Seperation of sex and state.

[AlAyeti]

Should the govenrnemt be in position to decide sexual matters or define what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to privately practiced sex acts?

Unless the issue is with children living at home and under the authority and responsibility of their parents, should "Government" be excluded from being involved in the sexual practices of individuals?

What a person chooses to do in private should stay in private as long as it is not an illegal behavior. Should laws be passed giving "cultural status" and cultural recognition to an individual under the label of a "Culture" if it is private and independent behavior defined by individuality and not birth ethnicity?

Much is made of the personal choice of religion, and how that effects a persons way of viewing society, but nothing is more personal than sexual behavior in regards to how it effects a persons views on his or her in society. All people engage in commonly occuring sex acts no matter their ethnic or country of origin. Can an individual sexual practice be embraced by a group of people and then be elevated to an exclusive cultural indentity?

Why should leguslative governemt be in the business to define a persons civil rights by their sexual behavior?

If government becomes involved in defining personal rights practiced in private, should the people vote or be allowed to amend the laws that govern society as a means to define and/or re-redefine societal norms practiced in private and between "Consenting Adults?"

Or should government be seperated from sexuality and have nothing to say about an adult persons private behavior?

[NINTY15]

Well, you've asked quite a few questions, (not to mention difficult). I shall try my best to answer them however.

Should the govenrnemt be in position to decide sexual matters or define what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to privately practiced sex acts?

I feel that the government has no power to be able to determine what's done in privacy. The government also would, currupt their status in this predicament. The government encourages the art of safe sex, to me, that says, "you can do whatever you want in privacy, so long as it's under protection." now if they controlled what you did in privacy, then they would then be against what they said. which would also, defeat the purpose of safe-sex.

Unless the issue is with children living at home and under the authority and responsibility of their parents, should "Governement" be excluded from being involved in the sexual practices of individuals?

Well, as i said earlier, I couldn't see how the Government could possibly moniter the homes of every individual under household. I don't think the government has the type of authority of our sexual influences. They raise the bar of Sexual Immorality. what then would be punishment, once they break their own rules?

What a person chooses to do in private should stay in private as long as it is not an illegal behavior. Should laws be passed giving "cultural status" and cultural recognition to an individual under the label of a "Culture" if it is private and independent behavior defined by individuality and not birth ethnicity?

What is Culture? How can one define Culture? If culture is, the popularity of intellectual and artistic taste, then shouldn't ppl as a democracy choose what their sex life consists of under privacy?

Much is made of the personal choice of religion, and how that effects a persons way of viewing society, but nothing is more personal than sexual behavior in regards to how it effects a persons views on his or her in society. All people engage in commonly occuring sex acts no matter their ethnic or country of origin. Can an individual sexual practice be embraced by a group of people and then be elevated to an exclusive cultural indentity?

Well, I don't think that would seem fit, Because God designed sex to be between two ppl: male and female. And it is said that all non-marital sex is deemed wrong, which is why i don't the government can measure a person's sex acts when they too could make the same mistake. only God himself can Moniter us. Sex, among a large group of ppl is considered Sexual Immorality, which should be handled by God.

If government becomes involved in defining personal rights practiced in private, should the people vote or be allowed to amend the laws that govern society as a means to define and/or re-redefine societal norms practiced in private and between "Consenting Adults?"

I believe that the soceity should be able to vote. The U.S. is considered a "free democratic nation" so if they didn't allow ppl to do as they chose too, then ppl will begin to protest, then America will be confused and under the impression of war.

And with that, i think you should know my answer to your last question. It's a task i feel only God can handle.

[Chimp]

Great questions Al...

Should the govenrnemt be in position to decide sexual matters or define what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to privately practiced sex acts?

No. The right to privacy should guarantee this

Unless the issue is with children living at home and under the authority and responsibility of their parents, should "Governement" be excluded from being involved in the sexual practices of individuals?

Right to privacy again...

What a person chooses to do in private should stay in private as long as it is not an illegal behavior. Should laws be passed giving "cultural status" and cultural recognition to an individual under the label of a "Culture" if it is private and independent behavior defined by individuality and not birth ethnicity?

You mean should we give protections to religions?

Why should leguslative governemt be in the business to define a persons civil rights by their sexual behavior?

Indeed...by what right/justification would the government do this? In the
US, being physically in the country entitles you to the protections of the
constitution. Which in theory, means you or I have all the freedoms that
are afforded by the constitution also...but there is this insidious attempt to
deny good, honest, people the pursuit of happiness. All they want to do is
share their lives together in a civically acknowledged way.

[ST88]

What a person chooses to do in private should stay in private as long as it is not an illegal behavior. Should laws be passed giving "cultural status" and cultural recognition to an individual under the label of a "Culture" if it is private and independent behavior defined by individuality and not birth ethnicity?

That's a good question, and I think it may be the most important question you ask here.

The government doesn't make a distinction between members of various religions because religion is a choice. Likewise, the government doesn't make a distinction between people who prefer various different sex acts. Preference for the type of sex act one prefers is exactly that, a preference.

As you suggest, the government should stay out of the bedroom.

However, lets take the other side of this question. The government does give a special status to persons who have traits that they can't choose, such as race, ethnicity, and gender (nominally, at least). It is against the law to discriminate against members of a recognized group because the discrimination is based on traits that the individual can't control. Does this mean that members of these groups have special rights conferred upon them? Sort of, but not really. I don't think you can call it a "special right" to prevent civic discrimination against someone. It would seem to be a general right that applies to everyone equally.

The only problem we have when it comes to homosexuality is that it's a question of whether or not it's a free choice or a hardwired genetic trait.

If we were to treat it as a free choice, then the government would not make a distinction between homosexual activity and heterosexual activity, just as there is no difference in the distinction of which positions individual heterosexuals prefer. This would mean that gay marriage would have to be allowed by the government, because there would be no legal difference between the two types of relationships -- i.e., they would not be defined by sexual position, they would be defined by the statement of intent to marry done freely by both individuals.

Conversely, if we were to treat it as a hardwired genetic trait, then the government would have to see it as an unchoosable trait, like race, and would be forced to protect those individuals accordingly. This would also lead to the permissibility of gay marriage for exactly the opposite reason as that of the above argument -- it would be because the two individuals in question would otherwise be disallowed from marriage at all because of their unchoosable trait, which would constitute a deprivation of "the pursuit of happiness" in addition to various legal and financial advantages that heteros were allowed.

Much is made of the personal choice of religion, and how that effects a persons way of viewing society, but nothing is more personal than sexual behavior in regards to how it effects a persons views on his or her in society. All people engage in commonly occuring sex acts no matter their ethnic or country of origin. Can an individual sexual practice be embraced by a group of people and then be elevated to an exclusive cultural indentity?

In my opinion, this isn't about sexual practices. You may be shocked to learn that not all homosexuals exclusively engage in one particular sex act, just as not all heterosexuals do. This argument has more to do with stating one's own cultural identity without objective proof. That is, skin color is usually readily apparent (there are exceptions). Ethnicity can usually be proven with legal papers. Gender is normally a matter of physical appearance. But sexual orientation is something we can't really measure at this point in our diagnostic history. It may happen at some point in the future, but for right now, we have to take their word for it. We have relied upon the fact that it is generally not societally advantageous for someone to state that they are a homosexual, so they would really have to mean it if they were to state it.

[operabuff]

It seems to me that the original question was whether the government can outlaw homosexual sex acts (though the question was posed in a veiled form); the consensus seems to be that the government cannot outlaw homosexual relations, including marriage, if homosexuality is an inborn trait rather than a choice. Without getting into the government's role in legislating morality, a complete topic in and of itself, I have to state that homosexuality is, almost without question, an inborn trait. Homosexuality has always been with us, it has been found throughout history, and in every culture, in approximately the same proportion of the population, which would strongly argue for homosexuality's natural origin. Moreover, non-human animals also exhibit homosexual behavior, even forming life-long pair bonds with animals of the same sex. Finally, a study which was recently released shows that male homosexuals react to both male and female pheromones the way heterosexual females react to them, and the lesbians react to male and female pheromones the way heterosexual men react to them.
For the record, I do not believe government should be in the business of legislating morality (for some, exposure of a woman's hair is highly immoral, for others, full nudity is acceptable), nor should such issues be decided by majority vote. We have a Constitution, after all, to protect the rights of the minorities.

[AlAyeti]

The Constitution was decided upon by consensus. "By men."

It is interesting how religious doctrine is laughed at, but the Constitution is rock solid.

Behavior can be controlled and defined "by society." Literally, the populace.

Once a behavior whether "inborn" or not, is permitted a culture status, then the floodgates of true chaos descends on society. Every individual, that finds like-minded and like-practicing others, has the right to become recognized as a culture, and given special rights. There is no justification to protect "minorities" because "human rights," include everyone.

What if gang members claim a congenital condition to commit crimes? Are not child molesters mentally ill, denoting a possible fetal development for the cause of their sexual orientation?

"When in the course of human events," a politically driven agenda is forced on a society, a breakup will sooner or later ensue. The bitter divide of "Americans" will again see civil conflict over another "moral" issue, settled by legislation. This time, classic morality, is not on the side of those wishing to impose their views and redefinitions and reclassifications of personal behavior into a legally recognized culture.

It will be the repeat of history here in America if the family and marriage are reclassified and redefined to include people's personal acts defining a culture and given "special rights" to be protected, because, you obviously have to ask the question of what and/or whom, the new culture is being protected from. The person with an agenda is sometimes the individual hiding among "rights."

A good case in point, is Indian Reservations now working outside of State and local laws and running gambling casinos. This has absolutely nothing to do with Indian Culture, but, once the "special rights" were given to recognize so many different individual interests, the gates were opened to abuse. Now "government" is trying to deal with the chaos.

After preference for certain kinds of sex acts and sexual behavior are allowed to define a person "into a culture," the flood gates of anything and anyone forming a similarity group, can claim special status. The danger inherent in that is obvious.

Should the government be involved in creating new cultures? Especially cultures defined by sexual behavior?

The answer is no. There are common sense norms that hold a society together.



think of what and where that leads a society, if history is to be the guide.

[MagusYanam]

There is no justification to protect "minorities" because "human rights," include everyone.

There is every justification to protect minorities of all sorts, because human rights do apply to everyone and in a democracy the majority of the populace is sovereign especially over the minorities. There is also in a democracy much room for abuse by the majority and the possibility that the majority can be wrong (for example, the Weimar Republic in Germany after the first world war). The Weimar Republic could not protect the Jews from abuse by the majority and could not protect itself against the Nazi coalitions.

Once a behavior whether "inborn" or not, is permitted a culture status, then the floodgates of true chaos descends on society. Every individual, that finds like-minded and like-practicing others, has the right to become recognized as a culture, and given special rights.

I don't think 'special rights' are at issue. The arguments I've seen on the side of gay rights emphasise that homosexuals want the same rights under the law as heterosexuals, not 'special' legal rights. Also, I would doubt that homosexuality can be defined in any way as a 'culture'.

As such, statements like this:

Are not child molesters mentally ill, denoting a possible fetal development for the cause of their sexual orientation?

are meaningless, because child molesters do not have the legal right to make sexual advances on children (the child's personal liberties taking precedence in this case). If homosexuals are to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, it would seem that only monogamous consentual adult relationships would be tolerated and within the law.

This time, classic morality, is not on the side of those wishing to impose their views and redefinitions and reclassifications of personal behavior into a legally recognized culture.

It seems to me that the original question was whether the government can outlaw homosexual sex acts (though the question was posed in a veiled form); the consensus seems to be that the government cannot outlaw homosexual relations, including marriage, if homosexuality is an inborn trait rather than a choice.

I don't think the definition or the classification has been done. Personally, I'm not sure what homosexuality is and on a societal level the definition has not yet occurred. Is it a predisposition or a choice? Is it behaviour or predilection? I have seen nothing concrete to indicate anything one way or the other, and request both sides to present some concrete evidence.

A good case in point, is Indian Reservations now working outside of State and local laws and running gambling casinos. This has absolutely nothing to do with Indian Culture, but, once the "special rights" were given to recognize so many different individual interests, the gates were opened to abuse. Now "government" is trying to deal with the chaos.

The reservations have extremely limited employment options for those living on them - it's not really a question of culture or 'special rights' but primarily of economics. The casinos create jobs and revenue in impoverished areas. And reservations should operate outside state and local laws because of the way federal law is structured regarding Indian affairs - in the past as today, separate nations are addressed in foreign policy, and Indian nations are no exception. Individual states (as the Constitution specifies) do not have the right to conduct their own foreign policies. I'm afraid this analogy is specious at best.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

It seems to me that the original question was whether the government can outlaw homosexual sex acts (though the question was posed in a veiled form)

If that is the case, then is this a continuation of our discussion in the "Are democrats attacking Christians" topic?

If so, I had hoped it might accompany the broader subject relating to whether Christians should be allowed to force their religious views on the unbelieving populace.

[ShieldAxe]

What if gang members claim a congenital condition to commit crimes? Are not child molesters mentally ill, denoting a possible fetal development for the cause of their sexual orientation?

You continue to ignore the fact that homosexuality is two consenting adults. Their actions harm no one. Why is it wrong? It affects nobody.

[operabuff]

The only argument regarding homosexuality being "wrong" is the religious one - in fact, the Islamo-Judeo-Christian viewpoint, since other religions accept homosexuality, and some even consider homosexuals "blessed". Since the Constitution was not based on the Bible (or the Koran), and since we have freedom of religion here, banning homosexual marriage would be a violation of separation of church and state. Moreover, civil marriage is a contract, it is not a sacrament, and no religious organization would or could be forced to conduct marriages of which it disapproves.
Relgious arguments were used against giving women the vote, against using pain medication during labor (Eve's descendents were meant to suffer) and so on; the arguments against homosexual marriage are no more valid than were the arguments against franchising women.