The thing is, you keep defining things in broad strokes like "uncontrollable sexual preference" such that you can attempt to argue that everything you can place under that category is the same or deserving/needing of the same protections.

You've already tried this with the Nazi line and, sorry, I'm not playing along that I consider Nazis in the same regard as other groups.

What do you need to know? Perhaps 1/4 of LGB employees experience employment discrimination in the prior 5 years. Enumerating in law would make it just as illegal to have employment discrimination against LGB members as among black members. Honestly, just seems like a no brainer. The negative consequence on a homophobe who wants to fire a gay employee but can't seems on it's face worse than the negative consequence on a gay employee who is fired by the homophobe. Federalist priors and all, I don't really get your ambivalence about pretty bedrock principles of western democracies that major classes are protected.

Seems backwards. When I think about things that you can argue should be state level I think about policy and governance issues. Take healthcare. While I disagree, I can see conservative arguments that it is better to have the states being crucibles of innovation, implimenting a variety of strategies to reflect local realities (alaska has different constraints than new york). But things that should be adjudicated federally are a lot on the values side. Civil rights, abortion, marriage equality (first for race, then orientation), etc.

what rights do nazis have, in your opinion? what rights do others have that they dont have, in your opinion?

You're discriminating again, unless you do define it widely; that's the point you don't seem to be getting. Explain what matrix you use to determine that gay people who act on their desires are in any way different from pedophiles who don't act on their desires. Because I'm old enough to remember pro-gay arguments such as 'just because something disgusts you, doesn't mean it's wrong.' You may be disgusted by a pedophiles attraction to children, but if you're discriminating against that desire and not others then you're a hypocrite. Further, the only seeming difference between you who accept gay desire as real and not-able-to-be-discriminated-against and a Christian is where you both arbitrarily draw the line.

I'm not saying pedophilia is ok, or that it's even an uncontrollable desire. What I'm saying is that by your own logic in determining that homosexuality is an uncontrollable desire which has no basis in genetics, pedophilia and every other sexual desire is as well. You have to be consistent in your argumentation if you expect to be taken seriously.

The impression I get from gay rights and other activists is that they think they can just draw an arbitrary line around people based on some characteristic and then not suffer the conclusions that their logic leads to when they discriminate against others with precisely the same characteristic. That has worked so well for so long that they take it for granted.

I'm challenging you and others ITT to provide a logical and/or ethical basis for the distinctions you make. If you can't do so, then all your argumentation surrounding this issue can pretty much be tossed out.

I'm almost certain that I am getting it and accepted that by your usage I am discriminating. I'm okay with it.

And this is why I'm not going to play the silly game where we pretend it has to be treated in the same way as something that is okay.

Being anti-discrimination is the entire basis of your stance on this case, though. If you think it's ok to discriminate against some people and not others based on sexual desire, then you're a hypocrite.



I already qualified that you don't have to do that. What you do have to do is either justify where you draw the line around acceptability of sexual desire, or apply it to every sexual desire.

1) Do you believe people with minority sexual preferences do not have control over their desires? 'Born this way' and all that?
2) Do you think it's morally ok to have a desire and not act on it, or are pedophiles simply bad people for having desires they can't control? Or is there some other metric you're using to determine the 'ok-ness' of having pedophilic desires that you don't apply to people with same-sex attraction?

You have this weird fixation on telling people what their stances are and what they should believe rather than paying attention to what people actually think. I've told you repeatedly that I'm okay with discriminating against some groups given your use of the word.


No. And you keep switching the language up between desire and behaviour and uncontrollable and so on. Every time you switch the context my answer would change.


Now this looks like progress. Have you spent the whole thread thinking people didn't have any ethical standards surrounding sexuality? This is why I'm refusing to play your little comparison game. I find the whole thing deeply dishonest since I suspect you know that we agree that some sexual behaviour is okay and some isn't. So don't act like it's an all or nothing.

Some sexual behaviour is morally acceptable. Some is immoral. Some is really, really, immoral. And so I don't have to treat them all the same.

And I'm asking you to justify it, which you're evading.




I am not switching the language. Are all sexual desires, if not acted upon, ok to hold? Are some controllable and others not, or are all people 'born that way' with respect to their sexual desires?




I'm sure most people think they have ethical standards surrounding sexuality.

Not behavior, desire. You're the one who can't get the terms straight, not me.

Ok, now what about desire? Either all sexual desires are in the same category of moral ok-ness or some are and some aren't. Which do you believe?

The matter of discrimination is so over complicated and confused by religion and politics.

Maybe discriminating about discrimination can help?

Is it discrimination based on a prejudgment, or is it discrimination against an ideology which is presently expressed?

In your interaction with me you've used "uncontrolled sexual desire", "uncontrolled sexual preference", and "uncontrollable sexual desire" interchangeably.

All three have massively different implications.

It's not like I'm hiding that I'm being evasive. My whole point here is that I find it pretty distasteful to engage with this kind of a messy, wholly dishonest, approach where you try desperately to get me to compare homosexuality to things like paedophilia and Nazism.

The bigotry of the left, in full display.

It's so much easier to call someone 'disgusting' or 'homophobic' or 'distasteful' than addressing his actual argument, isn't it? I guess we're done.

Lol bigotry. You've conducted this in a wholly dishonest manner. I'm simply refusing to play along with a bunch of questions about how to distinguish two things we both agree are readily distinguishable.

You refuse to play along because you can't reason your way out of it.

So you claim distastefulness and uke claimed homophobia and disgustingness despite me not making a single derogatory comment in this entire thread. That's not tolerance for other peoples reasoned views, it's bigotry.

No, I refuse to play along because we've both already agreed that the two groups you want to compare are not equal. And since they're not equal, I don't need to play the game of "they must be treated the same".

The fact that I find you homophobic and a bit racist is not something I'd mentioned.

I think any argument that ultimately claims that a society should not have preferences is stupid, because that is an argument against societies.

Any society have the ideal that some things are good and some things are bad. This is never some perfectly rational process. As our societies evolve, previous culture might suddenly be a bad thing. Members of society might disagree, two societies might be radically different and so forth.

If you apply philosophical skepticism, no such view survives. That is not a very huge problem, as philosophical skepticism also defeats itself. It does, on the other hand, serve as fine rhetorical tool for people like Doordonot to strangle any debate with useless rhetoric for as long as they have the stamina to do so.

Doordonot has for not really demonstrated why nazis and gays are legal equivalents. Instead he bases his argument completely on the idea that since they're both something humans can be, it is unfair to protect only one from discrimination. That is, almost needlessly to say, a completely absurd argument. Sharing a category does not make two things identical. Water and Yperite are both chemical substances, but if you treat them as identical you are going to die.

Frankly I find such dictionary-rhetoric to be useless, stupid, a waste of time and generally insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved (except possibly the person making the argument).

No, the simple thing is this: Any debate on law or politics constitutes preference. "I like this, I do not like this, we should draw the line here". Doordonot's attempt at removing himself from that is at best misguided and at worst cowardly. It is not uncommon, and I think most people have done it at some point. You try and make some perfect rational ground for your view that removes the idea that you have preference. Then you get to argue your case without having to stand for its ramifications. This is always self-defeating. If you actually held no opinion, you wouldn't argue to begin with.

"Nothing really matters. Logic and Morality don't exist, except where I say they do, but all opinions are the same (except yours, it's stupid). All societies are about preferences, except our societies preferences are better. Don't ask me why. All I know is you're a coward and a rhetorician who's trying to argue rationally and not state personal preferences, and that's really dumb and stupid and stuff, even though I just said preferences are important but yours are dumb. So there."

Well done.

Sex among consenting adults harms no one. Nazi activities harm people. Anti-gay policies harm people (See the story of the hero Alan Turing and many others). Anti-gay policies are contrary to Jesus's message of "love thy neighbor". Simple isn't it?

Interesting 7-2 case in canadian SC out today. A christian university wanted to open a law school, where they would have a "covenant" that would require students to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman. The accrediting law society refused to accredit the university, and the SC sided with the law society.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trin...sion-1.4707240

Ironically, I find the arguments of the presumably religious better there than those on the other side, despite the fact that I am a fervent atheist. They are correct that gays shouldn't be protected from discrimination any more than Nazis or pedophiles are. In fact, I believe no group should have "special protection". All individuals should have the full protection of the laws, which don't generally need reference to any group characteristics. Even laws against job discrimination towards blacks, while admirable in theory, don't really work (with the possible exception of the public sector). No one can read another's mind, and any halfway intelligent racist will just give another reason for firing an employee.

What the religious side is missing is that no group should have special privileges either. If an atheist isn't allowed to smoke marijuana or peyote, someone who claims it is part of his religion to do so shouldn't be allowed to either. If an atheist isn't allowed to wear a scarf obscuring his facial features in certain situations, someone who claims it is part of her religion to do so shouldn't be allowed to either. Freedom of religion shouldn't absolve anyone from general laws. If I start a religion which says I must kill people at every chance, this does not mean I should be exempt from general laws against murder.

I'm honestly not sure where I stand on some of these issues, like whether a Christian bake shop should have to sell gay wedding cakes, or whether a Christian county clerk should have to issue gay wedding licenses, or even whether a Christian doctor should be required to perform abortions. What I do know is that the rules should be the same whether or not these people claim to be Christian.

I pretty much fully agree. It's good to hear someone with differing presumptions than me coming to the same conclusions. It affirms my arguments are based in logic. As far as freedom to act in such a way, I'm pretty much on the side of maximum freedom for all (with reason of course-we still need criminal law and a justice system), and I'm definitely not for special privilege any more than I'm for special protection. If you're able to wear a hijab in your drivers license photo, then I can wear my baseball hat.

I think a lot of the problems with the above conflicts is government itself. If they kept their stupid little micromanaging noses out of peoples lives as much as possible, then we wouldn't have these problems. Governments feel they can level playing fields and correct peoples internal injustices when they can't even spend less money than they make, and both parties are to blame. The secularization of society has filled the vacuum that was once widely filled with belief in God. In it's place is a need for a daddy watching over us and that daddy, on the social justice and economic side for the Democrats and the military and police side for the Republicans, is the US government.

Mkay.

So we're unable to distinguish behaviours that should be protected and those that should be discriminated.

Are we able to have any laws at all at this point?

All I need to do is describe some group which gets "special rights" as a result of that law and it is invalid.

What kind of behaviors are you talking about? I don't think any behaviors that don't harm anyone should be prohibited. No group gets special rights from a law against murder.

If you are referring to the discussion about pedophiles, I think it's perfectly legitimate to have laws against having sex with children, because they do not have the maturity to give meaningful consent and are likely harmed by sex with adults. However, I don't think someone who by nature is a pedophile but has never acted on it should be punished or have his rights restricted.

You keep talking confusing "behaviors" with "groups". They are not the same thing. No groups should be punished or given special rights. Some behaviors should be punished. It is easy to distinguish behaviors, and protect some while prohibiting others. It is not easy to distinguish groups, and there is no need to try to do so legally. Groups do not need to be protected nor prohibited. While I find Nazism abhorrent, I would not punish someone simply because he claimed to be a Nazi. If he exhibited illegal behaviors often associated with Nazism, I would want him punished.

I'm confused. Do you think making job discrimination towards LGBT illegal is admirable in theory? Or only blacks?

Western democracies have enshrined "special protections" into law, for race, gender, nationality, religion, etc. Many, such as Canada and such as 21 of the US states, have added LGBT to the enumerated list of special protected classes. The civil rights act today remains enormously popular, and was a huge part of a society sea change to the better place we have today. I just don't get the appeal to no "special protections", when it is such a bedrock of society and seems to have done a lot of societal good.

And while yes it is possible fire you for being black and make it look squeaky clean in a court of law - just the same as for sexual assault - it isn't impossible by any means to act on these. There are all sorts of emails and interviews with colleagues and circumstantial evidence blah blah blah. But even if it is rather feckless, it still sets symbolic precedent. A gay person can walk into a store and buy a public good, or go into work at their job, and know that the US government is there for them, that it explicitly protects them from the discrimination gay people have too often faced.

I don't think people really disagree with this. The question is this. I can fire you because I don't like you. I can fire you because you said something that pisses me off. Most private employees work "at will" of their employee. I CAN"T, however, fire you because you are black, or a woman, or a tunisian, or a muslim. I argue that to that enumerated list we could ALSO include lesbian, because there has been a history of meaningful discrimination against a group whose principle actions don't harm anyone. And I DON'T see a need to enumerate pedophiles on the list.

Yes, it is very simple. Only a few decades ago gay people were subject to prison, institutionalization, wide-spread persecution and false propaganda.

The latter two are still happening, and some progressive nations have therefore taken it upon themselves to treat it as a protected group. It is a very basic application of law: Protecting perfectly lawful and harmless citizens from ongoing undue harm and negative discrimination.

The main act in US law in regards to this is the civil rights act. Which Dooordonot is essentially claiming is unfair because it does not protect nazis.

I mean, yes... by some rhetorically useless usage of the word "fair", the law is unfair. For example it treats the man who stabs you and you the victim differently. So it is inherently unfair. But now you have completely and utterly removed the word "fair" from having any connection to the word "justice", so why even bother to be in the conversation? It's such an obtuse argument without any connection to what "laws" are actually about.

Law is a practical application of politics and ethics, not an exercise in defeating philosophical skepticism and, reaching objectively proven truths and they are not meant to apply in perfectly idealized vacuums where history does not exist.