tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495998.post8667442349341714077..comments2023-10-28T06:54:27.719-06:00Comments on The World, According To Me: Taking on Sutherland's Pro-disrimination StatementBobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04904969537714974512noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495998.post-37894307406613521912009-10-16T09:49:50.145-06:002009-10-16T09:49:50.145-06:00The APA definition is meaningless in law and polic...The APA definition is meaningless in law and policy...which is precisely the point as we consider the SLC ordinance.<br /><br />One can have "faith" that sexual orientation is real..."faith" that someone is "born that way"...and then there is scientific and medical evidence. There is lots of faith that all this exists...and ZERO real evidence.<br /><br />Now, I'm a person of faith too so I can't discount faith's power to help someone endure life. But we're talking law and policy here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495998.post-15266393813693353972009-10-15T11:59:15.557-06:002009-10-15T11:59:15.557-06:00Paul Mero writes:
" What does “sexual orien...Paul Mero writes:<br /><br /><i>" What does “sexual orientation” mean to you? Does it mean “heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual”? What do they mean? In fact, can you intelligently define any of those three with describing some sort of human activity?My point is that we can’t define “sexual orientation” without describing human behavior. “Orientation” meaning “born that way” doesn’t exist. We are born male and female with moral agency. Nothing more. No medical or scientific research, though plentiful in attempts, has yet to prove otherwise."</i><br /><br />First I would like to point out to Mr. Mero that "male and female" are expressions of gender and should not be confused with "sexual orientation" or "sexual identity". Just because one has the "hardware" does not necessarily mean they have the "software" to match, if you know what I mean. <br /><br />Wikipedia at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation gives the following definition which is on point to this Mr. Mero's excellent question.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">"Sexual orientation is a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender. According to the American Psychological Association sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of "personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[1] Sexual orientation is usually classified relative to the gender of the people who are found sexually attractive. Though people may use other labels, or none at all[2], sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. These orientations exist along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexual to exclusive homosexual, including various forms of bisexuality in-between.</a><br /><br />So it would seem by this definition of sexual orientation that <b>behavior</b> is but one element in that definition which is commonly called "acting out" or "acting upon" one's sexual desires with another human being.<br /><br />Making the statement that "orientation" meaning "born that way" doesn't exist as though that were a fact is simply not true. A careful reading of Section 4 "Influences on Sexual Orientation" at the link provided supports that response. At best, whether ones sexual orientation is present at birth is still an open question that continues to be studied and hotly debated by those on both sides of the issue. I believe even more important that the clinical and biological studies is the anecdotal evidence from those people who are openly gay themselves stating that they have always had those feelings and attractions from their earliest recognition of their human sexuality. It is baffling to me that those who have never had that same experience can have the audacity to say that this description of one's own intimate feelings could not possibly be true.<br /><br />In my opinion it is nonsensical to believe that a young boy growing up in the local LDS culture being raised in the church in a loving and nurturing LDS home would one day <b>by choice</b> be attracted to and have strong desires to perform homosexual acts with a member of the same sex and be repulsed with thoughts of having physical sex with an attractive female. This is especially true in the fact that by making such choices and "coming out" in this local culture he will very likely be ostracized by both his family <b>and</b> his church.<br /><br />In my opinion, no stronger argument exists that "sexual orientation" is not by choice but is brought about by several factors inherent in the mind and body of the person than the one stated above. It is true that the "behavior" of acting upon those feelings and desires is by choice, but that cannot honestly be construed to also mean that the innate desires, feelings, and attractions that underlie that behavior are by choice as well.JBTalcottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495998.post-87645257124868319142009-10-14T14:31:15.109-06:002009-10-14T14:31:15.109-06:00Let me move on. What does “sexual orientation” me...Let me move on. What does “sexual orientation” mean to you? Does it mean “heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual”? What do they mean? In fact, can you intelligently define any of those three with describing some sort of human activity?<br /><br />My point is that we can’t define “sexual orientation” without describing human behavior. “Orientation” meaning “born that way” doesn’t exist. We are born male and female with moral agency. Nothing more. No medical or scientific research, though plentiful in attempts, has yet to prove otherwise. Even the APA has given up the charade. In most cases, someone discriminated against because of race doesn’t have to prove race just the discrimination. Why? Because the race is self-evident. In the case of “sexual orientation,” under its usage in these proposed ordinances, it’s saying that something that can only be proven through human behavior doesn’t have to be proven through human behavior. What is self-evident about homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality? It’s not self-evident and the case you allude to (the hetero man fired because someone thought he was homosexual) proves that.<br /><br />Thinking legally now, if you could walk into your work and say, “I’m a Martian” and invoke some civil rights ordinance that protects against Martians, what’s an employer to do? Is there a way to know you’re a Martian? Can you prove it? In the case of “sexual orientation,” under the law, how do you prove it? You just say you are homosexual? Of course, that doesn’t prove anything…that doesn’t give an objective observer anything to hang her hat on.<br /><br />Burden of proof is a key legal concept here. Add to this definitional mess the idea of “perceived as” and everything becomes highly subjective.<br /><br />I am pretty sure our argument is solid: the proposed ordinances are vague, too broad, and inherently unjust within our system of American jurisprudence.<br /><br />To answer your last question, yes, your parents, as landlords, could “discriminate” against a Republican. I wouldn’t condone that, but they could legally. So what would prevent them from doing so? Prevailing morality and culture – the idea that they would look silly in the eyes of their neighbors for doing so – not the force of law.<br /><br />Gay activists know that changing prevailing morality and culture is the only true and lasting way to achieve their objectives. They are not stupid. They know that prevailing morality and culture can be coaxed along through the opinions of community leaders and decision makers, like judges in our courts. It’s all a grand strategy and they only have ground to gain. I don’t fault them for trying. So why fault me, and others like me, for trying to prevent the change from occurring?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495998.post-28079774141383655192009-10-14T14:30:10.109-06:002009-10-14T14:30:10.109-06:00Thanks Bob for posting our press release. As usua...Thanks Bob for posting our press release. As usual, you put up pretty good arguments. Unfortunately, our disagreement here is more over the “facts” and not just an opinion.<br /><br />Utah does have Amendment 3, thank goodness. But a constitutional amendment can be repealed. What would that process look like? Well, what did that similar process look like in CA? It looked like a court amassing mountains of state and local code and ordinances and concluding 1) that a constitutional amendment could very well be unconstitutional and 2) the track record throughout the state in regards to gay rights seemed clear enough for the Justices to wonder out loud why gays shouldn’t be afforded the status of legal marriage.<br /><br />There was no logical fallacy of a “slippery slope” in play. The precedents were all very logical to the Justices, so much so they were baffled why the status of marriage shouldn’t be bestowed on same-sex couples.<br /><br />There are myriad legal scenarios that would use the prevailing feeling of society in conjunction with actual local ordinances (like SLC’s proposed ordinance) to move a court to look at discrimination…be it job, housing, or marriage. This approach is what has been used in the other states to pass (and uphold) their “gay marriage” laws.<br /><br />Again, this approach is no logical fallacy of the “slippery slope.” It’s the actual legal strategy of gay activists...the effects of which have been acknowledged by high courts in those states, especially CA.<br /><br />Over time, judicial pronouncements (even if bound by our state constitution) can begin to wear down public opinion. And public opinion is what always changes laws.<br /><br />So Sutherland pushes back to reinforce current prevailing thought and protect the meaning of marriage against the slow but steady pressure and strategy to change its meaning.<br /><br />Bob, I am curious how you can call a legal or political opinion (yours, mine, a court’s) a lie? Is what I just wrote here a lie?<br /><br />Certainly you may disagree with me…but a lie?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495998.post-79709322237254197632009-10-14T14:05:49.107-06:002009-10-14T14:05:49.107-06:00A discussion about this is going on at KVNU FTP if...A discussion about this is going on at KVNU FTP if you want to jump in, Bob. I linked to this post in the comments there, because I think you bring up something worth discussing.<br /><br />http://kvnuforthepeople.com/2009/10/13/sutherland-statement-on-slc-anti-discrimination-proposal/Jason Thehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15518866228386927143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495998.post-15688302958684307282009-10-13T15:28:32.139-06:002009-10-13T15:28:32.139-06:00I sent you a response through FB...it was too long...I sent you a response through FB...it was too long to be accepted directly through this blog site. Perhaps you'll post it for me?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com