Putin's anti-gay laws and Sochi Olympics

[ice coverage]

A tiny little off topic remark. In the U.S. nowadays "people of colour" is greatly preferred over "coloured people," except in reference to mixed race people in South Africa. ...

LOL, in the U.S., you mean people of c-o-l-o-r (no "u").

Just trying to lighten things up a little ....

 

[Tonichelle]

Toni, the separation of church and state was most emphatically to protect both. In addition to what Mathman points out, there's the historical aspect: for a long time in other countries, the religious power was also the secular power, which meant that if one was against the state, one was against God Himself. (Take a look at the back-and-forth persecution as England bounced from Catholic to Protestant under Henry VIII, to Catholic under his elder daughter Mary, and back to Protestant under Elizabeth I.) Kings were presumed to be divinely appointed (the so-called divine right of kings), so that overthrowing a bad king was a sin. If you look at a map of Italy in the Renaissance and later, it wasn't a single country but a bunch of separate entitites, and one section of Italy was known as the Papal States. They were ruled by the powers of the Catholic Church.

You wouldn't want a religious government here. For one thing, what if it weren't affiliated with your religion? I'm sure you know that at one point all Baptists and related groups were on the outs with established state religions because of something that was considered a dire failing: they did not practice infant baptism but waited until the person was able to consent. Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans among others felt that an unbaptized person, even a baby, would go to hell, and so adult (or at least postponed) baptism was thought of as a fate worse than death. The reason there are Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites in North America but not in Germany and Switzerland today (as far as I know) was that they were hounded out of their countries of origin or forced to convert, because they did not practice infant baptism. Here, they could live in peace and freedom. A secular government gives no preference toward religious institutions or practices. It's not against religion, but it does not mandate one particular religion, or any religion at all.

Another aspect of a secular government that saves us: if a bad ruler comes along in a secular government, he or she can be voted out or gotten rid of in some other way. If a bad ruler is also the head of the religion, going against that person is not just sedition. It's blasphemy.

Every religious person in America should give thanks that we have a secular government. It protects us all.

Where did I say I wanted a Church run government? Mathman and I were basically the same thing. It's a semantics issue that is playing out in the courts now. But government is already taking rights away from the churches (Catholics especially in the latest greatest craze of "equality"). That's what I was getting at. We want churches out of the government, but we want the government to run the churches. Doesn't work that way Constitutionally, but that's not what's being plugged by the powers that be.

 

[Olympia]

Why do gays have to stay closeted but not adulterers/pornographers/etc though? If you're going to condemn one "sexual sin" shouldn't you condemn them all equally? Polygamy and incest has been brought up, but if we're looking at all "straight sins" then Russia's got a list a mile long that they seem to ignore. (And yes I'm aware "The Church" is also guilty of this. Trust me, I argue this in a lot of different social circles.)

Yes, Toni, this is a hugely important part of the issue. That's why whenever the argument here goes toward practices, I try to turn it back. There are already laws about public lewdness and all sorts of related issues, which cover everyone, not just straight or gay people. When I think of gay people, I don't think of what they do in the privacy of their homes. I think of them as people. The ones who are out in the streets being outrageous are probably as small a minority as that awful Westboro Church you mentioned (which has I think about 50 members). I'm kind of a G-rated person, and believe me, it makes me uncomfortable to talk about anything this graphic for this long. I'm interested in making sure people are treated fairly (and it would be nice if they behaved well). I don't spend time thinking about what they do behind (I hope!) closed doors. I don't know if this makes me a Libertarian, but all the Libertarians I know seem to feel this way.

We need to protect our children from all the R-rated and X-rated aspects of life when they're too young to handle it. Focusing on gays clouds the issue. If there were no gays in Russia, would kids be safe from all this? Alas, they wouldn't. What this Putin law does is to keep kids in danger and also add another group of people to the "endangered" list--gays who risk losing their jobs or being beaten up because someone decides they're a threat to Russian values.

 

[Tonichelle]

We need to protect our children from all the R-rated and X-rated aspects of life when they're too young to handle it. Focusing on gays clouds the issue. If there were no gays in Russia, would kids be safe from all this? Alas, they wouldn't.

Exactly.

 

[Tonichelle]

LOL, in the U.S., you mean people of c-o-l-o-r (no "u").

Just trying to lighten things up a little ....

I'm still waiting for the day when we can all just drop the "distinctions" and go with "American".

 

[Olympia]

Where did I say I wanted a Church run government? Mathman and I were basically the same thing. It's a semantics issue that is playing out in the courts now. But government is already taking rights away from the churches (Catholics especially in the latest greatest craze of "equality"). That's what I was getting at. We want churches out of the government, but we want the government to run the churches. Doesn't work that way Constitutionally, but that's not what's being plugged by the powers that be.

My apologies for misunderstanding you. Many of the people who use the phrase you cited tend to want more of a religious presence in the government, and I always infer that from the phrase.

 

[Olympia]

I'm still waiting for the day when we can all just drop the "distinctions" and go with "American".

Speaking as someone whose ancestors got kicked out of more countries than I've visited in my lifetime, that's how I think of myself.

 

[Tonichelle]

My apologies for misunderstanding you. Many of the people who use the phrase you cited tend to want more of a religious presence in the government, and I always infer that from the phrase.

A lot of people want to fight the injustices this country now lives with, with going to the opposite extreme. While I do believe that this country was founded on more Christian principles than not and I don't want to see those thrown out (most are still common sense, IMO) ultimately I don't expect the government to run mine or anyone else's life. Many of the Founding Fathers were not "Christian" but believed that the Bible could be used as a cornerstone from which to build. Mainly because it is a great roadmap for life - even if you take the "belief of a certain higher power" out of it. That's what I want to see remain, but sadly people see Bible and think only of one aspect of the whole thing.

 

[Mathman]

I do not think this discussion is advanced by talking about beastiality, polygamy. etc. Any argument by analogy is logically fallacious.(To refute an argument by analogy, just say, no, that's not the same thing.)

Society has an utterly impossible task in trying to develop rules that take into account every conceivable (and some inconceivable) situations that an individual might find himself in. In the Meryl Streep movie Guilt, a fourteen-year-old boy was being molested by his priest. The boy's mother knew about it. When Streep's character confronted the mother, she said that the attention of a kind and understanding man is not as bad as if the boy came out to his father, who would kill him.

About beastiality, I once knew a priest who at that time had a parish way out in the countryside in rural Vermont. He said that one of the problems that he had to contend with in confession was the teenage farm boys bothering the animals. The priest confided, "But I can see why they do it -- what else is there to do out here a thousand miles from nowhere?"

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I was just trying to understand the analogy of this human nature with other human natures, and gay rights with human rights. Why are you offended by mentioning them? Pedophilia, yes, I can understand. They are criminals because their objects are children. So let's forget about them. No one has answered my question about whether or not polygamy, incest, and bestiality a human nature for some humans? Yes, you are right that they are not necessarily gay peoples. However, if human nature is the sole reason, it seems logical that next the polygamies, the incest, the bestiality should be recognized too. Please tell me why not?

You are comparing my relationship with my boyfriend (and the relationships of many wonderful LGBT friends of mine) to people who have sex with animals and children. If you don't get why that offends me, then I don't know what to say.

Again, bestiality and pedophilia and polygamy are behaviours and actions. They are not human nature... do you hear of kids who say they want to have sex with animals or with their relative or with multiple people? No. Do you hear of kids who grow up being attracted to other boys or other guys, yes - because sexuality is something inherent that manifests itself at a young age. It is not some decision - again, you didn't decide to be straight, just as I didn't decide to be gay. It's not some on/off light switch. LGBT people cannot help who they are, nor should they try to help it.

As far as the next "logical" thing.. bigots love this slippery slope argument. It's stupid enough to compare homosexuality to bestiality/polygamy/incest as it is, it's even stupider to protest LGBT people wanting to be treated as normal individuals, as being tolerant towards them would otherwise somehow cause a chain reaction of people advocating for polygamy/incest/bestiality.

 

[Mathman]

As of in US. I've heard that accessing easily to pornography for young children is one of the culprit for children to fantasize and experimenting. Thankfully, many parents, but not all parents, are aware of the damage from it and did some proventions. Whether or not these preventions are as effective as expected is another question.

Alas, that ship has sailed. With the Internet, parents don't have a chance at any more at shielding their children from objectionable material.

 

[Tonichelle]

Actually incest type relationships are common and there are studies to show that people who "practice" it have something within them that attracts them to the familiarity of the familiar face or some such... I don't remember exactly what it was... but when I was in college I remember having to read about it in one of my courses (that had nothing to do with my field of study but I had to take it anyway to make me a more rounded student).


Also in a case of child molestation that I am unfortunately all too keenly aware of the molester started his abuse of very young girls when he was at the age of "sexual experiment and discovery" which, in the US, is being taught as acceptable (not the molestation, but the ever younger age of which kids should be "allowed" to express themselves sexually). And his lawyer is using the argument that he's wired that way even though he was taught differently. So I guess I can see what bluebonnet is trying to get at with bringing those into it, but I do agree that homosexuality is SO NOT the same thing as bestiality or child molestation or rape. Incest covers too much to where I wouldn't say in certain cases isn't similar to this fight, much like polygamy.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I think the point is that incest should be regarded differently as polygamy and differently from bestiality, etc. As Mathman said, most simply, it's not the same thing.

 

[Mathman]

Being a polygamist/committing incest involves an action/behaviour.

If you are attracted to more than one person (which many people are), does that make you a "polygamist"?

I think it is safe to say that every person on the face of the earth has, at one time or another in his life, been attracted to two people at the same time.

 

[Tonichelle]

I think it is safe to say that every person on the face of the earth has, at one time or another in his life, been attracted to two people at the same time.

I crush hard for Evan Lysacek and Kurt Browning - not that I would go further than a crush though lol there is a big difference.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I do not think this discussion is advanced by talking about beastiality, polygamy. etc. Any argument by analogy is logically fallacious.(To refute an argument by analogy, just say, no, that's not the same thing.)

I'm sorry, Math. I'll stop on this line.

You are comparing my relationship with my boyfriend (and the relationships of many wonderful LGBT friends of mine) to people who have sex with animals and children. If you don't get why that offends me, then I don't know what to say.

Again, bestiality and pedophilia and polygamy are behaviours and actions. They are not human nature... do you hear of kids who say they want to have sex with animals or with their relative or with multiple people? No. Do you hear of kids who grow up being attracted to other boys or other guys, yes - because sexuality is something inherent that manifests itself at a young age. It is not some decision - again, you didn't decide to be straight, just as I didn't decide to be gay. It's not some on/off light switch. LGBT people cannot help who they are, nor should they try to help it.

As far as the next "logical" thing.. bigots love this slippery slope argument. It's stupid enough to compare homosexuality to bestiality/polygamy/incest as it is, it's even stupider to protest LGBT people wanting to be treated as normal individuals, as being tolerant towards them would otherwise somehow cause a chain reaction of people advocating for polygamy/incest/bestiality.

Fair enough. Many of those are actually heterosexuals. I am aware of it. So you know that I was not aiming at homosexuals. I was aiming at the kind of logic.

Please tell me one thing: Why are you allowed to call names like "bigots" and "ignorant" to me all the time but I cannot call you back?

 

[Mathman]

Actually incest type relationships are common and there are studies to show that people who "practice" it have something within them that attracts them to the familiarity of the familiar face or some such...

I have a relative who married his first cousin. Since this was illegal in the state of Washington, they drove thirty miles to the town of State Line, Idaho, for the ceremony. I guess this is something like gay couples who can get married in one state but not in another.

By the way, State Line, Idaho, was a town built right on the border between Washington and Idaho in 1947 because the legal age to drink was 18 in Idaho and 21 in Washington. Also, Idaho allowed gambling. Now State Line (permanent population 38) is a big porn shop and red light district serving Spokane and Coeur d'Alene.

Speaking of beastiality, on my last trip there (to Spokane, I mean : ) I found out why there are no salmon in lake Coeur d'Alene. It has to do with the time Coyote and Fox were turned down in their amorous advances to the beautiful ladies of the Coeur d'Alene tribe. In fact, the chief angered Coyote by telling him straight up, you can't marry my daughter -- you are not a human being!

I don't remember exactly what it was... but when I was in college I remember having to read about it in one of my courses (that had nothing to do with my field of study but I had to take it anyway to make me a more rounded student).

I always tell my students, one day you will thank me for making you learn all this stuff.

 

[Mathman]

I crush hard for Evan Lysacek and Kurt Browning - not that I would go further than a crush though lol there is a big difference.

I was going to give "my wife and Peggy Fleming" as an example, but since my wonderful wife reads this board sometimes...

 

[Olympia]

I crush hard for Evan Lysacek and Kurt Browning - not that I would go further than a crush though lol there is a big difference.

Yeah, with me it's Browning and several dreamy ice dancers through the years....Browning will never leave my Swoon List.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Please tell me one thing: Why are you allowed to call names like "bigots" and "ignorant" to me all the time but I cannot call you back?

A bigot is somebody who has intolerant opinions or prejudices, especially towards the members of a particular group (such as LGBT people). Things like calling LGBT lifestyles "messy" or characterizing them as moral-less/animalistic is bigotry. Comparing gay relationships with incestuous/polygamous/pedophilic/bestial ones is offensive. Saying things like gays target children to turn them gay is unsubstantiated, appalling, and because it is not actually the case (unless you'd like to provide sources that prove otherwise), it is ignorant.

Hence characterizing your statements as ignorance and bigotry isn't me being antagonistic so much as me describing your statements for what they are. You are entitled to your opinion, but if it is an opinion of intolerance that is inaccurate or unsubstantiated, then it is a bigoted, ignorant opinion no matter how you slice it. I've also made attempts not to directly call you a bigot (although you could probably guess what I actually think based on your consistency) and ensure that I'm calling your statements bigoted.