Deborah Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 What is always immoral is to discriminate against different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex (See first usage of the word discrimination)We do discriminate for age when it comes to marriage. Most states don't allow children under a certain age to marry. As far as "gay" marriage the issue is behavior as many Americans consider the behavior immoral, even were the state to allow it.
Libs Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) It's okay to discriminate against individual behavior that is directly harming someone else.It's, generally, not okay to discriminate against a whole group of people, because of the real or perceived harm of one or many, in that group.It is, of course, okay to discriminate against a group like children or people who are visually impaired, if allowing them certain privileges (like driving) would create a danger to themselves and society.I think we just need to use a little common sense, when we want to discriminate, making sure our desire to discriminate is based on something solid....and not just based on our prejudices. Edited August 10, 2012 by Libs
happy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Yes there are times you can morally discriminate against a behavior depending on the reason for discriminating against that behavior.Ok. So if a person observes homosexuality to be abnormal and a cause of social problems, when do they have a right to speak up and what actions are they allowed to take?
USU78 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) It's okay to discriminate against individual behavior that is directly harming someone else.Oh . . . so you would agree with the proposition that state-sponsored adoptions by unmarried individuals and same sex couples, which squarely place the child in high risk groups for poverty, substance abuse, criminal acting-out, and shorter life spans, are a bad thing and should be abolished? Edited August 10, 2012 by USU78 1
happy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 It's okay to discriminate against individual behavior that is directly harming someone else.It's, generally, not okay to discriminate against a whole group of people, because of the real or perceived harm of one or many, in that group.It is, of course, okay to discriminate against a group like children or people who are visually impaired, if allowing them certain privileges (like driving) would create a danger to themselves and society.I think we just need to use a little common sense, when we want to discriminate, making sure our desire to discriminate is based on something solid....and not just based on our prejudices.But that way of thinking directly contradicts DUI laws. You are preventing an entire group (drinkers) from driving because of some arbitrary number (Levels in blood) even though not everyone who exceeds that number is a risk to the road. Are you trying to say that all blanket laws are bad?
california boy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 US marriage laws do not reflect unjust or prejudiced treatment against homosexuals by disallowing members of the same sex. While tax and insurance laws (for example) inadvertently prevent homosexuals from receiving the same economic benefits extended to married persons, it must be shown that the laws are actually designed to disadvantage homosexuals for their behavior and not to benefit those engaged in an institution that benefits society at the most fundamental level before they can be charged with having an immoral basis/intent.Sorry, I really can not understand what you are talking about. I think I understand your points, but evidently I do not so I won't speculate what I think you mean.
Libs Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Oh . . . so you would agree with the proposition that state-sponsored adoptions by unmarried individuals and same sex couples, which squarely place the child in high risk groups for poverty, substance abuse, criminal acting-out, and shorter life spans, are a bad thing and should be abolished?No, not at all. But, I would support discrimination against an individual, who is in a situation (like joblessness or on drugs).
Libs Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 But that way of thinking directly contradicts DUI laws. You are preventing an entire group (drinkers) from driving because of some arbitrary number (Levels in blood) even though not everyone who exceeds that number is a risk to the road. Are you trying to say that all blanket laws are bad?No, I said just the opposite. Sometimes, it's appropriate to discriminate against certain behaviors, when EVERY MEMBER OF THAT GROUP, is displaying that behavior. That is certainly far from being the case with gays.
california boy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Ok. So if a person observes homosexuality to be abnormal and a cause of social problems, when do they have a right to speak up and what actions are they allowed to take?They can speak up any time they want. But they have no right at all to take action unless their own individual rights are being violated. If someone feels their individual rights are being violated, we have a judicial system to make a judgement on that issue.
USU78 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 No, not at all. But, I would support discrimination against an individual, who is in a situation (like joblessness or on drugs).Then I cannot find coherence in your position. Please explain why it's of more value to a human society to sponsor the willful placement of innocents in risky situations than to sponsor placement of innocents in less risky situations. It seems to smack of Narcissism Ueber Alles.
happy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 The problem is California Boy does not want to admit this is a simple war of definitions. Marriage has a meaning. Homosexuals want to redefine the meaning. Calling people discriminatory because they don't want to change a long standing definition to match the desires of a tiny population is unfair. The precedence set by allowing definitions to be discriminatory could be that one could argue even being called a boy or a girl is discriminatory. Then we become Sweden who now wants to abolish "him" and "her" and replace it with some non-gender specific term.An example. If I say I want to hire an "actress", the casting director knows I want a woman. But because of overblown cries of "discrimination", Actresses want to be called the generic term of "Actor". It's silly and an example of the type of games California Boy is wanting the government to play.
Libs Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) Then I cannot find coherence in your position. Please explain why it's of more value to a human society to sponsor the willful placement of innocents in risky situations than to sponsor placement of innocents in less risky situations. It seems to smack of Narcissism Ueber Alles.I explained this, in my last post. It's only okay to discriminate against whole groups, when every single member of that group, displays either dangerous behavior, or some other impairment. That's not the case for homosexuals. It WOULD be the case for drug addicts, criminals, someone who is too young to be responsible for a child, etc. Edited August 10, 2012 by Libs
happy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 No, I said just the opposite. Sometimes, it's appropriate to discriminate against certain behaviors, when EVERY MEMBER OF THAT GROUP, is displaying that behavior. That is certainly far from being the case with gays.As I have mentioned before, gay pride parades certainly don't help their case and gay activist leaders certainly don't denounce it.
happy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I explained this, in my last post. It's only okay to discriminate against whole groups, when every single member of that group, displays either dangerous behavior, or some other impairment. That's not the case for homosexuals. It WOULD be the case for drug addicts, criminals, age, etc.I guess it depends on what homosexual behavior we are denouncing.
california boy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 The problem is California Boy does not want to admit this is a simple war of definitions. Marriage has a meaning. Homosexuals want to redefine the meaning. Calling people discriminatory because they don't want to change a long standing definition to match the desires of a tiny population is unfair. The precedence set by allowing definitions to be discriminatory could be that one could argue even being called a boy or a girl is discriminatory. Then we become Sweden who now wants to abolish "him" and "her" and replace it with some non-gender specific term.An example. If I say I want to hire an "actress", the casting director knows I want a woman. But because of overblown cries of "discrimination", Actresses want to be called the generic term of "Actor". It's silly and an example of the type of games California Boy is wanting the government to play.You are correct. Gay marriage is not about the definition of a word. It is about equality under the law. And no, I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments. I can make a slippery slope argument about ANYTHING. Making slippery slope arguments is as worthless as reading tea leaves to read the future.
california boy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 As I have mentioned before, gay pride parades certainly don't help their case and gay activist leaders certainly don't denounce it.What the heck does gay pride parades have to do with anything we are talking about??
happy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 What the heck does gay pride parades have to do with anything we are talking about??I've been to a couple. They demonstrate a very questionable state of morality. The very thing people are concerned about with homosexual behavior.
Libs Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 The problem is California Boy does not want to admit this is a simple war of definitions. Marriage has a meaning. Homosexuals want to redefine the meaning. Calling people discriminatory because they don't want to change a long standing definition to match the desires of a tiny population is unfair. The precedence set by allowing definitions to be discriminatory could be that one could argue even being called a boy or a girl is discriminatory. Then we become Sweden who now wants to abolish "him" and "her" and replace it with some non-gender specific term.An example. If I say I want to hire an "actress", the casting director knows I want a woman. But because of overblown cries of "discrimination", Actresses want to be called the generic term of "Actor". It's silly and an example of the type of games California Boy is wanting the government to play.Just calling something "silly" doesn't mean it is silly. Discrimination against gay marriage results in some very real issues that ss attracted must deal with. Legal issues that involve property rights, taxation and many other issues that put their partnerships at a distinct disadvantage.
happy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 You are correct. Gay marriage is not about the definition of a word. It is about equality under the law. And no, I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments. I can make a slippery slope argument about ANYTHING. Making slippery slope arguments is as worthless as reading tea leaves to read the future.Yeah yeah, avoid direct conflict by hiding behind illusions of logical fallacies. I find it fascinating that liberal members of the community try so hard to ignore the gateway effect.In the end, you are wrong. The gay marriage is absolutely about redefining the established word of "marriage".
happy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Just calling something "silly" doesn't mean it is silly.Calling something a fight for "equality" doesn't mean it is actually about "equality".Discrimination against gay marriage results in some very real issues that ss attracted must deal with. Legal issues that involve property rights, taxation and many other issues that put their partnerships at a distinct disadvantage.You mean partnerships that theoretically shouldn't have existed in the first place, but did due to a genetic, biological, or psychological flaw in their makeup.
Libs Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I guess it depends on what homosexual behavior we are denouncing.The point is, Happy, that it is wrong to discriminate against a whole group of people, because of (real or PERCEIVED) behaviors of a few or even "many" in that group. I don't know how else to say that.
USU78 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I explained this, in my last post. It's only okay to discriminate against whole groups, when every single member of that group, displays either dangerous behavior, or some other impairment. That's not the case for homosexuals. It WOULD be the case for drug addicts, criminals, someone who is too young to be responsible for a child, etc.And when we have a behavior with pretty clearly demonstrated inherent risks to engaging in that behavior, like placing adoptees in the hands of high-risk groups simply because members of that high-risk group want to adopt, the risk is to be ignored every time? The adoptees' rights to be placed in nuclear families be d@mned? 1
CV75 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Sorry, I really can not understand what you are talking about. I think I understand your points, but evidently I do not so I won't speculate what I think you mean.OK, I will try again:US marriage laws do not reflect unjust or prejudiced treatment against homosexuals.US marriage laws disallow members of the same sex marrying, but this is not unjust or prejudiced treatment against homosexuals by design or intent -- the same level of discrimination is applied by law to anyone that cannot marry.Some laws (tax and insurance laws for example) allow certain economic benefits to be extended to married persons. So, unmarried homosexuals cannot receive these same economic benefits (just like any other unmarried person).These laws are typically designed to benefit those engaged in an institution that benefits society at the most fundamental level (as i've reiterated many times!), but never to mistreat or persecute homosexuals, or any other unmarried person, for their behavior. Because of this, such laws cannot be rightly said to have an immoral discriminatory premise.The most objective way to prove the value of not restricting participation is to show that private and public sector economics support a change in tax and insurance laws so that all persons receive the same benefit.
Libs Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Calling something a fight for "equality" doesn't mean it is actually about "equality".Agreed. But, in this case, I think it can be shown, very easily that it IS about equality. Has been done several times in the courts, already.You mean partnerships that theoretically shouldn't have existed in the first place, but did due to a genetic, biological, or psychological flaw in their makeup.??? Have no idea what you mean, here.
california boy Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I've been to a couple. They demonstrate a very questionable state of morality. The very thing people are concerned about with homosexual behavior.So in your mind you believe every gay man dresses and/or acts like those on the float at gay pride parades?I have been to a few pioneer day parades. All Mormons wear old fashion clothing and don't believe in motorized vehicles. They like to pack all their possessions on carts and wheel them down the street.
Recommended Posts