Should gays be a protected class?

[Yellow Dog]

Why not, every other minority is protected at the expense and freedom of the majority.

We have a day or week or celebration for every ethnic race in this country, with the exception of the majority. Can you imagian the outcry if there was a movement to have a "white power" celebration? or hetrosexual?

Majority rules doesn't seem to mean much anymore, does it?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Harvey, I'm definitely not a fruit.

You noticed I gave you the benefit of the doubt between the two.

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: Yellow Dog
Why not, every other minority is protected at the expense and freedom of the majority.

We have a day or week or celebration for every ethnic race in this country, with the exception of the majority. Can you imagian the outcry if there was a movement to have a "white power" celebration? or hetrosexual?

Majority rules doesn't seem to mean much anymore, does it?

At the freedom of the majority? Like 40 years ago when all those black people wanted full voting rights, equal access to schools and public restrooms? Or women getting voting rights? Taking the freedom away from white people? Please enlighten me on how giving 'protection' to minorities takes away from your freedoms. Please Please Please I really need to understand this concept.....





SHUX

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Preferential treatment for Gay people is an attack on the Family. The Family is the foundation of all civilization. Destroy the the family and you will destroy civilization itself.

You can be Pro Gay or you can be Pro Family. It is impossible to be both. They oppose each other.

Please. I consider myself a pragmatist politically I thought you were too. Unless someone can clearly explain to me, with evidence to back it up, why individual liberty of any sort is damaging to our nation, I will continue to believe that it's not any of my or your business.

Simply saying "homosexuality is destructive to the family" does not make it so. HOW is it destructive? By what mechanism does the existence of homosexuals destroy the fabric of the nation or the family? They aren't destroying MY family, bub.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Yellow Dog
Why not, every other minority is protected at the expense and freedom of the majority.

We have a day or week or celebration for every ethnic race in this country, with the exception of the majority. Can you imagian the outcry if there was a movement to have a "white power" celebration? or hetrosexual?

Majority rules doesn't seem to mean much anymore, does it?

Can you please let me know of any asian power, hispanic power, etc. celebrations?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Yellow Dog
Why not, every other minority is protected at the expense and freedom of the majority.

We have a day or week or celebration for every ethnic race in this country, with the exception of the majority. Can you imagian the outcry if there was a movement to have a "white power" celebration? or hetrosexual?

Majority rules doesn't seem to mean much anymore, does it?

Aww wittle Yellow Dog wants a club too. What are you? I'll find you a club whatever it is, guranteed. Many even. Some separatist groups some just celebrating heritage. Try me.

Maybe you just not looking hard enough. Also maybe you just don't have any beefs with discrimination based soley on your ethnicy, religion or sexual orientation to feel the need to form a club and expose it?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Yellow Dog
Why not, every other minority is protected at the expense and freedom of the majority.

We have a day or week or celebration for every ethnic race in this country, with the exception of the majority. Can you imagian the outcry if there was a movement to have a "white power" celebration? or hetrosexual?

Majority rules doesn't seem to mean much anymore, does it?

Well I would assume you could find some sort of meeting, celebration, or something similar for Italian, Irish, Russian, etc. backgrounds.

 

[mhillary]

I don't know.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Why do you think it is unnatural?
Quite common in the animal world.
Actually considering yourself completely straight is pretty unnatural in the animal world.

Its not common in the animal world.
And no they shouldn't be a protected class, we don't protect people who just like oral sex do we? The only difference between a gay man and a straight one is, one sleeps with a woman and one sleeps with another man.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Why do you think it is unnatural?
Quite common in the animal world.
Actually considering yourself completely straight is pretty unnatural in the animal world.

Its not common in the animal world.
And no they shouldn't be a protected class, we don't protect people who just like oral sex do we? The only difference between a gay man and a straight one is, one sleeps with a woman and one sleeps with another man.

And the question is, since that's the only difference, and discrimination against gay people is quite real, should it be specifically illegal to discriminate in that manner?

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Currently, the government recognizes the legal contract of marriage and provides a set of services to those that enter into this contract (tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc) As a government contract, it should not be able to discriminate against anyone on the the basis of race, religion, or gender. But it does. It declares that Fred can't marry Sam, based on nothing more than the GENDER of one party. That is discrimination. It has nothing to do with sexual preference, deviant behavior, etc. It doesn't not open the door to polygamy, beastiality, or anything else. The contract still requires only 2 consenting (human) adults. It is a matter of discrimination based upon gender and nothing more. To allow same-sex marriage would not be an endorsement of 'gay behavior' or anything like that.

Gunslinger, that is brilliantly elegant logic. I did not think that I would learn anything from YAGMT. Apparrently, I've missed something by avoiding them.

Oh, and in defence of Steeplerot, his comment about what happens in nature was to counter someone who labeled homosexuality as "unnatural." It's a retort, not an a priori justication of gay marriage.

 

[0roo0roo]

last night they had a thing on this american life about homosexual couples. seems they are better at staying together than even hetereos they had a good point about the logical/legal arguements too. that there is no real case against gay marraige, which is why so many states have to write it into their constitution instead where such things don't matter.

they post it on monday http://thislife.org/

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Currently, the government recognizes the legal contract of marriage and provides a set of services to those that enter into this contract (tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc) As a government contract, it should not be able to discriminate against anyone on the the basis of race, religion, or gender. But it does. It declares that Fred can't marry Sam, based on nothing more than the GENDER of one party. That is discrimination. It has nothing to do with sexual preference, deviant behavior, etc. It doesn't not open the door to polygamy, beastiality, or anything else. The contract still requires only 2 consenting (human) adults. It is a matter of discrimination based upon gender and nothing more. To allow same-sex marriage would not be an endorsement of 'gay behavior' or anything like that.

Gunslinger, that is brilliantly elegant logic. I did not think that I would learn anything from YAGMT. Apparrently, I've missed something by avoiding them.

Oh, and in defence of Steeplerot, his comment about what happens in nature was to counter someone who labeled homosexuality as "unnatural." It's a retort, not an a priori justication of gay marriage.

Thanks, I've honed it up a bit since I first encounterred it, as I was on the "anti-samesex marriage" fence before this. It's often not easy to admit a belief you had was wrong. I spend a while trying to poke holes in this argument, but it's pretty sound, at least in my opinion.

I do realize the reasoning behind Steeple's post, I was just pointing out that several things we deem "unnatural" can, in fact, be found in nature. (which doesn't appear to make a lot of sense.) And many things we do (and claim to be in the right about) can rarely or ever be found in "nature."

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
last night they had a thing on this american life about homosexual couples. seems they are better at staying together than even hetereos they had a good point about the logical/legal arguements too. that there is no real case against gay marraige, which is why so many states have to write it into their constitution instead where such things don't matter.

they post it on monday http://thislife.org/

My rationale for why homosexuals seem to have better relationships than heterosexuals is simply that a homosexual realtionship is more difficult to be in, from a societal standpoint - therefore the desire and commitment to be in that relationship has to be greater. It takes relatively no effort to participate in an "accepted' heterosexual relationship, so you have a greater chance of 2 people who do not meet the "threshold" for producing a stable partnership. Homosexuals typically have to face much more adversity and therefore must be much more willing to face these known hardships together.

It has little to nothing to do with the matching genders of the participants, just the stagmatism of the relationship itself.

Of course, this is just my opinion. To substantiate it a bit, I suppose you'd have to look at the statistics for interracial couples at the time when that was heavily frowned upon (which would be yesterday, in some part of the country.) If they correlate to higher-than-normal chances of staying together, then I think you may have the start of a pattern.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Gays should have equal rights under the law. Period.

As for gay marriage in particular:

As soon as WHITE, CHRISTIANS FROM THE SOUTH stop having the highest divorce rate in the country, they might have a say in "sanctity of marriage." Until then, STFU.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Thanks, I've honed it up a bit since I first encounterred it, as I was on the "anti-samesex marriage" fence before this. It's often not easy to admit a belief you had was wrong. I spend a while trying to poke holes in this argument, but it's pretty sound, at least in my opinion.

I do realize the reasoning behind Steeple's post, I was just pointing out that several things we deem "unnatural" can, in fact, be found in nature. (which doesn't appear to make a lot of sense.) And many things we do (and claim to be in the right about) can rarely or ever be found in "nature."

I do have one question. If marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults, what service/product is rendered to government for these benefits? I agree with your logic to this point, but the rendering of benefits must be in exchange for something.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults, what service/product is rendered to government for these benefits? I agree with your logic to this point, but the rendering of benefits must be in exchange for something.

Your analysis is flawed. The "contract" is between the consenting adults. The only requirement for the government is that it upholds the law equally and fairly for all citizens.

If you want to get into a contractual analysis, you could argue that each citizen offers his or her loyalty, acts to obey the laws of the land, pays legally required taxes and levies, and otherwise participates in society, and the government offers to provide equal service and protection to each citizen. It's pushing the metaphor to get into that kind of analysis, but it holds.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

There should be NO SUCH THING as a "legally protected class". Laws should apply universally to ALL individuals, PERIOD.

Jason

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Thanks, I've honed it up a bit since I first encounterred it, as I was on the "anti-samesex marriage" fence before this. It's often not easy to admit a belief you had was wrong. I spend a while trying to poke holes in this argument, but it's pretty sound, at least in my opinion.

I do realize the reasoning behind Steeple's post, I was just pointing out that several things we deem "unnatural" can, in fact, be found in nature. (which doesn't appear to make a lot of sense.) And many things we do (and claim to be in the right about) can rarely or ever be found in "nature."

I do have one question. If marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults, what service/product is rendered to government for these benefits? I agree with your logic to this point, but the rendering of benefits must be in exchange for something.

None - which is why the government needs to get out of the marriage business completely. But as long as they want to stay in it - they should do it fairly.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
There should be NO SUCH THING as a "legally protected class". Laws should apply universally to ALL individuals, PERIOD.

Jason

in your opinion, of course.

many people (probably most people) do support at least some forms of anti-discrimination legislation.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
There should be NO SUCH THING as a "legally protected class". Laws should apply universally to ALL individuals, PERIOD.

Jason

in your opinion, of course.

many people (probably most people) do support at least some forms of anti-discrimination legislation.

Anti-discrimination legislation attempts to counter discrimination how? By FORCING discrimination to occur as a matter of LAW.

The law should treat all INDIVIDUALS in an equal, consistent manner and protect EACH PERSON'S rights in an equal, consistent manner without regard to any of their particular choices/tastes/beliefs/etc. The ONLY concern is that you are a legal citizen with the ability to govern your own behavior.

Discrimination can't be stopped by legally enforcing MORE discrimination.

Jason

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
There should be NO SUCH THING as a "legally protected class". Laws should apply universally to ALL individuals, PERIOD.

Jason

Well, there's a history of jurisprudence that depends on the protected class. Of course, there is some excess baggage there, like the notion that we need affirmative action to redress past wrongs. The thing is: discrimination in and of itself is not illegal - is not a problem. It is only discrimination based on classes defined by the legislatures and the courts that is illegal. I personally discriminate against milk, coconut and other things that I don't like. If I am hiring somebody, I am free to discriminate against idiots or slobs, but I may not do based upon race or religion, etc. And if I am hiring a Network Administrator, I can discriminate against people who don't know anything about networks. The legal system has defined race and religion as bases by which it is illegal to discriminate, and these are the protected classes.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Your analysis is flawed. The "contract" is between the consenting adults. The only requirement for the government is that it upholds the law equally and fairly for all citizens.

If you want to get into a contractual analysis, you could argue that each citizen offers his or her loyalty, acts to obey the laws of the land, pays legally required taxes and levies, and otherwise participates in society, and the government offers to provide equal service and protection to each citizen. It's pushing the metaphor to get into that kind of analysis, but it holds.

You just argued social contract theory, not anything to do with marriage, which is what we were discussing.

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
None - which is why the government needs to get out of the marriage business completely. But as long as they want to stay in it - they should do it fairly.

Ah, then we are actually in agreement on an issue! Get government out of marriage altogether.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Anti-discrimination legislation attempts to counter discrimination how? By FORCING discrimination to occur as a matter of LAW.

The law should treat all INDIVIDUALS in an equal, consistent manner and protect EACH PERSON'S rights in an equal, consistent manner without regard to any of their particular choices/tastes/beliefs/etc. The ONLY concern is that you are a legal citizen with the ability to govern your own behavior.

Discrimination can't be stopped by legally enforcing MORE discrimination.

Jason

:thumbsup: