Text 12598, 100 rader
Skriven 2007-02-24 03:58:53 av Vorlonagent (16041.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================

"Matthew Vincent" <mbvincent@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message 
news:1172275552.193056.111650@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...

> There are other groups of people for whom some of their members act in
> a way that's way more socially unacceptable -- if there's any fair
> objective standard of such -- than anything you'd see in a Gay Pride
> Parade. For example, some people who frequent drinking establishments
> will vomit or urinate in a public place, and some gambling addicts
> will remain at their machine in the casino to the point of not leaving
> to use the restroom facility as needed, and allow their bodily
> functions to proceed while still at their machine. So, if you're
> correct in asserting that what some people see in public gay conduct
> influences their perception of this group, then there's something
> going on that leads to them selectively judging some groups based on
> the conduct of (some of) their members moreso than other groups.

Extremes of gambler behaviour, to use your example, aren't acceptable in 
society, but "gamblers" aren't a social underclass that's particularly 
frowned upon.  By that alone, the rules are different.  No useful comparison 
can be drawn between the two.  Gamblers have nothing they are asking of 
society as a whole except to be left alone.  Gays are asking for society for 
acceptance in the form of discrimmination protections and the privelege of 
legal marriage.  No matter how deserving or fair this is, they are still 
changes, to which society must give consent.  This is why having judges 
force gay marriage down the country's throat is counterproductive, above and 
beyond being bad law.

When you consider societal acceptance, gays have allowed extreme conduct to 
be the sole public touchstone for what gayness is.  Unless you are gay or 
have independent contact with gay culture, it's all you see.

The common majority american could see how arbitrary treatment of other 
minorities had been and the natural instinct for fairness in the US has is 
doing the rest.  All the US population needs is a nudge from time to time to 
remind them the issue isn't enitrely solved.  There's a natural "they're 
like me" connection made.

The public gay image emphasizes difference from straights and sexual 
fetishism.  It's easy, then, for their actions to reinforce gay alienation 
from the majority.  The ability to make a "that's like me" connection is 
massively reduced.  BY GAY ACTIVIST CONDUCT.

I've been posting variations on this theme for three months now.


> Furthermore, there are also examples of heterosexual conduct that are
> less than exemplary: most sexual assault and harassment (including
> when it's committed against another man) seems to be committed by
> heterosexual men, and there are a number of heterosexual women who
> seem to be habitually attracted to rough, aggressive men. As an
> example of both, here in New Zealand a convicted rapist and murderer
> was allowed by the government to get married while incarcerated. His
> wife has apparently said that she hasn't asked him whether or not he
> committed the crimes he was charged with, but that she loves him
> regardless.

Gay = child-molester is a nasty meme.

Once again, comparing straight to gay conduct, especially in an anecdotal 
fashion, is useless because the groups are processed in different and 
significant ways by society.  It's not an apples-apples comparison.


> So, should people's right to marry a different-sex partner be
> influenced by examples of poor heterosexual conduct such as this?
> Furthermore, this example also illustrates that there doesn't seem to
> be any gatekeeping by the government in a heterosexual context based
> on whether the marriage is of good character, but rather, the
> government's role seems to be one of passively recording the marriage
> for purposes such as taxation. I'm not saying this is a bad thing by
> any means, but given that it's the case, it seems even more absurd to
> deny someone the right to marry a same-sex partner. (Which I realise
> you're not advocating; I'm just contributing discussion on the
> issue.)

In the US (and I suspect any country whose law is based in English Common 
Law), marriage is a government-controlled institution.  Therefore the 
government has to give consent to change who can *legally* marry until or 
unless it signs that power and control away.  That's simply the way it 
stands.  The government has more involvement than just record-keeping.

If you want to change that, great.  But you have to make a case for it that 
a legislature will consider and pass.  In the US, multiple legislatures.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent

"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."

"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)