Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:29:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
654 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> Not to you, but if a large number of people start to vomit at the
> sight of your naked hairy body, dingleberries and all, then it's an
> issue for society. That said, if you can find enough people who
> don't mind, then go ahead and behave that way amongst them.
But you're making a ridiculous comparison. An action by a person that produces
a substantially unhealthy state for others is very different than one who does
not. The occurrances of people reacting to the sight of a naked body, even a
grotesquely obese naked body covered in filth, with such _visceral_ behavior is
infinitesimal. This is so true that I would be comfortable suggesting that one
who did react that way was suffering from substantial neuroses.
And yet, while no one is harmed by seeing another human's body -- "dingleberries
and all", you are perfectly comfortable legislating the amount of clothing I can
wear to keep this incredibly small pool of insane people comfortable.
We could liken this to the peanut allergy except for two main things. First,
even those neurotics that you're protecting will not die from their mental
instability and gut reactions. Second, peanut allergies can not be healed. The
poor, sick people that you're describing can, and should, be helped.
> > > And don't get me started on the marriage thing. Marriage is NOT a
> > > right.
>
> > Um, I think that every way you can look at it, you're wrong.
> > Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says you're
> > wrong. But hey, we in the US don't give a stinking rat's turd what
> > the UN says, right? OK, so how about the fact that marriage is a
> > right in English common law -- the very foundation of our judicial
> > system? The normal limitation (and this applies for appropriate age
> > and other mental capacity issues) on this right is to those with
> > "sufficient understanding to deal in the common transactions of
> > life."
>
> We're back to that matter of scope. I think we agree with a lot of
> what the UN has to say. Just not everything.
Yeah, well what about common law? Your assertion was that Marriage is not a
right. By every account I can find, it is! It was a right in the English
common law from which our systme of jurisprudence sprang. It has been affirmed
as a right in American courts. And the United Nations, in arguably the most
important declaration of human rights ever to be issued by the human specie, has
explicitly asserted marriage (between a man and a woman, incidentally) as a
right.
> > The benefit to society would be the affirmation that homosexuals are
> > people too. It would help, in the long run, if not immediately, to
> > remove the strife experienced between homosexuals and the
> > close-minded bigots who oppose their equal access to the law.
> > Further, I reject that the governing of marriage and more
> > specifically, reproduction, actually does provide the benefit you
> > cite. What do you think, that people would stop raising children
> > with we did away with the institution of marriage as an object of
> > governance?
>
> I agree there would be a benefit for some, but I think overall there
> would be a greater loss of benefits for others. See my reply to
> Orion.
>
> I don't believe people would stop raising children, but I do think they
> would do a much poorer job of it if you remove or substantially reduce
> the support structures currently in place. Do you think schools should
> be completely funded by children and their parents? It's a similar
> issue.
The benefit in according to homosexuals the full rights of man, is not just a
benefit to a few. It benefits all of society. In your note to Orion, you
basically waved the nebulous scarecrow of dependent benefits as an expense.
First, am I understanding that you wish to deny basic human rights to a class of
people merely because it will cost you some trivial amount? And finally, which
benefits? You allude to food being taken from the mouths of babes, but to whom
is that food to be given under your scenario? And finally, in a world where
group-marriage based intentional communites were the norm, children would be, in
my opinon, raised in a far superior cooperative, and dare I say it "It takes a
village" kind of way.
And yes, I do think, to the extent that we live in a free(ish) market society
and that such a society makes sense, schools should be funded through user fees
and philanthropy.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) You're almost right here, but you're doing things in the wrong order. Heal the sick people of their neuroses first. Then strike down the no longer needed laws designed to protect them from the consequences of these neuorses. (...) How can you (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) I don't think any one definition fits all situations. Look at the peanuts on airplanes issue. Apparently these peanuts cause an extreme amount of suffering for a rather small number of people. The relativly light pain caused to others by (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
