor of wedding contracts is unconstitutional? If so why?

I don't think it is the purview of the court to determine if the state has a viable interest in establishing same sex contracts. It is the purview of the legislature. The court would then ensure the terms were properly enforced.

 

[Orontes]

This post is not related to opposition to rights and freedoms. It is not concerned with any particular groups. It is concerned with the meaning of a term. Marriage has been understood as cross gender both by tradition and law. Adding same gender to the meaning is new.

Well obviously in some sense, yes. In another sense it's not new, many traditions and laws recognized same-sex marriage. Some Native American tribes that were originally on this continent recognized same-sex relationships, for example. But at the end of the day this is irrelevant. The idea that slavery was wrong, instead of natural, was completely new in the history of humanity. The idea that "All men are created equal" applied to blacks and women was quite new. The Civil Rights Act was new, as was Brown v Board of Education. This all begs questions (1) and (2) (see my previous post).

What tribe are you thinking of? How is this point established given no Pre-Columbian North American tribes had writing systems. Is this a Mayan or Toltec practice? I'm suspicious.

The other notes on slavery, or civil rights etc. doesn't relate to my point which was simply that the meaning of the term: marriage has been cross gender. If one wants to expand the meaning to include other options, that is certainly possible, but in the civic arena, it is untoward to take a given concept X and simply assert that X now means X2. In legal terms such an action would require legislation.

 

[Orontes]

So you disagree with the LDS Church that homosexuality is a sin?

No, a Mormon engaged in homosexual acts is committing a sin. Further, any who become Mormon by doing so would then be recognizing homosexual behavior as sinful.

"That" as in the court cases you cited.

I see. It (the court decision(s)) was very much an imposition of rights. The right to marry does not exist in the Constitution. For a court to assert such then exists is an imposition.

 

[Orontes]

Homosexuality hasn't changed one iota in the entire history of human kind. Our understanding has certainly changed, as we, as a western society, progressed past the medieval, biblical, draconian view of the world and began the scientific investigation into sexual orientation.

This of course isn't going into those cultures, ancient and modern, that see homosexuality as perfectly natural.

All three sexual orientation categories, hetero-, bi- and homosexuality are an inherent, natural, unchangeable part of the human conditions, all sharing the same basis of origin, all requiring the same thing in personal relationships.

As homosexuality is an inherent, natural aspect of a human being, just like a person's race, there is no valid, secular reason to discriminate against them.

The Modern rhetoric for homosexuality is new. Even in more sexually open societies of the past (though most societies have seen homosexuality as a vice) the penchant has been to bi-sexuality and pederasty. There are no examples of group homosexual exclusivity.

The notion homosexuality is inherent (or not a chosen behavior) has not been able to move beyond bald assertion. Such assertions have their origins in trying to establish gayness as a natural minority for political purposes. The science is not there. What is interesting about the claim is it makes a category mistake. It assumes if homosexuality were found as inherent then gayness is a good thing. This confuses 'is' with 'ought'. One would need to further argue why such shouldn't be seen as a deformity in need of correction if possible like color blindness etc. Even so, the gay gene does not exist.

 

[Orontes]

I've made no comment on whether I want the state to be involved in marriage at all. However, the state has shown an interest. In rulings like Loving and other cases like the more recent Hernandez v. Robles the court indicated the state's interest was that marriage is the model for producing and evidently fostering new citizens: continuing society.

By that "logic", sterile people should be banned from marriage, and all sterile people currently married should have their marriages dissolved.

I simply noted the Court's rationale. You should be aware however that rarely is political action done from the periphery. The vast majority of marriages produce children and over time the ability of previously sterile couples to have children has only increased. Rather, I think the argument from state interest would go: heterosexual marriages have the base potential to produce and foster children (with certain expectations like with the aged etc. who could still provide male and female primary influence for fostering purposes) whereas homosexual marriage cannot produce or provide both genders in the parental role.

 

[Orontes]

My opinion is based on statements made by the APA, a scientific peer review group.

If you have a problem with what they say, take it up with the 100,000 plus membership.

And I meant what I said, natural, as in not a "life style choice" but an inherent part of that person, unchangable.

The APA is not the best source one should go to for science supporting a position. In 1963 the New York Academy of Medicine charged its Committee on public Heath to report on homosexuality. The report noted:

"(H)omosexuality is indeed an illness. The homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal capacity to develop satisfying heterosexual relations.

It further noted:

(S)ome homosexuals have gone beyond the plane of defensiveness and now argue that deviancy is a desirable, noble, and preferable way of life"

These findings were in sync with the APA that held homosexuality as a pathology. Ten years later the APA struck down homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychiatric illnesses. There was no significant new data or evidence behind this change. The change occurred because of the political maneuvering of gay lobbyists within the APA. The APA coup makes for interesting history. APA gay advocates argued they were justified in their move because the APA represented "psychiatry as a social institution" rather than as a scientific body.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The APA is not the best source one should go to for science supporting a position. In 1963 the New York Academy of Medicine charged its Committee on public Heath to report on homosexuality. The report noted:

"(H)omosexuality is indeed an illness. The homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal capacity to develop satisfying heterosexual relations.

It further noted:

(S)ome homosexuals have gone beyond the plane of defensiveness and now argue that deviancy is a desirable, noble, and preferable way of life"

These findings were in sync with the APA that held homosexuality as a pathology. Ten years later the APA struck down homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychiatric illnesses. There was no significant new data or evidence behind this change. The change occurred because of the political maneuvering of gay lobbyists within the APA. The APA coup makes for interesting history. APA gay advocates argued they were justified in their move because the APA represented "psychiatry as a social institution" rather than as a scientific body.

Your point shows that attitudes change
Homosexuality is no longer considerd to be a mental "disease" akin to downs syndrome or somehting similar....

Yet the LDS church still clings to outmoded puritanical 19th century morals and dogmas.....

We used to lobotomize women that had orgasms, less than a century ago....
Perhaps the LDS church should cling to these ideals and practises too?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Over time a sustained practice can become a tradition. In the political arena, if enough people support gay marriage then it will find an established place. If the modus operandi is a minority trying to force their claims on a majority, then social and civil tension will be the rule of the day.

That's not quite what I was getting at. I agree with the idea that a political majority would allow a bill legalizing same-sex marriage to be passed. My point was that your argument invokes the state of society as an arbiter of what is a right and what isn't. It stands to reason, then, that as society changes, then what is a right would change as well, even if the right doesn't have majority popular support. If same-sex marriage isn't a right simply because it hasn't been practiced long enough, then once it's been practiced long enough, it would automatically become a right... no?

 

[Zadok]

You're the one making this bizarre, unsupported claim, which, if true, would lead to rapid extinction of the human race. You cite your studies.

Among other things, homosexuality has been observed in every mammalian species studies for it. Is that a result of cognitive conditioning?

Okay let's start from the beginning. Is sexuality or for that matter any sexuality a cognitive behavior?

If it is then there are many scientific studies centered around how cognitive behaviors can be influenced, modified, changed and acquired - Pavlov and Skinner for example.

I am simply stating for the record that I believe sexuality to be cognitive. My argument is that if it is not cognitive how would a homosexual know they are homosexual?

If someone is certain that sexuality is not cognitive, please state your reason.

Zadok

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay let's start from the beginning. Is sexuality or for that matter any sexuality a cognitive behavior?

If it is then there are many scientific studies centered around how cognitive behaviors can be influenced, modified, changed and acquired - Pavlov and Skinner for example.

They show that behaviours can be modified to a certain extent. Other studies show that certain cognitive functions are beyond our ability to influence them. Take the Stroop test: if you are literate, reading is an involuntary reaction. Is reading not cognitive? Can you show us one Pavlov- or Skinner-esque study that showed that this involuntary reading response can be eliminated by positive or negative reinforcement?

It's not a matter of showing that sexuality is "cognitive". It's a matter of you having to show that sexuality is in the class of cognitive properties that can be changed the way you're suggesting.

I am simply stating for the record that I believe sexuality to be cognitive. My argument is that if it is not cognitive how would a homosexual know they are homosexual?

You do realize that our perception of a thing is not the thing itself, right? I know I am 6 feet tall, but my height is not "cognitive".

 

[Zadok]

Your point shows that attitudes change
Homosexuality is no longer considerd to be a mental "disease" akin to downs syndrome or somehting similar....

Yet the LDS church still clings to outmoded puritanical 19th century morals and dogmas.....

We used to lobotomize women that had orgasms, less than a century ago....
Perhaps the LDS church should cling to these ideals and practises too?

Please do not insult anyone intelligence - especially your own. Down’s syndrome is not a mental disease or mental disorder. If you would make an effort to show some rational and restrain from making accusations that are obviously false - perhaps we could have an honest and open discussion concerning this matter. It is my opinion at this point that your judgment concerning the LDS on this matter has been made and is not open to any discussion. That Sir, is what I understand to be prejudice. The very evil thing you accuse us of.

Zadok

 

[Mr Cheese]

I am simply stating for the record that I believe sexuality to be cognitive. My argument is that if it is not cognitive how would a homosexual know they are homosexual?

If someone is certain that sexuality is not cognitive, please state your reason.

Zadok

Main Entry: cog·ni·tive
Pronunciation: \ˈkäg-nə-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 1586
1 : of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering) <cognitive impairment>
2 : based on or capable of being reduced to empirical factual knowledge

Well I'm not gay....

I dont tend to think about being hetero..I just am...

I see a nice pair or buttocks, an attractive cleavage....
and depending on my state of mind... I react to it...
I don't really choose or rationalise that, yes I'm attracted to a woman
I just am... or I am not
same as men...I dont think, "blimey he's got a nice bulge in his pants, I am not attracted to him though"

Frankly...

maybe you have to think to yourself.... "Why yes I think his penis might be attractive, I wonder what it'd be like to see, but I am not attracted to it."

I have no such problem....I am attracted to what I am attracted to without thinking
as a normal person I gained my sexual awareness around the age of 5....
from what I have read and heard, many "homosexuals" also gain their sexual "preference" or "insight" at around the same age
funny that, considering heteros and homos are both people...


maybe I am misunderstanding things....

 

[Mr Cheese]

Please do not insult anyone intelligence - especially your own. Down&#8217;s syndrome is not a mental disease or mental disorder. If you would make an effort to show some rational and restrain from making accusations that are obviously false - perhaps we could have an honest and open discussion concerning this matter. It is my opinion at this point that your judgment concerning the LDS on this matter has been made and is not open to any discussion. That Sir, is what I understand to be prejudice. The very evil thing you accuse us of.

Zadok

Ok perhaps Paranoid schizophrenia is a better example.....

my point still stands, homosexuality was once considred on a par to "PS"...

and women were lopbotomized for enjoying sex, less thana century ago

So my question still stands...should we carry on these same ideas and practises..and let nothign change?

:sarcastic maybe we should be done with it, and poop in buckets and throw them out of windows.....

You were the one that mentioned changing views of things afterall
Not I.......

 

[AxisMundi]

The Modern rhetoric for homosexuality is new. Even in more sexually open societies of the past (though most societies have seen homosexuality as a vice) the penchant has been to bi-sexuality and pederasty. There are no examples of group homosexual exclusivity.

The notion homosexuality is inherent (or not a chosen behavior) has not been able to move beyond bald assertion. Such assertions have their origins in trying to establish gayness as a natural minority for political purposes. The science is not there. What is interesting about the claim is it makes a category mistake. It assumes if homosexuality were found as inherent then gayness is a good thing. This confuses 'is' with 'ought'. One would need to further argue why such shouldn't be seen as a deformity in need of correction if possible like color blindness etc. Even so, the gay gene does not exist.

And up until a handful of decades ago, the Britannica Encyclopedia listed Noah's Ark as a scientific fact. So what's your point?

Certainly our understanding of human sexuality has increased as the Scientific Method is applied and homophobia, whether religiously motivated or "ick" motivated, is removed.

This doesn't change the basic fact that homosexuals are indeed being discriminated against when they are denied an Equal Right enjoyed by every other adult US taxpaying citizen.

So far, the only manner in which you have attempted to justify this discrimination, and your clear bigotry, have been a long parade of just about every logical and argument fallacy I ever learned, plus some new ones I had to look up. And all doused with a healthy dose of purposeful ignorance, such as the quite apparent fact you cannot separate homosexual sex, a choice, from homosexuality, an inherent and unchangeable aspect of some people.

Your "gay gene" and "group homosexuality" are also perfect examples.

The APA, the scientific peer review organization responsible for the diagnostic and treatment codex used by the vast majority of the world's mental health professionals, states quite clearly that homosexuality shares the same mechanics and basis as heterosexuality, and that all three of the major classifications seek the same exact things from a relationship. Those relationships only differ in the target gender.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

By what can only be loosly termed as your "logic", gingers, being uncommon, should be discriminated against too. After all, a ginger can tan their skin and colour their hair, can't they.