Responsibility, blame, and rights (especially gay ones)

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

hush
Senior Member

since 2001-05-27

Posts 1653
Ohio, USA

0 posted 2002-08-03 03:35 AM

My question:

'At what point, if any, are the actions of an individual subject to a)public review and derision b)rationalization of the behavior that causes the derision by those who feel the disdain and c) the denial of the individual to participate in said activities unharrassed by others?'

Read in context at:
/pip/Forum1/HTML/000634-2.html

I may not be back to check on this for a couple of days... but I'll try...

Who is John Galt?

Toad
Member

since 2002-06-16

Posts 161

1 posted 2002-08-03 05:55 AM

At the point where the actions or behaviour of the individual are deemed to be contrary to the good of society as a whole.

I’m not saying it’s right, in fact history has proved that it is decidedly wrong in most instances, take the persecution of the Jews before and during WWII and the Spanish Inquisition. If you need more examples closer to home how about Salem, the incarceration of Americans of Japanese origin after Pearl Harbour and the attempted genocide and eventual relocation of Native Americans.

In all the cases I’ve mentioned ‘society’ reached the point where the rights and actions of the individual or individuals were deemed to be contrary to the ‘good’ of society – ‘society’ felt threatened and reacted. To find the underlying causes would involve a clearer definition of society and public opinion and the forces that spark such reactions.

Thanks for the chance to read and reply

(btw nice signature – ask Ayn)

hush
Senior Member

since 2001-05-27

Posts 1653
Ohio, USA

2 posted 2002-08-03 10:22 PM

Toad- idealistically, I believe you're right. In practice, however, actions of people are scrutinized as I specified above, with little regard to whether the actions truly do endanger or harm society or other individuals therein. I guess I should have specified that the topic that begat this question was in regards to homosexuality, and that's the context in which I meant it to be taken.

Who is John Galt?

Toad
Member

since 2002-06-16

Posts 161

3 posted 2002-08-03 11:22 PM

I understood the context Hush, the examples I gave are related in that the process dictating the intolerance in each case is, I believe, the same. The actions and reactions of society in those examples weren’t instigated by actual threats to society they were the result of perceived threats, homosexuality isn’t a direct threat to society only a perceived threat and some people react vehemently against it for that reason.

My avoidance of the intended subject was based on the premise that if you can find similar examples that, in hindsight, were blatantly wrong it’s easier to argue a case against making the same mistakes concerning Homosexuality.

MidnightSon
Member

since 2002-05-15

Posts 312
between the gutter & the stars

4 posted 2002-08-16 07:08 AM

everything can come under public scrutiny and be subject to everyone else's opinion because of the internet. the internet gives the freedom of speech and the comfort of anoymity.

as long as people can say what they want and not have to deal with the opposing parties, then why not chime in with their two cents?

doesn't anyone ever feel that asking why is like driving in a roundabout?

don't get me wrong hush. it's a pain in the derriere that every facet of our lifestyles comes under fire by one party or another nowadays, but if you put something out there, people have the right to put there's out there i guess.
and it sucks. but i take comfort in knowing that their opinions are their own just as my life is my own.

and as for the homosexuality thing... damned if i know or care anymore. biological, product of upbringing/environment, outside stimuli, choice, college experimentation.... you're gonna be with who you feel comfortable being with.
and in the end, if that's what makes things wrong...being yourself and finding a moment's rest in this forsaken existence... well.
maybe we shouldn't have the freedom of the internet....

things aren't wrong because someone says so. deep down we all know right from wrong. it's one o those intrinsic mechanisms we have... like knowing when to stop the Q-tip.
all that's left is to choose and act.

it's our struggle for identity that leaves us all unknown

[This message has been edited by MidnightSon (08-16-2002 07:14 AM).]

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.