Full Version: Defining discrimination
Reading the following link led me to think more deeply about discrimination:
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/World/...or21004ltr.html
This link is a letter from S.F.'s mayor, Gavin Newsome, regarding his support for homosexual marriage, and specifically, why he felt entitled to break California law by sanctioning marriage licenses for homosexual couples. His main argument was based on the concept of equal protection. It seems that our efforts to remove all forms of discrimination have undermined are attempts to hold citizens responsible for their actions. My questions are not aimed at homosexuals in particular, rather Newsome's letter was the spark which initiated my line of thinking.
My questions are as follows:
1. Have discrimination laws been taken to such an extreme that we can no longer differentiate discrimination of actions versus discrimination of being? (ie. discrimination against people who swear versus discrimination of people for being a certain race).
2. Are some types of discrimination acceptable or even beneficial?
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/World/...or21004ltr.html
This link is a letter from S.F.'s mayor, Gavin Newsome, regarding his support for homosexual marriage, and specifically, why he felt entitled to break California law by sanctioning marriage licenses for homosexual couples. His main argument was based on the concept of equal protection. It seems that our efforts to remove all forms of discrimination have undermined are attempts to hold citizens responsible for their actions. My questions are not aimed at homosexuals in particular, rather Newsome's letter was the spark which initiated my line of thinking.
My questions are as follows:
1. Have discrimination laws been taken to such an extreme that we can no longer differentiate discrimination of actions versus discrimination of being? (ie. discrimination against people who swear versus discrimination of people for being a certain race).
2. Are some types of discrimination acceptable or even beneficial?
QUOTE
1. Have discrimination laws been taken to such an extreme that we can no longer differentiate discrimination of actions versus discrimination of being? (ie. discrimination against people who swear versus discrimination of people for being a certain race).
I don't understand your question, nor your example. Discrimination is discrimination. There should be no "distinction" between someone who discriminates against people who wear blue, versus someone who discrimates against people with blue eyes. Both are discrimination. Neither form is "better" or "more harmful.:
2. Are some types of discrimination acceptable or even beneficial?
Sure, like discriminating against convicted felons during the application process for teachers. Or discriminating against a convicted animal abuser from being hired at the local animal shelter. There are times when discrimination makes rational sense.
QUOTE(SuzySteamboat @ Aug 12 2004, 01:28 PM)
QUOTE
1. Have discrimination laws been taken to such an extreme that we can no longer differentiate discrimination of actions versus discrimination of being? (ie. discrimination against people who swear versus discrimination of people for being a certain race).
I don't understand your question, nor your example. Discrimination is discrimination. There should be no "distinction" between someone who discriminates against people who wear blue, versus someone who discrimates against people with blue eyes. Both are discrimination. Neither form is "better" or "more harmful.:
2. Are some types of discrimination acceptable or even beneficial?
Sure, like discriminating against convicted felons during the application process for teachers. Or discriminating against a convicted animal abuser from being hired at the local animal shelter. There are times when discrimination makes rational sense.
I think you do get the question. Wearing a blue jacket would be an exteme of sorts, but it is related to an action. I may discriminate against someone, though, who wears a blue jacket with a Hell's Angels patch. He hasn't done anything else in my view, but is it not reasonable to judge that person, using my own biases and morals, based on his behavior (ie. the patch)? More importantly, shouldn't that be my right? I think anti-discrimination has gone too far in preventing people from making rational decisions about what they choose to permit in their environment. It is a difference between discriminating against people versus discriminating against their behavior (something you noted when you said you wouldn't hire certain types of convicts for certain jobs). For instance, I get along fine with people who are from Mexico. I am plain brutal to them, and I don't believe in catering to those who have been here all their lives if they talk with an accent or if their pronunciation is butchery (you may have heard "both" replaced by the word "bof" for instance). I will discriminate against these people for their actions. If I were an employer, I would hire someone else. In terms of Newsome and S.F., I believe it is right for the public to discriminate, not against homosexuals, but against their actions. More specifically, equal protection should not extend to forcing the public to permit certain actions to be sanctioned and considered acceptable carte blanche. So, while we can say any homosexual is free to behave as he chooses in his own home or within any private establishment which welcomes his behavior, he is restricted from performing those actions in a manner which implies and requires the public's approval.
So, for example, ibelsd, you believe that anti-miscegenation laws were okay as otherwise miscegenation requires tacit public approval. Similarly, since slavery was not disapproved of across the board, it ought not to have been abolished.
I don't really understand the question ibelsd... everyone discriminates. In fact, it is one of the prime functions of our brain. We discriminate between hot and cold, bright and dark, left and right, etc. All the word means is to, "draw a distinction."
The problem comes when we attach a value to that distinction.
You are applying a standard where none really exists. Is being tall instead of short any worse than say, choosing Pepsi over Coke? Of course not. They are all merely distinctions. We assign values to those distinctions. These values do not conform to any rational standard, and there is no objective measure.
We look down on people (by and large) who are obese. We admire people who donate their time for charity. We are less likely to employ someone who is physically unappealing (unfortunate, but true) while at the same time we tend to idolize people who conform to social standards of beauty.
Laws have no bearings on these applied values; only on the way we express them. As such they don't stop people from assigning values to people, they just isolate certain discriminatory processes from social interactions to prevent infringements of individuals' rights.
This is tricky. Assuming you mean social discrimination; then the answer is an obvious yes. I can discriminate between someone with trackmarks on her arm and cigarette burns on her shoulder and a person who has no such markings when I'm looking to advance my own 'social agenda,' much to my own benefit. The relative benefit comes from the subjective position of the person discriminating, and impacts on the person being discriminated for or against.
The problem comes when we attach a value to that distinction.
QUOTE
Have discrimination laws been taken to such an extreme that we can no longer differentiate discrimination of actions versus discrimination of being? (ie. discrimination against people who swear versus discrimination of people for being a certain race).
You are applying a standard where none really exists. Is being tall instead of short any worse than say, choosing Pepsi over Coke? Of course not. They are all merely distinctions. We assign values to those distinctions. These values do not conform to any rational standard, and there is no objective measure.
We look down on people (by and large) who are obese. We admire people who donate their time for charity. We are less likely to employ someone who is physically unappealing (unfortunate, but true) while at the same time we tend to idolize people who conform to social standards of beauty.
Laws have no bearings on these applied values; only on the way we express them. As such they don't stop people from assigning values to people, they just isolate certain discriminatory processes from social interactions to prevent infringements of individuals' rights.
QUOTE
2. Are some types of discrimination acceptable or even beneficial?
This is tricky. Assuming you mean social discrimination; then the answer is an obvious yes. I can discriminate between someone with trackmarks on her arm and cigarette burns on her shoulder and a person who has no such markings when I'm looking to advance my own 'social agenda,' much to my own benefit. The relative benefit comes from the subjective position of the person discriminating, and impacts on the person being discriminated for or against.
Whoa there, captain. There's some seriously convoluted logic going on here. Taking these points, such as they are, one by one...
Well, if by "discriminate," you mean that you're allowed to dislike someone with a Hell's Angels patch on his jacket, then yes. If you mean you're legally allowed to not hire him or rent him an apartment, then probably not, although this is a pretty strange comparison to discriminating on the basis of sexual preference or race.
Can't follow the sentence structure here. Are you agreeing with the above post, or no? In either case, clearly there's a difference between "discriminating" against an ex-bank robber for a job, say, guarding a bank, and discriminating against a prospective bank guard because he likes having sex with men.
Ohh-kaaaye. So you get along fine with Mexicans but you're brutal to them. How's that? I've reread this section ten times and still can't tease the meaning out. So you wouldn't hire Mexicans? Or you would hire them, but only the ones who don't mangle the language? Hope you don't hold your own command of English to the same lofty standard, or you'd evidently have to can yourself.
It sounds like wherever you live, homosexuals are running around naked having public sex. You should move. But seriously, which homosexual actions are equal protection laws forcing you to permit? Getting married? Well, apparently you don't have to worry about that for the time being, since the California SC invalidated those marriages. And how do two guys getting married imply or require your approval? You're free to disapprove all you want.
QUOTE
I may discriminate against someone, though, who wears a blue jacket with a Hell's Angels patch. He hasn't done anything else in my view, but is it not reasonable to judge that person, using my own biases and morals, based on his behavior (ie. the patch)?
Well, if by "discriminate," you mean that you're allowed to dislike someone with a Hell's Angels patch on his jacket, then yes. If you mean you're legally allowed to not hire him or rent him an apartment, then probably not, although this is a pretty strange comparison to discriminating on the basis of sexual preference or race.
QUOTE
I think anti-discrimination has gone too far in preventing people from making rational decisions about what they choose to permit in their environment. It is a difference between discriminating against people versus discriminating against their behavior (something you noted when you said you wouldn't hire certain types of convicts for certain jobs).
Can't follow the sentence structure here. Are you agreeing with the above post, or no? In either case, clearly there's a difference between "discriminating" against an ex-bank robber for a job, say, guarding a bank, and discriminating against a prospective bank guard because he likes having sex with men.
QUOTE
For instance, I get along fine with people who are from Mexico. I am plain brutal to them, and I don't believe in catering to those who have been here all their lives if they talk with an accent or if their pronunciation is butchery (you may have heard "both" replaced by the word "bof" for instance). I will discriminate against these people for their actions. If I were an employer, I would hire someone else.
Ohh-kaaaye. So you get along fine with Mexicans but you're brutal to them. How's that? I've reread this section ten times and still can't tease the meaning out. So you wouldn't hire Mexicans? Or you would hire them, but only the ones who don't mangle the language? Hope you don't hold your own command of English to the same lofty standard, or you'd evidently have to can yourself.
QUOTE
If I were an employer, I would hire someone else. In terms of Newsome and S.F., I believe it is right for the public to discriminate, not against homosexuals, but against their actions. More specifically, equal protection should not extend to forcing the public to permit certain actions to be sanctioned and considered acceptable carte blanche. So, while we can say any homosexual is free to behave as he chooses in his own home or within any private establishment which welcomes his behavior, he is restricted from performing those actions in a manner which implies and requires the public's approval.
It sounds like wherever you live, homosexuals are running around naked having public sex. You should move. But seriously, which homosexual actions are equal protection laws forcing you to permit? Getting married? Well, apparently you don't have to worry about that for the time being, since the California SC invalidated those marriages. And how do two guys getting married imply or require your approval? You're free to disapprove all you want.
QUOTE(ibelsd @ Aug 12 2004, 05:01 PM)
More importantly, shouldn't that be my right? I think anti-discrimination has gone too far in preventing people from making rational decisions about what they choose to permit in their environment.
Here is where you're drifting out the reality lane ibelsd. You are attempting to corrolate 'rational action' with entirely subjective values. To you, homosexual marriage is something to be frowned upon (as detestable as that value is.) You are suggesting that it is a rational determination when in fact it is an irrational one; just as those who support gay-marriage have an inherently irrational position. We are debating questions of morality, emotions, religion, etc... and there can be no purely rational position; no matter how much that would damage your intellectual foundation.
The fact remains that there can be no rational standard because the people who apply those standards can and will be IRRATIONAL. Therefore the laws, and the courts, defer to the only standard in America: the Constitution. Since this is all a veiled attempt (it would appear) to further deride homosexual marriage I would suggest you start a question on the Constitutional aspect of said debate.
Need proof that you are being inherently irrational? You refer to people who speak with an accent; as though this is a drawback. The fact remains that we all speak with an accent: it is our subject position that defines this. Your seemingly bigotted position demonstrates that you CANNOT tie "anti-discrimination" laws to rational action because the sort of discrimination these laws prevent are based on irrational social values as opposed to objective standards.
As I said in my previous post, these laws only prevent people from having their rights impinged based on the actions of those who draw a negative discrimination. They don't prevent people from holding a discriminatory view; they just prevent people like you from depriving other people of their rights' because of said views.
QUOTE(ibelsd @ Aug 12 2004, 05:01 PM)
QUOTE(SuzySteamboat @ Aug 12 2004, 01:28 PM)
QUOTE
1. Have discrimination laws been taken to such an extreme that we can no longer differentiate discrimination of actions versus discrimination of being? (ie. discrimination against people who swear versus discrimination of people for being a certain race).
I don't understand your question, nor your example. Discrimination is discrimination. There should be no "distinction" between someone who discriminates against people who wear blue, versus someone who discrimates against people with blue eyes. Both are discrimination. Neither form is "better" or "more harmful.:
2. Are some types of discrimination acceptable or even beneficial?
Sure, like discriminating against convicted felons during the application process for teachers. Or discriminating against a convicted animal abuser from being hired at the local animal shelter. There are times when discrimination makes rational sense.
I think you do get the question. Wearing a blue jacket would be an exteme of sorts, but it is related to an action. I may discriminate against someone, though, who wears a blue jacket with a Hell's Angels patch. He hasn't done anything else in my view, but is it not reasonable to judge that person, using my own biases and morals, based on his behavior (ie. the patch)? More importantly, shouldn't that be my right? I think anti-discrimination has gone too far in preventing people from making rational decisions about what they choose to permit in their environment. It is a difference between discriminating against people versus discriminating against their behavior (something you noted when you said you wouldn't hire certain types of convicts for certain jobs). For instance, I get along fine with people who are from Mexico. I am plain brutal to them, and I don't believe in catering to those who have been here all their lives if they talk with an accent or if their pronunciation is butchery (you may have heard "both" replaced by the word "bof" for instance). I will discriminate against these people for their actions. If I were an employer, I would hire someone else. In terms of Newsome and S.F., I believe it is right for the public to discriminate, not against homosexuals, but against their actions. More specifically, equal protection should not extend to forcing the public to permit certain actions to be sanctioned and considered acceptable carte blanche. So, while we can say any homosexual is free to behave as he chooses in his own home or within any private establishment which welcomes his behavior, he is restricted from performing those actions in a manner which implies and requires the public's approval.
I agree with UltimateJoe about this being a thinly veiled attempt to deride homosexual marriage. I thought so at first but was willing to give you the benefit of a doubt - "maybe he does just want to debate about discrimination." I reply with an analogy about people with blue eyes and in the very next post, you mention homosexual marriage. But you've quickly made it clear that this debate is about homosexual marriage. Next time, don't try to be coy about it. Just go ahead and state "I think it should be okay to discriminate against homosexuals because I'm not disagreeing with them being homosexual, I'm disagreeing with them doing homosexual things." Of course, this position is completely irrational, but you're free to hold it nonetheless.
I am a heterosexual female. This means, by definition, that I do heterosexual things. You cannot attempt to distinguish being homosexual from doing homosexual things. That's like the family of a murder victim telling the murderer "I don't disapprove of you, but I disapprove of what you did."
I disagree with Ultimate Joe here: "We are debating questions of morality, emotions, religion, etc... and there can be no purely rational position; no matter how much that would damage your intellectual foundation."
There most certainly is a purely rational position; the secular position. The position taken when you drop all the unnecessary baggage and ignore junk science (like "scientific studies" that show that homosexuality can be "cured") and simply look at the facts. The facts are: I did not wake up one day and choose to be attracted to males. I have absolutely no rational reason to believe that my gay friend Tyler woke up one day and chose to be attracted to males either. Second of all, if you believe you can chose who one is attracted to, then I have a test for you. For ten minutes, I want you to be sexually attracted to your computer.
Go ahead, try it. Just go say to yourself "I am making the choice to be attracted to my computer."
Isn't possible, is it (if it is, go away, I don't want to talk to you
)You are free to be as biased as you want against anyone you want. The trouble starts when you want to codify those biases into law. Is it right for someone who's opposed to interracial marriage to try to pass an amendment banning two people of different races from marrying? Is it right for someone who's opposed to gay marriage to try to pass an amendment banning two people of different genders from marrying?
No, and no, and I'll tell you why. The position that "homosexuality is immoral" is completely, totally irrational and unfounded. I've already demonstrated why. I feel the same way about people who think eating pork is immoral, but those people aren't trying to codify their beliefs and outright biases against pork into law.
The position you're taking, ibelsd, doesn't hold water. You cannot separate an action and the person doing the action when the person is someone whom, by definition, will commit the action. No one has been trying to make anyone accept homosexuals, or "approve" of them, or take away your right to hate them. They just want a damn marriage license, good grief. You aren't even making a mountain of a molehill; you are making a mountain out of nothing.
Let's say five hundred thousand gay couples were granted the right to marry, and did so tomorrow. How would your life, and your rights as an American citizen, in any possible way be negated by two human beings confirming their love for one another? Would the world end? Would all programming with straight couples be taken off the air and replaced with endless reruns of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy? No, it wouldn't. They would get married, love each other, and your life would continue as if nothing happened. Getting married does not require "the public's approval." It is none of the public's business whom wants to marry whom. Marriage is a personal matter.
I'm not even going to touch your comments about Mexicans.
OOH, I like this line of logic, it's something I've thought about myself. I've come to the conclusion that discrimination is a "bad" thing, but then had to stop and take a closer look given the examples hiring of felons for specific types of employment.
I'm having a bit of a tough time coming up with a concise position mostly due to uncertainty about the question as stated, so I'm going to take the questions to mean what I think they do - sorry if I get your line of reasoning mixed up.
I interpret this as an attempt to draw a distinction between choice and condition. To say that on one hand there is a person who has chosen to do something or be a certain way, and on the other is someone who has a condition beyond their ability to control. To frame it in context of the specific issue, the question seems to imply that homosexuality is considered a choice, of actions, and that you heritage, eye color, race or other factor, is a condition beyond your ability to change despite your desire to change it.
I think it best if I approach the question with a more structured understanding of the word in question - discrimination, or discriminate. Using Websters definition that I think most applies to the subject matter
Main Entry: dis·crim·i·nate
"2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit" ( http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?...=discriminating )
and applied to the subject matter, homosexuality and marriage, I find it readily apparent that no attempt is being made to ascertain the "individual merit" of any sanctioned marriages - homosexual or heterosexual. Well, that is, beyond the already existing legal requirements (blood test, license, proof of identity ect). So what "differentiates" any of the other legal requirements from one of them being the requirement of specifically and only being between a man and a woman?
Again, I refer to Mr. Webster
Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tion
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment ( http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?...=discriminating )
No surprise here, again we're discriminating by categories and not individuals, but "b" holds the key, "prejudicial treatment".
Main Entry: 2prejudice
1 : to injure or damage by some judgment or action (as in a case of law)
( http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?...diced&x=18&y=17 )
AH, so to discriminate against someone is to injure or damage them. Well, government sanctioned injury against someone, or even worse - a category of people is something I find reprehensible, and contradictory to the concept of a free society and equal treatment under the law. I doubt anyone would like to part of a "CATEGORY" of people who are being injured or damaged.
So to categorically discriminate against someone is injurious, as in the case of homosexual marriage, but to discriminate against an individual based on merit - such as the convicted felons is not. I should point out that discriminating against an individual felon convicted of animal abuse applying for a job at an animal shelter would be an example of using good judgement because of the relevance of the crime, while discriminating against that person for a job at the local fast food outlet is discrimination based on category. Which is my answer to the second original question.
Main Entry: dis·crim·i·nate
1 a : to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> b : to use good judgment
( http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?...=discriminating )
I also want to point out that I think the question attempts to infer that homosexuality is a choice, and that one can simply choose not to be homosexual, but one cannot help to be anything other than whatever their heritage or race is (Michael Jackson excluded). I consider that flawed logic, and have yet to see conclusive proof one way or another regarding biological/biochemical foundations for homosexuality. But I do see legal precedents for equal treatment under the law.
Again, this is an example of categorical discrimination, no where in this example has any attempt been made to evaluate the merit of the individual.
Maybe I'm drifting here, but what the heck. I find this whole issue to be missing one key ingredient, the separation of church and state. I accept the concept that marriage is a function of religion, a religous ceremony, and as such the catholic church has the right not to sanction homosexual marriage. However, I do NOT accept the premise that since legal status has been given to a religous function that the state can therefore permit sanctioned legal discrimination because the private institution of the church does so. As you put it, I do not believe in the state "forcing the public to permit certain actions to be sanctioned and considered acceptable" that are religous functions. For example, I would not suggest that we change the legal drinking age for jewish boys to 13. This is the danger of blending religion into a supposedly "free" society. If the state choses to do away with the term "marriage" legally, in favor of "union", or something similar, so that both homosexual and heterosexual couples can enjoy the same rights, I will have no problem with the church deciding who can and can't get "married". until then, I'm in favor of equal rights under the law.
I'm having a bit of a tough time coming up with a concise position mostly due to uncertainty about the question as stated, so I'm going to take the questions to mean what I think they do - sorry if I get your line of reasoning mixed up.
QUOTE
1. Have discrimination laws been taken to such an extreme that we can no longer differentiate discrimination of actions versus discrimination of being? (ie. discrimination against people who swear versus discrimination of people for being a certain race).
I interpret this as an attempt to draw a distinction between choice and condition. To say that on one hand there is a person who has chosen to do something or be a certain way, and on the other is someone who has a condition beyond their ability to control. To frame it in context of the specific issue, the question seems to imply that homosexuality is considered a choice, of actions, and that you heritage, eye color, race or other factor, is a condition beyond your ability to change despite your desire to change it.
I think it best if I approach the question with a more structured understanding of the word in question - discrimination, or discriminate. Using Websters definition that I think most applies to the subject matter
Main Entry: dis·crim·i·nate
"2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit" ( http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?...=discriminating )
and applied to the subject matter, homosexuality and marriage, I find it readily apparent that no attempt is being made to ascertain the "individual merit" of any sanctioned marriages - homosexual or heterosexual. Well, that is, beyond the already existing legal requirements (blood test, license, proof of identity ect). So what "differentiates" any of the other legal requirements from one of them being the requirement of specifically and only being between a man and a woman?
Again, I refer to Mr. Webster
Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tion
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment ( http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?...=discriminating )
No surprise here, again we're discriminating by categories and not individuals, but "b" holds the key, "prejudicial treatment".
Main Entry: 2prejudice
1 : to injure or damage by some judgment or action (as in a case of law)
( http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?...diced&x=18&y=17 )
AH, so to discriminate against someone is to injure or damage them. Well, government sanctioned injury against someone, or even worse - a category of people is something I find reprehensible, and contradictory to the concept of a free society and equal treatment under the law. I doubt anyone would like to part of a "CATEGORY" of people who are being injured or damaged.
So to categorically discriminate against someone is injurious, as in the case of homosexual marriage, but to discriminate against an individual based on merit - such as the convicted felons is not. I should point out that discriminating against an individual felon convicted of animal abuse applying for a job at an animal shelter would be an example of using good judgement because of the relevance of the crime, while discriminating against that person for a job at the local fast food outlet is discrimination based on category. Which is my answer to the second original question.
Main Entry: dis·crim·i·nate
1 a : to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> b : to use good judgment
( http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?...=discriminating )
I also want to point out that I think the question attempts to infer that homosexuality is a choice, and that one can simply choose not to be homosexual, but one cannot help to be anything other than whatever their heritage or race is (Michael Jackson excluded). I consider that flawed logic, and have yet to see conclusive proof one way or another regarding biological/biochemical foundations for homosexuality. But I do see legal precedents for equal treatment under the law.
QUOTE
I may discriminate against someone, though, who wears a blue jacket with a Hell's Angels patch. He hasn't done anything else in my view, but is it not reasonable to judge that person, using my own biases and morals, based on his behavior (ie. the patch)?
Again, this is an example of categorical discrimination, no where in this example has any attempt been made to evaluate the merit of the individual.
QUOTE
More importantly, shouldn't that be my right?
perhaps, but I think your personal right here is trumped by the fact that it infringes upon another's personal rights. This may be a matter of business law if it is referring specifically to wether or not you want to hire that person, but if it is just a matter of whether or not you want to interact with him, then it is certainly your right. QUOTE
I think anti-discrimination has gone too far in preventing people from making rational decisions about what they choose to permit in their environment.
I've heard this argument before, and I find it to be nothing more than a convoluted attempt to justify the unjustifiable. This is an argument for segregation, bigotry, the holocaust, and any other form of discrimination. By attempting to invoke a right to authority over the actions of others you attempt to trump their rights guaranteed to them under the law, and create the same basis by which they could effectively trump your rights. That is why the extent of any persons rights ends at the point where they infringe upon the rights of another. This is an old argument, only a new spin to it here. Your reason, rationale, morals, beliefs are irrelevant to the issue, just a way to cloud and obscure it. I call it the "how dare you deny me my right to deny other's their rights" mindset. QUOTE
In terms of Newsome and S.F., I believe it is right for the public to discriminate, not against homosexuals, but against their actions. More specifically, equal protection should not extend to forcing the public to permit certain actions to be sanctioned and considered acceptable carte blanche. So, while we can say any homosexual is free to behave as he chooses in his own home or within any private establishment which welcomes his behavior, he is restricted from performing those actions in a manner which implies and requires the public's approval.
Maybe I'm drifting here, but what the heck. I find this whole issue to be missing one key ingredient, the separation of church and state. I accept the concept that marriage is a function of religion, a religous ceremony, and as such the catholic church has the right not to sanction homosexual marriage. However, I do NOT accept the premise that since legal status has been given to a religous function that the state can therefore permit sanctioned legal discrimination because the private institution of the church does so. As you put it, I do not believe in the state "forcing the public to permit certain actions to be sanctioned and considered acceptable" that are religous functions. For example, I would not suggest that we change the legal drinking age for jewish boys to 13. This is the danger of blending religion into a supposedly "free" society. If the state choses to do away with the term "marriage" legally, in favor of "union", or something similar, so that both homosexual and heterosexual couples can enjoy the same rights, I will have no problem with the church deciding who can and can't get "married". until then, I'm in favor of equal rights under the law.
QUOTE
I accept the concept that marriage is a function of religion, a religous ceremony, and as such the catholic church has the right not to sanction homosexual marriage.
Agree with most of what you said. I wanted to interject that actually marriage is not a function of religion, strictly speaking, although many people choose to get married in churches, temples, etc. It's a civil ceremony, first and foremost, which confers special legal status upon the particpants - i.e. tax breaks, etc.
QUOTE(countrockula @ Aug 12 2004, 08:02 PM)
QUOTE
I accept the concept that marriage is a function of religion, a religous ceremony, and as such the catholic church has the right not to sanction homosexual marriage.
Agree with most of what you said. I wanted to interject that actually marriage is not a function of religion, strictly speaking, although many people choose to get married in churches, temples, etc. It's a civil ceremony, first and foremost, which confers special legal status upon the particpants - i.e. tax breaks, etc.
I had considered that, but I think that is more the "MODERN" definition. I wish I could say for sure, but I can't, but I think that before marriage was ever given any legal status in any culture, it was firstly a religous matter. Anyone know the history of marriage? Who first started it, ancient Hebews, Phoencians, Eygptians, Romans ?
Anyway, at some point it must have been sactioned into law in this counrty, and that is where the mistake (IMO) started.
"Maybe I'm drifting here, but what the heck. I find this whole issue to be missing one key ingredient, the separation of church and state. "
I am not a proponent of legislating religious beliefs per se. Although, our legal code is adopted from Judeo-Christian beliefs. Still, if it were a matter of a church's position on homosexuality, I would agree with you. Marriage, though, has been adopted by the state, when I can not say. It does, in my view, perform a social function and defines a culture. In the U.S., I would suggest it defines our ideal family type, the nuclear family and produces an incentive for building such a family type. Advocating some other form for marriage would be to deny that the ideal family is important, and I don't think that would be a positive thing to do. Still, I don't want to get into a debate over gay marriage. It does illustrate a point I am attemptng to make. This is not an attempt at bigotry as one person suggested. All humans are created equal. From their actions, they are separated. Gay marriage happens to be the example which is in the lime light right now. I would make the argument that forcing employers to accept family leave as an extension of gender equality is another example. If a woman leaves her job for an extended period of time, why should the employer be compelled to hold her job? The purpose of such laws was to negate gender inequity. I believe, rather, they force employers to accept gender non-specific behavior. Some states have actually created family leave acts to allow men to take off for an extended period of time to deal with medical emergencies and newborns. We are forcing the acceptance of diferent types of behavior in the name of equality. This attempt at eliminating the discrimination of action is leading to a grave restriction of freedom for the individual.
I am not a proponent of legislating religious beliefs per se. Although, our legal code is adopted from Judeo-Christian beliefs. Still, if it were a matter of a church's position on homosexuality, I would agree with you. Marriage, though, has been adopted by the state, when I can not say. It does, in my view, perform a social function and defines a culture. In the U.S., I would suggest it defines our ideal family type, the nuclear family and produces an incentive for building such a family type. Advocating some other form for marriage would be to deny that the ideal family is important, and I don't think that would be a positive thing to do. Still, I don't want to get into a debate over gay marriage. It does illustrate a point I am attemptng to make. This is not an attempt at bigotry as one person suggested. All humans are created equal. From their actions, they are separated. Gay marriage happens to be the example which is in the lime light right now. I would make the argument that forcing employers to accept family leave as an extension of gender equality is another example. If a woman leaves her job for an extended period of time, why should the employer be compelled to hold her job? The purpose of such laws was to negate gender inequity. I believe, rather, they force employers to accept gender non-specific behavior. Some states have actually created family leave acts to allow men to take off for an extended period of time to deal with medical emergencies and newborns. We are forcing the acceptance of diferent types of behavior in the name of equality. This attempt at eliminating the discrimination of action is leading to a grave restriction of freedom for the individual.
QUOTE(ibelsd @ Aug 13 2004, 08:20 AM)
I would make the argument that forcing employers to accept family leave as an extension of gender equality is another example. If a woman leaves her job for an extended period of time, why should the employer be compelled to hold her job? The purpose of such laws was to negate gender inequity. I believe, rather, they force employers to accept gender non-specific behavior. Some states have actually created family leave acts to allow men to take off for an extended period of time to deal with medical emergencies and newborns. We are forcing the acceptance of diferent types of behavior in the name of equality. This attempt at eliminating the discrimination of action is leading to a grave restriction of freedom for the individual. My Emphasis
Huh? How did you work that out?
Doesn't the freedom of parents to spend time with their new-born children trump the freedom of employers to sack workers on a whim, if for no other reason than more people gain a new "right" than lose an old one?
[quote]I am not a proponent of legislating religious beliefs per se. Although, our legal code is adopted from Judeo-Christian beliefs. [/quote]
That is a position I have heard repeatedly, and it holds no more water today than the day it was first floated. Judeo-Christian beliefs were held by ancient civilizations long before there Judeo-Christian beliefs. I find our LEGAL CODE to be more an adoption of greek democracy and legal code, some aspects of which overlap. But many differences could be pointed out, does that negate the similarities, of course not. However it does stress the point that our legal code is just that, the legal code, as written and differentiated by the founding fathers, using their good judgement, to provide the highest possible level of freedom for any individual, with the exceptions they incorporated. Had they wished it to be more in line with Judeo-Christian beliefs they would have made it so, or just said that the law of the land is the bible, or whatever, but they didn't.
[quote] Still, if it were a matter of a church's position on homosexuality, I would agree with you. Marriage, though, has been adopted by the state, when I can not say. It does, in my view, perform a social function and defines a culture.[/quote]
Valid point, however our LEGAL CODE does not to the best of my knowledge attempt to secure or establish any type of specific culture, it does however specify the legal rights of individuals. Legally defining a culture is only a matter of semantics in comparison to social engineering - something I find that those who support the concept of Judeo-Christian beliefs as establishment of social doctrine are against when it comes to bussing minority students, the "liberalization" of the education system and affirmative action. Some of which I do not agree with myself either.
[quote]In the U.S., I would suggest it defines our ideal family type, the nuclear family and produces an incentive for building such a family type.[/quote]
Again, social engineering at the expense of individual rights.
[quote]Advocating some other form for marriage would be to deny that the ideal family is important,[/quote]
I don't see how. I see it as expanding the concept of what can have value, similar to the way we now value our women enough to let them vote and own property. It has in no way devalued the property of men, or diminished the significance of their vote.
[quote]and I don't think that would be a positive thing to do.[/quote]
Please explain how it would be a negative thing.
[quote]Still, I don't want to get into a debate over gay marriage.[/quote]
That may be a debate in and of itself, considering that your original post was about this exact subject matter. To keep it in broad general terms, I'll stick with my previous statement:
[quote]AH, so to discriminate against someone is to injure or damage them. Well, government sanctioned injury against someone, or even worse - a category of people is something I find reprehensible, and contradictory to the concept of a free society and equal treatment under the law. I doubt anyone would like to part of a "CATEGORY" of people who are being injured or damaged.[/quote]
[quote]It does illustrate a point I am attemptng to make. This is not an attempt at bigotry as one person suggested. All humans are created equal. From their actions, they are separated. Gay marriage happens to be the example which is in the lime light right now.[/quote]
And if any action they take is within their LEGAL rights to do so, then they should not be sanctioned against. You're putting forth a position that because of their homosexual actions they should have some right or rights that they would otherwise normally enjoy, taken from them. In a logical sense you're asking for homosexuality to be criminalized, so that by engaging in a homosexual act they will have broken the law and thereby be subject in the same manner to sanctions in a way that we similarly have sanctions against prisoners and/or convicts.
[quote]I would make the argument that forcing employers to accept family leave as an extension of gender equality is another example. If a woman leaves her job for an extended period of time, why should the employer be compelled to hold her job?[/quote]
I might have missed your point so forgive me if I get it wrong but....
On one hand you seem to be supporting the value of family or the IDEAL family, yet here you wish to make an exception to that belief for employers. I would argue that providing a secure home and the financial resources to do so are an intrinsic necessity for providing a "positive" family environment. From an absolute standpoint you're correct, why should an employer be required to hold someone's job for them, I find no legal foundation for it. However I can point to several different negative effects of having someone loose their job because they needed time off for family emergencies.
[quote] The purpose of such laws was to negate gender inequity. I believe, rather, they force employers to accept gender non-specific behavior.[/quote]
As in extending the same benefit to both men and women? I believe that you're correct, because to do otherwise would be to discriminate, i.e. harm, one group of people categorically.
[quote]Some states have actually created family leave acts to allow men to take off for an extended period of time to deal with medical emergencies and newborns. We are forcing the acceptance of diferent types of behavior in the name of equality.[/quote]
No, we are forcing the acceptance of the SAME behavior, by a person of a different gender.
[quote]This attempt at eliminating the discrimination of action is leading to a grave restriction of freedom for the individual.[/quote]
I lost you again, please explain how. Do you mean the freedom of the employer to terminate someone?
Lastly, I feel you should re-examine your concept of what your freedom entails. Unfortunately, by definition, it is not freedom, there are restrictions. In order for a free society to be free for everyone, or as many people as possible, limits have to be placed on the freedom of all individuals. Those limits prevent the exercise of one person's freedom from taking away the freedom of another. Unless we have a totally uniform society which is highly unlikely, and by definition - not free itself. Part of the responsibility we all hold for ensuring our own freedom is to ensure the freedom of those who differ from us, because giving cause and reason to take another's freedom is to establish a means to give cause and reason for our own freedoms to be taken.
EDIT: all sorts of stuff, grammar, spelling, added a few sentances for clarity....
That is a position I have heard repeatedly, and it holds no more water today than the day it was first floated. Judeo-Christian beliefs were held by ancient civilizations long before there Judeo-Christian beliefs. I find our LEGAL CODE to be more an adoption of greek democracy and legal code, some aspects of which overlap. But many differences could be pointed out, does that negate the similarities, of course not. However it does stress the point that our legal code is just that, the legal code, as written and differentiated by the founding fathers, using their good judgement, to provide the highest possible level of freedom for any individual, with the exceptions they incorporated. Had they wished it to be more in line with Judeo-Christian beliefs they would have made it so, or just said that the law of the land is the bible, or whatever, but they didn't.
[quote] Still, if it were a matter of a church's position on homosexuality, I would agree with you. Marriage, though, has been adopted by the state, when I can not say. It does, in my view, perform a social function and defines a culture.[/quote]
Valid point, however our LEGAL CODE does not to the best of my knowledge attempt to secure or establish any type of specific culture, it does however specify the legal rights of individuals. Legally defining a culture is only a matter of semantics in comparison to social engineering - something I find that those who support the concept of Judeo-Christian beliefs as establishment of social doctrine are against when it comes to bussing minority students, the "liberalization" of the education system and affirmative action. Some of which I do not agree with myself either.
[quote]In the U.S., I would suggest it defines our ideal family type, the nuclear family and produces an incentive for building such a family type.[/quote]
Again, social engineering at the expense of individual rights.
[quote]Advocating some other form for marriage would be to deny that the ideal family is important,[/quote]
I don't see how. I see it as expanding the concept of what can have value, similar to the way we now value our women enough to let them vote and own property. It has in no way devalued the property of men, or diminished the significance of their vote.
[quote]and I don't think that would be a positive thing to do.[/quote]
Please explain how it would be a negative thing.
[quote]Still, I don't want to get into a debate over gay marriage.[/quote]
That may be a debate in and of itself, considering that your original post was about this exact subject matter. To keep it in broad general terms, I'll stick with my previous statement:
[quote]AH, so to discriminate against someone is to injure or damage them. Well, government sanctioned injury against someone, or even worse - a category of people is something I find reprehensible, and contradictory to the concept of a free society and equal treatment under the law. I doubt anyone would like to part of a "CATEGORY" of people who are being injured or damaged.[/quote]
[quote]It does illustrate a point I am attemptng to make. This is not an attempt at bigotry as one person suggested. All humans are created equal. From their actions, they are separated. Gay marriage happens to be the example which is in the lime light right now.[/quote]
And if any action they take is within their LEGAL rights to do so, then they should not be sanctioned against. You're putting forth a position that because of their homosexual actions they should have some right or rights that they would otherwise normally enjoy, taken from them. In a logical sense you're asking for homosexuality to be criminalized, so that by engaging in a homosexual act they will have broken the law and thereby be subject in the same manner to sanctions in a way that we similarly have sanctions against prisoners and/or convicts.
[quote]I would make the argument that forcing employers to accept family leave as an extension of gender equality is another example. If a woman leaves her job for an extended period of time, why should the employer be compelled to hold her job?[/quote]
I might have missed your point so forgive me if I get it wrong but....
On one hand you seem to be supporting the value of family or the IDEAL family, yet here you wish to make an exception to that belief for employers. I would argue that providing a secure home and the financial resources to do so are an intrinsic necessity for providing a "positive" family environment. From an absolute standpoint you're correct, why should an employer be required to hold someone's job for them, I find no legal foundation for it. However I can point to several different negative effects of having someone loose their job because they needed time off for family emergencies.
[quote] The purpose of such laws was to negate gender inequity. I believe, rather, they force employers to accept gender non-specific behavior.[/quote]
As in extending the same benefit to both men and women? I believe that you're correct, because to do otherwise would be to discriminate, i.e. harm, one group of people categorically.
[quote]Some states have actually created family leave acts to allow men to take off for an extended period of time to deal with medical emergencies and newborns. We are forcing the acceptance of diferent types of behavior in the name of equality.[/quote]
No, we are forcing the acceptance of the SAME behavior, by a person of a different gender.
[quote]This attempt at eliminating the discrimination of action is leading to a grave restriction of freedom for the individual.[/quote]
I lost you again, please explain how. Do you mean the freedom of the employer to terminate someone?
Lastly, I feel you should re-examine your concept of what your freedom entails. Unfortunately, by definition, it is not freedom, there are restrictions. In order for a free society to be free for everyone, or as many people as possible, limits have to be placed on the freedom of all individuals. Those limits prevent the exercise of one person's freedom from taking away the freedom of another. Unless we have a totally uniform society which is highly unlikely, and by definition - not free itself. Part of the responsibility we all hold for ensuring our own freedom is to ensure the freedom of those who differ from us, because giving cause and reason to take another's freedom is to establish a means to give cause and reason for our own freedoms to be taken.
EDIT: all sorts of stuff, grammar, spelling, added a few sentances for clarity....
To stick with the workplace, I'll stipulate a couple of things for the moment: an employer deciding not to hire a person with blue eyes definitely impinges upon that blue-eyed person's freedom. A law against it also impinges upon the employers freedom, to a degree. But in such a scenario, who holds the greater power in the relationship?
The force of anti-discrimination laws are brought to bear against the entity (the employer here) that holds a greater degree of freedom to start with. No employer sues because a job applicant says, "Ya know, I'd take the job, but I just can't work for a blue-eyed guy. Sorry."
Those laws are put in place to address what is seen as chronic, unfair practices by employers who wield power (and therefore possess more freedom of action to start with) over a specific class of person who necessarily wield less societal power. Legally, the manner of person discriminated against must belong to a 'suspect class' as previously defined by precedent, or a successful argument must be made that the plaintiff(s) constitute a new suspect class. Furthermore, a single case of illegal discrimination against an individual rarely qualifies; these are generally class-action suits. Such lawsuits are also incredibly hard to prove.
A suspect class in this instance is one against which there has been a longstanding, insidious pattern of societal discrimination, one without basis in utility and motivated by irrational animus. Black people, for example, are a suspect class in American law. In the recent Lawrence v. Texas, the US Supreme Court stopped just short of declaring gay people a suspect class, but didn't rule it out, either.
So what does that mean in the real world? If you (as an employer) decide not to hire one gay guy, essentially no one in the legal establishment cares, and he has almost no recourse. Decide not to hire gay people as a company policy (plus write a memo about it, fail to destroy the memo before a subpoena arrives, and fail to threaten your executives into perjuring themselves in depositions) well, then you might be in trouble. See what I mean about your starting position of greater freedom?
What does it mean morally? It means that you are perfectly willing to place your own freedom of action above that of people who have less of it before they walk in the door-- and willing to do so, even if your reasons for it are irrational and psychologically suspect. It doesn't exactly speak well of you, does it?
The force of anti-discrimination laws are brought to bear against the entity (the employer here) that holds a greater degree of freedom to start with. No employer sues because a job applicant says, "Ya know, I'd take the job, but I just can't work for a blue-eyed guy. Sorry."
Those laws are put in place to address what is seen as chronic, unfair practices by employers who wield power (and therefore possess more freedom of action to start with) over a specific class of person who necessarily wield less societal power. Legally, the manner of person discriminated against must belong to a 'suspect class' as previously defined by precedent, or a successful argument must be made that the plaintiff(s) constitute a new suspect class. Furthermore, a single case of illegal discrimination against an individual rarely qualifies; these are generally class-action suits. Such lawsuits are also incredibly hard to prove.
A suspect class in this instance is one against which there has been a longstanding, insidious pattern of societal discrimination, one without basis in utility and motivated by irrational animus. Black people, for example, are a suspect class in American law. In the recent Lawrence v. Texas, the US Supreme Court stopped just short of declaring gay people a suspect class, but didn't rule it out, either.
So what does that mean in the real world? If you (as an employer) decide not to hire one gay guy, essentially no one in the legal establishment cares, and he has almost no recourse. Decide not to hire gay people as a company policy (plus write a memo about it, fail to destroy the memo before a subpoena arrives, and fail to threaten your executives into perjuring themselves in depositions) well, then you might be in trouble. See what I mean about your starting position of greater freedom?
What does it mean morally? It means that you are perfectly willing to place your own freedom of action above that of people who have less of it before they walk in the door-- and willing to do so, even if your reasons for it are irrational and psychologically suspect. It doesn't exactly speak well of you, does it?
QUOTE(SuzySteamboat @ Aug 12 2004, 04:33 PM)
You are free to be as biased as you want against anyone you want. The trouble starts when you want to codify those biases into law. Is it right for someone who's opposed to interracial marriage to try to pass an amendment banning two people of different races from marrying? Is it right for someone who's opposed to gay marriage to try to pass an amendment banning two people of different genders from marrying?
No, and no, and I'll tell you why. The position that "homosexuality is immoral" is completely, totally irrational and unfounded. I've already demonstrated why. I feel the same way about people who think eating pork is immoral, but those people aren't trying to codify their beliefs and outright biases against pork into law.
The position you're taking, ibelsd, doesn't hold water. You cannot separate an action and the person doing the action when the person is someone whom, by definition, will commit the action. No one has been trying to make anyone accept homosexuals, or "approve" of them, or take away your right to hate them. They just want a damn marriage license, good grief. You aren't even making a mountain of a molehill; you are making a mountain out of nothing.
Let's say five hundred thousand gay couples were granted the right to marry, and did so tomorrow. How would your life, and your rights as an American citizen, in any possible way be negated by two human beings confirming their love for one another? Would the world end? Would all programming with straight couples be taken off the air and replaced with endless reruns of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy? No, it wouldn't. They would get married, love each other, and your life would continue as if nothing happened. Getting married does not require "the public's approval." It is none of the public's business whom wants to marry whom. Marriage is a personal matter.
I'm not even going to touch your comments about Mexicans.
No, and no, and I'll tell you why. The position that "homosexuality is immoral" is completely, totally irrational and unfounded. I've already demonstrated why. I feel the same way about people who think eating pork is immoral, but those people aren't trying to codify their beliefs and outright biases against pork into law.
The position you're taking, ibelsd, doesn't hold water. You cannot separate an action and the person doing the action when the person is someone whom, by definition, will commit the action. No one has been trying to make anyone accept homosexuals, or "approve" of them, or take away your right to hate them. They just want a damn marriage license, good grief. You aren't even making a mountain of a molehill; you are making a mountain out of nothing.
Let's say five hundred thousand gay couples were granted the right to marry, and did so tomorrow. How would your life, and your rights as an American citizen, in any possible way be negated by two human beings confirming their love for one another? Would the world end? Would all programming with straight couples be taken off the air and replaced with endless reruns of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy? No, it wouldn't. They would get married, love each other, and your life would continue as if nothing happened. Getting married does not require "the public's approval." It is none of the public's business whom wants to marry whom. Marriage is a personal matter.
I'm not even going to touch your comments about Mexicans.
I am using an expedient and relevant example. Period. I sat for a few moments when I wrote that and tried to think of another exmaple which would be as clear.
You call my beliefs biased. Ok. That is technically true. I am biased. My point is that bias and discrimination aren't always bad. Understand, my bias is not against homosexual people. It isn't even against their actions as sexual beings. I am biased against homosexual partners raising families. Why? Research shows children are best served by being raised by two adults who are their biological mother and father. My bias is against destroying the current ideal of what marriage is. I am choosing to discriminate against homosexual people in this instance. I choose to discriminate because the behavior they are proposing is harmful to others. It will not destroy the country or lead to some sort of anarchy. To say something is harmful doesn't mean I am presenting a doomsday scenario. If you can show valid research which doesn't support my view, I am prepared to change my mind. This is the root of my argument. We are so afraid to discriminate we allow ourselves to ignore objective information to cater towards behavior which isn't justifiable or even harmful. I could use an example of a woman who sued to keep her job at a Christian school even though she had a child out of wedlock and set an example which went against the school's teachings. She won. I think this is a terrible use of anti-discrimination laws. Sometimes, discrimination is a positive thing in that it sets up certain standards for the community and the idividual. It sets the bar for behavior that we can expect when we deal with others.
QUOTE(ibelsd @ Aug 16 2004, 05:15 PM)
My bias is against destroying the current ideal of what marriage is. I am choosing to discriminate against homosexual people in this instance. I choose to discriminate because the behavior they are proposing is harmful to others. It will not destroy the country or lead to some sort of anarchy. To say something is harmful doesn't mean I am presenting a doomsday scenario. If you can show valid research which doesn't support my view, I am prepared to change my mind.
Personally, I'd like to see some research supporting your view ibelsd that homosexuals are harmful to anyone. You assert much but provide little evidence in support of your views. If you want to make your case that discrimination is ok for your chosen example, the burden of proof is on you to prove to everyone here that homosexuals are in fact harmful to others as you suggest. That is not even close to a mainstream view, the country as a whole is sharply divided on it.
The more likely scenario according to common sense is that if homosexuals were allowed to marry then the world would go on much as it does today. Today homosexuals are living their lives together, sharing the same roof and raising children. Has the world come to an end? Hardly. Has the sanctity of marriage been destroyed? Not unless you intend to blame the divorce rate amongst heterosexuals on homosexuals.
QUOTE
I choose to discriminate because the behavior they are proposing is harmful to others.
Using the 2nd amendment as an example only, there is plenty of proof that can be shown to state the case that proliferation of firearms in this country is harmful to others - HOWEVER, the 2nd amendment still exists. My point being the the rights afforded to any individual should not be trumped by the rights of another individual. As members of a "free" society we will all eventually find ourselves being forced to be tolerant of something that we might not individually agree with, that is the price of freedom FOR ALL.
QUOTE
It will not destroy the country or lead to some sort of anarchy. To say something is harmful doesn't mean I am presenting a doomsday scenario. If you can show valid research which doesn't support my view, I am prepared to change my mind. This is the root of my argument. We are so afraid to discriminate we allow ourselves to ignore objective information to cater towards behavior which isn't justifiable or even harmful.
Justifiable, you're proposing that equal rights are unjustifiable?
QUOTE
I could use an example of a woman who sued to keep her job at a Christian school even though she had a child out of wedlock and set an example which went against the school's teachings. She won.
Rightfully so it would seem. Her personal actions outside of the workplace are irrelevant to her actions in the workplace.
QUOTE
I think this is a terrible use of anti-discrimination laws. Sometimes, discrimination is a positive thing
In so far as the definition relates to the use of good judgement, like the previous convict example, but categorical discrimination is proven to be harmful and injurious.
QUOTE
in that it sets up certain standards for the community and the idividual. It sets the bar for behavior that we can expect when we deal with others.
Again, you're preaching social engineering, something contrary to freedom. By invoking the concept of community and society you're attempting to give weight to an argument for a non-free society, akin to communism. What happens if such a bar for social behavior is set somewhere where you don't like it, then your rights are being trashed, which is injurious and shouldn't be permitted, the price you have to pay to safeguard your rights is to safeguard those of others, not just those who are in line with you. Because that line can shift with time, and you may well find yourself on the "other" side of it.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Aug 16 2004, 05:32 PM)
Personally, I'd like to see some research supporting your view ibelsd that homosexuals are harmful to anyone. You assert much but provide little evidence in support of your views. If you want to make your case that discrimination is ok for your chosen example, the burden of proof is on you to prove to everyone here that homosexuals are in fact harmful to others as you suggest. That is not even close to a mainstream view, the country as a whole is sharply divided on it.
The more likely scenario according to common sense is that if homosexuals were allowed to marry then the world would go on much as it does today. Today homosexuals are living their lives together, sharing the same roof and raising children. Has the world come to an end? Hardly. Has the sanctity of marriage been destroyed? Not unless you intend to blame the divorce rate amongst heterosexuals on homosexuals.
The more likely scenario according to common sense is that if homosexuals were allowed to marry then the world would go on much as it does today. Today homosexuals are living their lives together, sharing the same roof and raising children. Has the world come to an end? Hardly. Has the sanctity of marriage been destroyed? Not unless you intend to blame the divorce rate amongst heterosexuals on homosexuals.
Look Cube. Do the research yourself. You know full well it is out there. If you had found anything contrary, you would have pasted it all over the place. I have no burden of proof. I am in favor of maintaining the status quo in this instance. The burden is all yours. Apparemtly your common sense world doesn't mesh with mine. In my world, actions have consequences, and that is my point. In our desire to let everyone live as they would like does not mean they have the right to change the values of a given society, particularly if that change in values results in harm to other individuals. When an individual or group wishes to alter the value system to fit their interests, it is their burden to show harm will not result. Not the other way around.
In terms of the 2nd amendment, which someone brought out. It is a right to own a gun, but not to use that gun in any way one chooses. Their is a restriction to the second amendment. There is a restriction to the first amendment. No right is absolute. Now, we don't allow criminals to vote due to their actions. Some would like to overturn this law. It is discrimination against criminals who have done their time. I agree. It is. It is a proper use of discrimination. The list goes on and on.
QUOTE(ibelsd @ Aug 16 2004, 11:22 PM)
Look Cube. Do the research yourself. You know full well it is out there. If you had found anything contrary, you would have pasted it all over the place. I have no burden of proof.
But you are wrong, you do have the burden of proof here Ibelsd because you are the one that started this topic and pretty much every single person here that has posted has called you on what you call the "status quo" and "common sense". I would say that is a good indication your premises might be flawed. Furthermore, you are the one that introduced homosexual marriage as the primary example in support of your argument that discrimination can be justified - not me. You need to back that position up with evidence if you expect anyone to engage you or take you seriously. You might consider reading the Surival Guide and specifically this section regarding sources.
You seem to feel homosexuals are harmful to society and I'd like to know what you are basing your information on. In your own words:
QUOTE(Ibelsd)
Why? Research shows children are best served by being raised by two adults who are their biological mother and father.
I'd like to see this research you are talking about ibelsd, because I don't buy it. You cannot submit something like this as support for your argument and then not provide the research, that is just lazy debating and if we all did that then AD wouldn't have much value.
QUOTE
In my world, actions have consequences, and that is my point.
Yes, you are correct. The consequences of the action of sanctioned discrimination, by denying a category of people equal rights, is that of creating the means, justification and authority of the sanctioning body to deny any and every other category of people their equal rights. There are no two ways about it.
QUOTE
In our desire to let everyone live as they would like does not mean they have the right to change the values of a given society,
Well first off, no one is "CHANGING" anything, this issue is not about change, it's about equal rights. Someone, or some group of someones exercising a right they've always had but haven't always used, is not changing anything. Second, the concept of equal rights dates back exactly as far as the founding of this country, even though at the time everyone was granted equal right on paper, in practice it was something quite different. The right of women to vote for example. Thirdly since when, and where, does a society have "RIGHTS"??? I can point to the constitution and talk about the rights of the individual, I can point to many laws on the books and talk about the rights of the individual, can you point to anything anywhere LEGALLY that defines or sanctions the right(s) of "society". States have rights, but none that I know of that can override the rights of an individual (o.k., I can actually think of one or two, both of which are generally unpopular and I have problems with myself).
And lastly, as a self-governing people, do we all not posses our equal share of ability to change our society? Since our views, ideas, desires, sensibilities and technology all influence our society we all have an equally proportional ability to influence the evolution of our society. A society is formed when people of common beliefs come together, every individual has the right to believe as they wish, by combining with similar others they form a society. If a portion of that society drifts in a different direction they become a different society, but the one thing they all have in common is that they are all formed by the uniting if INDIVIDUALS. And that is why individual rights are protected.
QUOTE
particularly if that change in values results in harm to other individuals.
I'll agree with you on your previous post that you don't have a burden of proof, but since your argument has no weight I would think it would be to your advantage if you could provide some proof.
QUOTE
When an individual or group wishes to alter the value system to fit their interests, it is their burden to show harm will not result. Not the other way around.
WRONG, an individual, or group of individuals may alter the value system to fit any interest they desire, provided they don't negate the rights of other individuals, and, they convince enough other individuals that the values they favor are desirable. We do it every couple of years in this country, whenever there is an election. Your argument is to say that republicans shouldn't be elected because they will harm the values of democrats and vice versa.
QUOTE
In terms of the 2nd amendment, which someone brought out. It is a right to own a gun, but not to use that gun in any way one chooses.
I don't believe there should be, mind you I' m not in favor of indiscriminate gun use, but I will support anyone's right to "keep and bear arms" because I don't want a precedent being set for someone else to limit my right to free speech. If we were building a new government from scratch, I would do away with the 2nd, but we're not, so even though I may not like it I feel I have to accept it, and oppose any infringement of it in order to maintain my other rights which I so dearly cherish.
QUOTE
Now, we don't allow criminals to vote due to their actions.
That is discrimination based on merit, not on category, there is a difference, in fact it is the difference.
Cube, I have said twice that a an ideal marriage, one that is ideal for children, is one which consists of the two biological parents of the child. Each time you have rebutted with the concept that I am singling out homosexual persons as harmful. Read my words closely. A homosexual couple is one of many possible arrangements which would be less than ideal for a child. It may not even be the worst arrangement for a child. A loving homosexual couple would, indeed, be a better family for a child than a single drug addict, mother.
Here is a link which corraborates with much of what I have been saying. You have to read the section starting with Traditional Parenting Still Seen As An Ideal. My guess is this won't change many people's minds or cause people to alter their thinking, but enough people asked for evidence. So here it is.
Here is a link which corraborates with much of what I have been saying. You have to read the section starting with Traditional Parenting Still Seen As An Ideal. My guess is this won't change many people's minds or cause people to alter their thinking, but enough people asked for evidence. So here it is.
By "here" you mean...
At a certain point your failure to source yourself is going to appear intentional as opposed to merely a byproduct of your particular posts.
This may be true. Of course, you haven't actually provided any research and I don't feel like doing your work for you.
The last time I checked there is no law preventing people convicted of drug-offenses from getting married or procreating. Would you advocate such a law? The fact is that you acknowledge that a loving gay couple could be effective parents. More to the point, the evidence bares this out. Need proof? Here's some of that 'evidence' stuff that everyone keeps talking about...
Now what's interesting (and inherently irrational) about your argument is that you have posited that the reason that same-sex parents are deficient (without proving) is the same-sex nature of the relationship, instead of the legal ambiguity that surrounds such situations and the social tolerance for such relationships. Surely as an "Objectivist" you would need to be able to demonstrate this in a rational fashion before you accepted it as truth. Have you done any experimentation to weigh the relative effects? Have you read any such research? I doubt it since it doesn't exist in a manner that supports your position. Evidence that counters your opinion can of course be had, and is provided below. Chances are if I were a child of a same sex couple I would certainly pay more attention to the fact that my parents didn't have the same rights, and were treated differently, than the fact that they were themselves constituted differently. Gomes writes on this issue as well.
Further supporting this position is Janine Roberts of the American Family Therapy Academy:
What this suggests is that the discrimination of people like yourself causes harm; which underlies the fact that you obviously do not think purely of the social effects on the children; and are instead influenced by your own prejudiced understanding of same-sex relationships.
Of course this all falls apart if you could prove that same-sex partnerships were in general harmful. Since you have not done that in any meaningful way, a few simple bits of evidence that it is NOT the case completely invalidates your argument.
Want more evidence that is the DISCRIMINATION itself and not the 'objective' position that you and others like you profess to take that is to blame for the difficulties involved in same-sex parenting situations?
I will close with one last statement from Perrin:
This all fits in with the commonsense understanding that it's not WHO the parents are, but rather HOW they go about parenting that influences the development of a child; with the effects of external pressures playing a lesser role.
Now, what does all this mean in the context of issues of discrimination? Again, discrimination is an instinctual biological process which we all engage in. As social creatures it is up to us to ameliorate this process so it is compatible with social interactions. It is pretty clear that your discrimination against same-sex parents has little to do with children, and everything to do with homosexuality itself; and as such incompatible with society at large (by way of the harm inferred on such children; which is proved above.) Therefore the discrimination you are engaged in is in fact wrong, and harmful; and I sincerely hope that you are capable of seeing the truth of the matter.
1. Gomes, Charlene. "Partners as parents: challenges faced by gays denied marriage." Humanist. Nov/Dec2003, Vol. 63 Issue 6, p14, 6p
2. Gomes, Charlene. "The need for Recognition of Same-sex marriage." Humanist. Sep/Oct2003, Vol. 63 Issue 5, p15, 7p, 1bw
3. Roberts, Janine. "Same-sex parenting." Pediatrics. Jan2003, Vol. 111 Issue 1, p225, 1p
4. Perrin, Ellen C. "Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-sex parents." Pediatrics. Feb2002 Part 1 of 2, Vol. 109 Issue 2, p341, 4p
edited to fix citation error
At a certain point your failure to source yourself is going to appear intentional as opposed to merely a byproduct of your particular posts.
QUOTE
Research shows children are best served by being raised by two adults who are their biological mother and father. My bias is against destroying the current ideal of what marriage is.
This may be true. Of course, you haven't actually provided any research and I don't feel like doing your work for you.
QUOTE
A loving homosexual couple would, indeed, be a better family for a child than a single drug addict, mother.
The last time I checked there is no law preventing people convicted of drug-offenses from getting married or procreating. Would you advocate such a law? The fact is that you acknowledge that a loving gay couple could be effective parents. More to the point, the evidence bares this out. Need proof? Here's some of that 'evidence' stuff that everyone keeps talking about...
QUOTE(Charlene Gomes)
In her 1997 Family Advocate article "Debunking Myths About Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children," Kathryn Kendall addresses the gender identity and sexual orientation of children raised by gay parents. Kendall points out that numerous studies conducted since 1978 have found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are "indistinguishable from other children in terms of gender identity, gender role behavior, and general psychological health" and that the incidence of same-sex orientation among children of gay and lesbian parents is the same as for heterosexual parents. Likewise, Kendall found that in terms of self-esteem, divorce does more damage to children than does their parent's sexual orientation.
Now what's interesting (and inherently irrational) about your argument is that you have posited that the reason that same-sex parents are deficient (without proving) is the same-sex nature of the relationship, instead of the legal ambiguity that surrounds such situations and the social tolerance for such relationships. Surely as an "Objectivist" you would need to be able to demonstrate this in a rational fashion before you accepted it as truth. Have you done any experimentation to weigh the relative effects? Have you read any such research? I doubt it since it doesn't exist in a manner that supports your position. Evidence that counters your opinion can of course be had, and is provided below. Chances are if I were a child of a same sex couple I would certainly pay more attention to the fact that my parents didn't have the same rights, and were treated differently, than the fact that they were themselves constituted differently. Gomes writes on this issue as well.
QUOTE(Charlene Gomes 2)
Extending these benefits and protections to same-sex couples by legally legitimizing their relationships would ensure that their children are treated equally to children of heterosexual married couples.
Further supporting this position is Janine Roberts of the American Family Therapy Academy:
QUOTE
We are in full agreement with the AAP’s advocacy of the rights of all children to benefit from the opportunity to have 2 legal parents, to protect the parent-child relationship of children and their psychological parents, and to provide the economic benefits that accrue to children from the legal recognition of the de facto parenthood of a legal parent’s gay or lesbian partner.
What this suggests is that the discrimination of people like yourself causes harm; which underlies the fact that you obviously do not think purely of the social effects on the children; and are instead influenced by your own prejudiced understanding of same-sex relationships.
Of course this all falls apart if you could prove that same-sex partnerships were in general harmful. Since you have not done that in any meaningful way, a few simple bits of evidence that it is NOT the case completely invalidates your argument.
QUOTE(Perrin {abstract})
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.
QUOTE(Perrin)
Stereotypes and laws that maintain discriminatory practices are based on the assumption that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are different from heterosexual parents in ways that are important to their children's well-being. Empirical evidence reveals in contrast that gay fathers have substantial evidence of nurturance and investment in their paternal role and no differences from heterosexual fathers in providing appropriate recreation, encouraging autonomy,(n5) or dealing with general problems of parenting.(n6) Compared with heterosexual fathers, gay fathers have been described to adhere to stricter disciplinary guidelines, to place greater emphasis on guidance and the development of cognitive skills, and to be more involved in their children's activities.(n7) Overall, there are more similarities than differences in the parenting styles and attitudes of gay and nongay fathers.
...
Lesbian mothers strongly endorse child-centered attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles(n11-n13) and have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers.(n6,n14) Lesbian and heterosexual mothers describe themselves similarly in marital and maternal interests, current lifestyles, and child-rearing practices.(n14) They report similar role conflicts, social support networks, and coping strategies.(n15,n16)
...
Lesbian mothers strongly endorse child-centered attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles(n11-n13) and have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers.(n6,n14) Lesbian and heterosexual mothers describe themselves similarly in marital and maternal interests, current lifestyles, and child-rearing practices.(n14) They report similar role conflicts, social support networks, and coping strategies.(n15,n16)
Want more evidence that is the DISCRIMINATION itself and not the 'objective' position that you and others like you profess to take that is to blame for the difficulties involved in same-sex parenting situations?
QUOTE(Perrin)
Prevalent heterosexism and stigmatization might lead to teasing and embarrassment for children about their parent's sexual orientation or their family constellation and restrict their ability to form and maintain friendships. Adult children of divorced lesbian mothers have recalled more teasing by peers during childhood than have adult children of divorced heterosexual parents.(n23) Nevertheless, children seem to cope rather well with the challenge of understanding and describing their families to peers and teachers.
I will close with one last statement from Perrin:
QUOTE
the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Some among the vast variety of family forms, histories, and relationships may prove more conducive to healthy psychosexual and emotional development than others.
This all fits in with the commonsense understanding that it's not WHO the parents are, but rather HOW they go about parenting that influences the development of a child; with the effects of external pressures playing a lesser role.
Now, what does all this mean in the context of issues of discrimination? Again, discrimination is an instinctual biological process which we all engage in. As social creatures it is up to us to ameliorate this process so it is compatible with social interactions. It is pretty clear that your discrimination against same-sex parents has little to do with children, and everything to do with homosexuality itself; and as such incompatible with society at large (by way of the harm inferred on such children; which is proved above.) Therefore the discrimination you are engaged in is in fact wrong, and harmful; and I sincerely hope that you are capable of seeing the truth of the matter.
1. Gomes, Charlene. "Partners as parents: challenges faced by gays denied marriage." Humanist. Nov/Dec2003, Vol. 63 Issue 6, p14, 6p
2. Gomes, Charlene. "The need for Recognition of Same-sex marriage." Humanist. Sep/Oct2003, Vol. 63 Issue 5, p15, 7p, 1bw
3. Roberts, Janine. "Same-sex parenting." Pediatrics. Jan2003, Vol. 111 Issue 1, p225, 1p
4. Perrin, Ellen C. "Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-sex parents." Pediatrics. Feb2002 Part 1 of 2, Vol. 109 Issue 2, p341, 4p
edited to fix citation error
QUOTE
Cube, I have said twice that a an ideal marriage, one that is ideal for children, is one which consists of the two biological parents of the child.
You constantly muddy the issue. You start off trying to make a case for discrimination then invoke homosexual marriage into what is an issue about equal rights. You then try to invoke the name of "society" in an attempt to override the rights of individuals, but present no position regarding the established legal rights of a "society", the you sink to the fall back position of having to protect children.
Well, not everyone has children, hetero or homosexual couples alike.
So now you open the door to the denial of equal rights, based on the hypothetical possibility of what might happen. Maybe you should make the issue of who should be allowed to have children a seperate topic of it's own.
To put forth the argument that only the "IDEAL" family should be allowed to bear children opens up another nasty door of requiring individuals to get permission to have children, with only those who are "IDEAL" being granted it of course. How is that a free society?
On a side note, let us not forget about how many children are in the custody of the state, and would greatly benefit from a stable, loving household, be it homo-or heterosexual.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.