Disclaimer: I’m rarely in GD’s so if this has been hashes out already I apologize in advance.
So if we pass into law saying that it’s ok for gays to get married; we’re basically saying that it’s ok and that these people should have no restrictions over them than hetero’s do.
OK fine by me I say.
But if we do this how could we be justified by just leting it stay at that.
By this I mean no longer would it be “ethical” to assume ones sexuality because if we did, that would be no different than me looking at a black man and assuming he must like fried chicken just because he’s black. And since we can longer assume ones sexuallity; no longer will it be necessary for things like when a male cop needs to strip search a female; why bother calling in a female officer to do the job? Or why should a male doctor have to call in for a female witness if he deems it necessary for one of his female patients to take her shirt off? OR hell why even bother with his and her public restrooms anymore?
Theretically, the reasons why we do such things now is because we don’t want members of the opposite sex get’n their jollies off of us.
So with that in mind do we really want to accept homosexuallity with no holds barred?
Personally it’s not like I think we should “nail’em all to the cross” because I don’t. I do however believe certain restrictions should be imposed. Being that homosesuality is in a way a handicap. And as far as handicaps go I think it’s great that I could never have open heart surgery by a blind man, so why should gays recieve special treatment?
My friend, I made an honest attempt to understand your post. I really did, even reread it a few times. I’m forced to the conclusion, then, that your thesis doesn’t make any sense.
We allow gay marriage, therefore we should be able to say that black people like fried chicken, and male cops should strip-search women? Talk about the mother of all non sequiturs.
Why can’t you just rant about how acceptance of gay marriage will lead to acceptance of bestiality, like others have? At least that bizarre non sequitur is all about sexual practices. Yours seems to have nothing holding it together at all.
Are there any restrictions on “them” now? (You do know that there are many gay Dopers, right? Gays are not just some group “out there.”)
Please, go on.
Now there’s an example.
There’s more to not wanting a member of the opposite sex doing these things than a fear of “jollies.” It has to do with power, humiliation, etc. And as for “jollies,” well the present way of doing these things still accomodates the vast majority of people.
Good question, we’ve been over THAT here, too. :-p
Basically, the thinking is this (warning: shakey ground ahead): We assume all couples are equal in the eyes of the law, therefore sexuality, in the eyes of the law, does not matter, therefore sexuality does not matter socially. QED.
I’m sure the thought went through the OP’s head - “when we recognized blacks as equal citizens, we had to share restrooms with them, too”
The problem is that this does not connect and has a bit of a slippery slope added in for good effect.
pause
CHINGUS KHAN THESE FIREWORKS ARE DRIVING ME NUTS
ahem
The break is that if we legally “don’t look at sexual orientation” does not equal we don’t socially look at sexual orientation (or sex). It is still safe to assume, socially, that a person is straight. Legalizing gay marriage will not make half of all people instantly gay. A similar analogy is that you can assume that a person in the United States is white, and be right most of the time (by an increasingly small margin, for better or worse coughbettercough).
Another example. There is no law against being a transexual - however, this does not mean that the police physically check your equipment. It is safe to assume that you are the gender you appear, and if you were to be concerned about being mishandled you would speak up about it (and legally, not be able to be forced into anything).
Er, I apologize, that sentence came out wrong. I did not mean to imply that you thought that sharing restrooms with “them” would be a burden, that you were racist, or anything else. It is just the line of thinking I was taking for you - equals, share restroom. Again, I’m sorry.
OK, I get the gist of your OP, but I don’t think gay marriage will change anything.
The fact is, that we know that a certain percentage of the population identify themselves as gay. No matter whether or not there is gay marriage, these people are attracted to the same sex. So, you run the chance that when a medical professional that is the same gender as you is seeing you naked, they are attracted to your gender. Now, a professional medical person will not be thinking inappropriate thoughts, but there is that possibility. Same goes for policemen and policewomen, and so forth. It’s all happening now. Homosexuality exists. Legalizing (or not legalizing) gay marriage isn’t going to change that.
We already accept it, except for marriage. And as for your second point, gays do receive special treatment - they are not allowed to marry. Eliminating this special treatment is what this hoohah is all about. Besides that, I don’t see how it would affect anything - except that I might have a spate of wedding presents to buy.
AWE crap! [embarrased] Guys, I really do have a point to make here, problem is I’ve had a few too many beers tonight and obviously my post istn’t comming out as succint as I thought.
I’ll try to come back tomarrow when my heads a little clearer.
I think I sorta kinda get what the OP was trying to say. In rebuttal, I offer this argument:
What is better for humanity as a whole, a society where homosexual couples are denied the benefits of being married because of their sexual orientation, or a society where rules of proper behavior for strip-searches are enforced regardless of the sexual orientation of the folks involved?
I imagine that we’ve probably already have situations where a gay cop did a strip-search of a heterosexual male suspect, but no scandal ever came forth because the cop behaved himself in a professional manner. Legalizing gay marriages won’t change that.
Isn’t this just another slippery slope argument? Sure looks like one to me - not even a very coherent one, either.
No; legalising same-sex marriages doesn’t necessarily compel us to do anything other than grant similar legal rights to same-sex couples as are currently enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. That is all.
You have the right to not be discriminated against. (Legalize gay marriage)
You have the right to not be forced into a situation that is unsafe, or reasonably feels unsafe (Leave strip-search rules the way they are)
I understand (I think) what to OP is saying, but it is not a logical progression, but rather a tying together of two unrelated but vaguely similar thoughts. That gets very dangerous.
Following the OP’s reasoning (?), one might conclude that we need to rid our society of heterosexuals. Then we gay people would never have to worry about “members of the opposite sex get’n their jollies off of us.”
Sweetheart, I have something to tell you. Sit down; you might be shocked.
There are already gay people out there. Some of them are doctors and police officers, and sometimes they are in a situation where they could potentially “get their jollies” - but then, I’ve been naked in front of opposite sex doctors, and none of them started to breathe heavily or act inappropriately.
What difference would gay marriage make to this issue anyway? And you know what else? This is the really shocking part. There are already gay people dating, living together, getting joint bank accounts, putting each other’s name on their wills, and even having sex. What difference will that make to all you straight folks if they do it within the covenant of marriage?
Restrictions? Like what? What does that even mean? Blind guys can’t do open-heart surgery. What are gay people bad at? Isn’t a handicap something that prevents you from doing ordinary activities? Should gay men be restricted from doing carpentry? (I kid, I kid, I know some of us are good at that manly stuff.)
We’re only “handicapped” when it comes to sleeping with people of the opposite sex. I don’t see where that comes into play frequently. If you have some strong desire to impose restrictions on sex workers and porn stars to make sure the “handicapped” queers aren’t getting paid to have heterosexual sex, be my guest, although I don’t see why the market can’t work that out on its own.
[QUOTE=SHAKES]
So if we pass into law saying that it’s ok for gays to get married; we’re basically saying that it’s ok and that these people should have no restrictions over them than hetero’s do.
But if we do this how could we be justified by just leting it stay at that.
By this I mean no longer would it be “ethical” to assume ones sexuality because if we did, that would be no different than me looking at a black man and assuming he must like fried chicken just because he’s black. And since we can longer assume ones sexuallity; no longer will it be necessary for things like when a male cop needs to strip search a female; why bother calling in a female officer to do the job? Or why should a male doctor have to call in for a female witness if he deems it necessary for one of his female patients to take her shirt off? OR hell why even bother with his and her public restrooms anymore?
Theretically, the reasons why we do such things now is because we don’t want members of the opposite sex get’n their jollies off of us.
So with that in mind do we really want to accept homosexuallity with no holds barred?
Sorry, but this is a version of the slippery slope fallacy. Your gettin’ all worked up over nothing. And regarding black folks liking fried chicken… Well of course they do! Everybody likes fried chicken; if a person don’t then somethings wrong !
Alright guys I’m back forget about what I said about the gey marriage thing. I sorta went off on a tangent last night because of the brewskies.
Anyway, I guess what I’m REALLY trying to say is: Do I have the right to know ones sexual orientation? (In given circumstances that I gave examples to in my OP)
Personally, I think there is a certain pragmatic genius to Clinton’s “don’t ask don’t tell approach” even though I know this philosophy is highly criticized. My logic at the time when I wrote the OP was that allowing gay marriages would be contrary to that because your basically anouncing to the whole world “Yeah, I’m gay, get over it already.”
So with that in mind I feel I DO have the right to know ones sexual orientation under certain circumstances Such as: is my doctor gay? or am I being patted down by a gay officer? or am I sharing a locker room with a gay person?
I personally feel I should have that right. Any debates as to why I shouldn’t?
Well, even if you don’t have the right to know, at least you can spot the gay guys easily. The gay doctor will be asking you to strip off, sweetie, the gay guy in the locker room will be the one with the locker full of flamboyant pink shirt, and you can see the gay cops a mile off. They’re the ones hanging out with an Indian chief, a construction worker, a cowboy etc.
!