re: POLITICS -- disturbing article

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

> You say that this is bigoted, because it

> disallows homosexuals from marrying who they " want " to marry. But by that

> logic,

> *every* law is discriminatory-- against those who don't want to obey it.

>

Gene replied:

That is just so ridiculous. You cannot see a difference here? I give up. You

have outlasted me again.

__________

You had used the word " want. " If the state made a law that any person could

engage in consexual sex with a person of the opposite sex, but not of the same

sex, then one could make a case that, since sex is a physiological drive, and

since one cannot fulfill it in an act one finds repulsive, there would be a

fundamental difference between this law and others vis-a-vis discrimination.

Neverthless, all laws discriminate against those who don't wish to obey them, so

it's uniqueness is not that it is discriminatory, but the way in which it is

discriminatory. However, attaining official state recognition of any given

relationship is a desire. Furthermore, it is not one specific type of

relationship that is not officially recognized by the state, but an infinite

number of relationships aside from the one relationship-- marriage between a man

and a woman-- that is recognized. The state equally denies the right to marry

to a brother and a sister, or two a man and two wives, or to a woman and two

husbands. Yet many of these may be perfectly justified living arrangements,

which is reflected in Heidi's advocation for civil unions between *anyone*, not

necessarily reflecting romantic or sexual involvement.

Are brothers and sisters second-class citizens? Obviously not. But a brother

and sister who want to live together and share their finances, etc, etc, (but

not necessarily be having sex or romantic involvement) are discriminated against

by the current marriage law. So it's a function of the desire to engage in an

activity not allowed by the law, rather than the person. Thus, I wouldn't argue

that it is second-class citizenship.

And, on one final note, I think 's example of wolves and sheep as an analogy

is silly here. No one needs state-sanctioned marriage to survive. And, I think

that the idea that one needs the state to sanction one's relationships in order

to make them meaningful or to attain the fulfillment of one's development as a

human, is a rather pathetic and empty view of human relationships.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene Schwartz wrote:

> In the example that you give, quite obviously your intent is to

> elicit the answer that you would be defending me by telling me I

> should be better armed for the confrontation. And so, perhaps, your

> point is that you are really defending gay marriage by advising that

> the argument that the laws are unequal isn't sufficient for the job,

> and one should be better 'armed'. You could claim that I should see

> this despite the fact that I think that your reasoning on the issue

> is flawed.

>

> I see your point, but since I think that whether you are defending a

> position or not is really open to judgement, and not simply a matter

> of your declared intent, I would disagree.

Either my argument is sound, and I'm helping to strengthen your case, or

it is flawed, and I am accomplishing nothing. In fact, if my argument is

truly absurd as you seem to believe it, perhaps I am strengthening your

case either way.

Mostly I'm just annoyed by bogus arguments, regardless of what side they

favor.

[Guest guest]

Gene,

_____

While some have claimed that this point is trivial, I think, actually that it is

quite essential - if one cannot see that this is an issue of discrimination,

then I think that one lacks an understanding of the issue (whether out of

stubborness or not is inconsequential),

_______

I *agree* that the law is discriminatory. Do you not agree, though, that all

laws are discriminatory, and that the justice of the law is dependent on the

reasonableness of the desire to engage in the proscribed activity?

In other words, a law against, say, smoking pot, prohibits both people who want

to smoke it and who don't want to smoke it from smoking it equally. But it does

not impact these groups equally, because one group has no desire to engage in

the prohibited activity, but the other group desires to do so.

Likewise, there may be a law against murder. This is applied to both murderers

and non-murderers equally, but impacts them differently, as there one group

wishes to murder and the other wishes not to murder.

Both of these laws are discriminatory in the same manner. However, we can

distinguish between the relative justice of each law based on the reasonableness

of the desire to engage in the prohibited activity. We can say the latter law

is just, because one cannot have a right to murder without denying another's

right to live, and we can say the former law is unjust, because the desire to

smoke pot on one's own property responsibly is not a threat to anyone else.

If we just assume for the moment that state-sanctioned marriage is the

equivalent of " marriage " (which I disagree with), for the sake of argument, and

it is allowed in only one form, that concurs with the desire of some folks

(monogamous heterosexuals) and not with the desires of others (polyamists,

polygynists, homosexuals, and many others), then this is analagous to the first

example, where we find the law unjustly discriminatory.

However, I believe the very same thing about someone's right to use drugs or

invest their money in the way they please. To be consistent, in my view, one

would have to call those who wish to use drugs or who wish to opt out of social

security second-class citizens as we would call homosexuals.

Chris

[Guest guest]

<<No one needs state-sanctioned marriage to survive. And, I think that the idea

that one needs the state to sanction one's relationships in order to make them

meaningful or to attain the fulfillment of one's development as a human, is a

rather pathetic and empty view of human relationships.

Well I don't think words have been expressed here that I agree with more.

re: POLITICS -- disturbing article

I wrote:

> You say that this is bigoted, because it

> disallows homosexuals from marrying who they " want " to marry. But by that

> logic,

> *every* law is discriminatory-- against those who don't want to obey it.

>

Gene replied:

That is just so ridiculous. You cannot see a difference here? I give up. You

have outlasted me again.

__________

You had used the word " want. " If the state made a law that any person could

engage in consexual sex with a person of the opposite sex, but not of the same

sex, then one could make a case that, since sex is a physiological drive, and

since one cannot fulfill it in an act one finds repulsive, there would be a

fundamental difference between this law and others vis-a-vis discrimination.

Neverthless, all laws discriminate against those who don't wish to obey them,

so it's uniqueness is not that it is discriminatory, but the way in which it is

discriminatory. However, attaining official state recognition of any given

relationship is a desire. Furthermore, it is not one specific type of

relationship that is not officially recognized by the state, but an infinite

number of relationships aside from the one relationship-- marriage between a man

and a woman-- that is recognized. The state equally denies the right to marry

to a brother and a sister, or two a man and two wives, or to a woman and two

husbands. Yet many of these may be perfectly justified living arrangements,

which is reflected in Heidi's advocation for civil unions between *anyone*, not

necessarily reflecting romantic or sexual involvement.

Are brothers and sisters second-class citizens? Obviously not. But a brother

and sister who want to live together and share their finances, etc, etc, (but

not necessarily be having sex or romantic involvement) are discriminated against

by the current marriage law. So it's a function of the desire to engage in an

activity not allowed by the law, rather than the person. Thus, I wouldn't argue

that it is second-class citizenship.

And, on one final note, I think 's example of wolves and sheep as an

analogy is silly here. No one needs state-sanctioned marriage to survive. And,

I think that the idea that one needs the state to sanction one's relationships

in order to make them meaningful or to attain the fulfillment of one's

development as a human, is a rather pathetic and empty view of human

relationships.

Chris

[Guest guest]

whatever you say,

>

> > You say that this is bigoted, because it

> > disallows homosexuals from marrying who they " want " to marry.

But by that

> > logic,

> > *every* law is discriminatory-- against those who don't want to

obey it.

> >

>

> Gene replied:

> That is just so ridiculous. You cannot see a difference here? I

give up. You

> have outlasted me again.

> __________

>

> You had used the word " want. " If the state made a law that any

person could engage in consexual sex with a person of the opposite

sex, but not of the same sex, then one could make a case that, since

sex is a physiological drive, and since one cannot fulfill it in an

act one finds repulsive, there would be a fundamental difference

between this law and others vis-a-vis discrimination.

>

> Neverthless, all laws discriminate against those who don't wish to

obey them, so it's uniqueness is not that it is discriminatory, but

the way in which it is discriminatory. However, attaining official

state recognition of any given relationship is a desire.

Furthermore, it is not one specific type of relationship that is not

officially recognized by the state, but an infinite number of

relationships aside from the one relationship-- marriage between a

man and a woman-- that is recognized. The state equally denies the

right to marry to a brother and a sister, or two a man and two wives,

or to a woman and two husbands. Yet many of these may be perfectly

justified living arrangements, which is reflected in Heidi's

advocation for civil unions between *anyone*, not necessarily

reflecting romantic or sexual involvement.

>

> Are brothers and sisters second-class citizens? Obviously not.

But a brother and sister who want to live together and share their

finances, etc, etc, (but not necessarily be having sex or romantic

involvement) are discriminated against by the current marriage law.

So it's a function of the desire to engage in an activity not allowed

by the law, rather than the person. Thus, I wouldn't argue that it

is second-class citizenship.

>

> And, on one final note, I think 's example of wolves and sheep

as an analogy is silly here. No one needs state-sanctioned marriage

to survive. And, I think that the idea that one needs the state to

sanction one's relationships in order to make them meaningful or to

attain the fulfillment of one's development as a human, is a rather

pathetic and empty view of human relationships.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

> Gene,

> _____

> While some have claimed that this point is trivial, I think,

actually that it is quite essential - if one cannot see that this is

an issue of discrimination, then I think that one lacks an

understanding of the issue (whether out of stubborness or not is

inconsequential),

> _______

>

> I *agree* that the law is discriminatory.

On what basis, given that you believe it to be equally applied? Or

are you now agreeing that you were wrong on this?

> Do you not agree, though, that all laws are discriminatory,

Not in any normal sense of the word 'discriminatory', no. Obviously,

a law 'discriminates' between those who obey it and those who don't.

And, hence then, by definition, in this forced sense of the word, all

laws are discriminatory. However, when we say that a law

discriminates, that's not what we mean.

> and that the justice of the law is dependent on the reasonableness

of the desire to engage in the proscribed activity?

>

Probably... There may be some things that are reasonable, but still

should be proscribed....I'd have to think about it.

> In other words, a law against, say, smoking pot, prohibits both

people who want to smoke it and who don't want to smoke it from

smoking it equally. But it does not impact these groups equally,

because one group has no desire to engage in the prohibited activity,

but the other group desires to do so.

>

that is true. And, in normal use of the language, we wouldn't speak

about this law as discriminatory.

> Likewise, there may be a law against murder. This is applied to

both murderers and non-murderers equally, but impacts them

differently, as there one group wishes to murder and the other wishes

not to murder.

>

LOL! Do you really think that murderers always 'wish to murder'? But

I would agree with this also. Gee, I wonder what insidious trap

you're leading me into?

> Both of these laws are discriminatory in the same manner.

Right - in a way that does not conform to the way

that 'disciminatory' is used in normal speech. You must recognize the

difference, since you surely recognize that some laws may be, indeed,

discriminatory beyond this purely definitional sense that you have

constructed.

> However, we can distinguish between the relative justice of each

law based on the reasonableness of the desire to engage in the

prohibited activity. We can say the latter law is just, because one

cannot have a right to murder without denying another's right to

live, and we can say the former law is unjust, because the desire to

smoke pot on one's own property responsibly is not a threat to anyone

else.

>

Ok

> If we just assume for the moment that state-sanctioned marriage is

the equivalent of " marriage " (which I disagree with), for the sake of

argument, and it is allowed in only one form, that concurs with the

desire of some folks (monogamous heterosexuals) and not with the

desires of others (polyamists, polygynists, homosexuals, and many

others), then this is analagous to the first example, where we find

the law unjustly discriminatory.

>

Ah - so your argument is this, then, I take it...that ALL laws are

discriminatory by definition, but the one prohibiting homosexuals

from marrying is also unjust?

I have already made the argument, conveniently ignored by you, and

perhaps simply not understood, that laws can be equal in their

description, but contain presuppositions that are discriminatory.

Obviously the law which does not allow homosexuals to marry by

defining it in a way that they obviously cannot uses the same wording

for both groups. However, the presupposition, that same-sex marriage

is evil, or detrimental to society (probably a mix of both, depending

on whom you ask), IS discriminatory. It is discriminatory in a

meaningful way, since it forbids millions of people from partaking of

a lifelong activity that is extremely important to them, and that

heterosexuals are allowed to participate in. You are claiming that

this is exactly analogous to the class of people (pot-smokers) not

being allowed to smoke pot. You don't see any elements of disanalogy

here, apparently. One might be that a law that forbids people from

smoking pot discriminates against a group of people who are defined

simply by that activity. This is the definitional aspect that you

described - that ANY law is discriminatory in this sense. To be

analogous, there would be no other activity or characteristics

involved in same-sex marriage other than getting the actual marriage

contract. However, we don't say that the law discriminates against

people who want to marry those of the same sex - that is true in the

definitional, and trivial, sense that you mention. We say that it

discriminates against homosexuals, since marriage itself should not

be defined so narrowly as to exclude them, and because they are a lot

more than just simply those who might get a marriage license for same-

sex marriage.

A better analogy, diverging a bit from your drug example, would be

that drug laws were found to discriminate against Native Americans,

because they (e.g. Peyote) had been a part of their tradition and

worship. However, you would probably argue that the law only

discriminated against Peyote smokers.

> However, I believe the very same thing about someone's right to use

drugs or invest their money in the way they please. To be

consistent, in my view, one would have to call those who wish to use

drugs or who wish to opt out of social security second-class citizens

as we would call homosexuals.

>

> Chris

I should stop now, or get punished by ...

[Guest guest]

> > In the example that you give, quite obviously your intent is to

> > elicit the answer that you would be defending me by telling me I

> > should be better armed for the confrontation. And so, perhaps,

your

> > point is that you are really defending gay marriage by advising

that

> > the argument that the laws are unequal isn't sufficient for the

job,

> > and one should be better 'armed'. You could claim that I should

see

> > this despite the fact that I think that your reasoning on the

issue

> > is flawed.

> >

> > I see your point, but since I think that whether you are

defending a

> > position or not is really open to judgement, and not simply a

matter

> > of your declared intent, I would disagree.

>

> Either my argument is sound, and I'm helping to strengthen your

case, or

> it is flawed, and I am accomplishing nothing. In fact, if my

argument is

> truly absurd as you seem to believe it, perhaps I am strengthening

your

> case either way.

>

> Mostly I'm just annoyed by bogus arguments, regardless of what side

they

> favor.

I would advise, then, that you avoid reading your own posts.

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> >I *agree* that the law is discriminatory.

>

> On what basis, given that you believe it to be equally applied? Or

> are you now agreeing that you were wrong on this?]

On the basis that it gives sanction to one kind of relationship that one

group engages in, but gives no sanction to other relationships engaged in by

that

group or other groups.

> > Do you not agree, though, that all laws are discriminatory,

>

> Not in any normal sense of the word 'discriminatory', no. Obviously,

> a law 'discriminates' between those who obey it and those who don't.

> And, hence then, by definition, in this forced sense of the word, all

> laws are discriminatory. However, when we say that a law

> discriminates, that's not what we mean.

It's true that it isn't limited by the typical colloquial limitations when we

speak about laws, but it is a perfectly valid use of the word, in a literal

sense (I assume you agree.)

When we say a law discriminates, " discrimination " in this case has a negative

connotation that a literal usage doesn't carry, and by implication what we

mean is it discriminates unjustly. Discriminating between persons or groups of

persons is no more discrimination than discriminating between behaviors.

However, the dominant belief in our society has come to be that discriminting

between groups of persons based on genetic characteristics unrelated to behavior

is usually unjust.

We haven't completely accepted that concept. Affirmative action is no less

discriminatory between groups of persons as the " separate but equal " laws, but

we have, at this point in time, come to consider the former valid and the

latter invalid, as a society. But individuals who oppose affirmative action and

consider it unjust will refer to it as " discriminatory, " whereas people who

support it rarely use that word.

So any law not only discriminates between persons who obey and disobey it,

but also discriminates between behaviors. A law may consider pot-smoking an

invalid past time, and bowling a valid past time, or private investment an

invalid use of a certain portion of one's income.

> LOL! Do you really think that murderers always 'wish to murder'?

No; I was being deliberately simplistic, because the details don't affect the

point.

> Right - in a way that does not conform to the way

> that 'disciminatory' is used in normal speech. You must recognize the

> difference, since you surely recognize that some laws may be, indeed,

> discriminatory beyond this purely definitional sense that you have

> constructed.

Yes, I do recognize this. Some laws distinguish between persons or groups of

persons. We sometimes consider them just and sometimes consider them unjust,

and, colloquially, we selectively use " discriminatory " to refer to the ones

that we consider unjust.

>I have already made the argument, conveniently ignored by you, and

> perhaps simply not understood, that laws can be equal in their

> description, but contain presuppositions that are discriminatory.

Sure. And *all* laws use discriminatory presuppositions, which may or may

not be valid. For example, banning pot presupposes that pot-smoking is a less

valid leisure activity than bowling, which a bowler would probably be more

likely to agree with than a pot-smoker.

A law defining marriage as between a monogamous man-woman pair presupposes

that this is a relationship that should be publicly legally sanctioned, and by

implication assumes that most other relationships shouldn't be.

Where we seem to differ, is that you consider this discriminating between

groups of persons, and I consider it discriminating between relationships the

state chooses to sanction.

While it's true that claiming marriage is defined as a relationship between a

man and a woman, monogamously, is an arbitrary social construction rather

than some sort of objective truth, it is equally arbitrary for you to presuppose

there is some sort of objective binariness to marriage possibilities or

state-sanctioned relationship possibilities. You haven't explicitly declared

this

presupposition, but it seems to me to be inherent in your argument. If

state-sanctioned heterosexual monogamous marriage discriminates specifically

against

homosexuals, thus making them second-class citizens, that presupposes that

homosexual and hetersexual monogamous marriage is somehow objectively distinct

from non-permanent relationships between homosexuals or hetersexuals, homo- or

heterosexual non-monogamous relationships, alternative family structures such

as communal ones, or different combinations of immediate or extended family, or

any number of nearly infinite combinations that the state theoretically could

sanction but doesn't.

But it's absolutely arbitrary to presuppose this, just as it is absolutely

arbitrary to distinguish between a heterosexual and homosexual " marriage. "

> Obviously the law which does not allow homosexuals to marry by

> defining it in a way that they obviously cannot uses the same wording

> for both groups. However, the presupposition, that same-sex marriage

> is evil, or detrimental to society (probably a mix of both, depending

> on whom you ask), IS discriminatory. It is discriminatory in a

> meaningful way, since it forbids millions of people from partaking of

> a lifelong activity that is extremely important to them, and that

> heterosexuals are allowed to participate in.

It doesn't prevent any activity, it simply refuses to give it official

sanction. The two seem very distinct to me.

Secondly, you seem to be assuming that marriage exists apart from social

construction. But human relationships do not fall neatly into categories of

parent, child, heterosexual marriage, and gay marriage. Human relationships are

essentially infinite, and the socially constructed boundary around a specific

class of relationships designated as " marriage " is an inherently discriminatory

construction. If it is allowed to homosexuals, it would still be disallowed

to polygynists and polygamists, or brothers and sisters, etc. Since the law

doesn't specifically discriminate against any of these groups or behaviors, but

simply discriminates in favor of one of many, it can't be said to be making a

second-class citizenry.

The concept of civil unions for different types of non-sexual relationships

has been advanced by numerous folks, including Heidi on this list, so isn't too

far afield, and I find it sensible. So the denial of such a union to

homosexuals isn't any more discriminatory against homosexuals than it is to any

other

group of people who want such a union but are denied one.

You are claiming that

> this is exactly analogous to the class of people (pot-smokers) not

> being allowed to smoke pot. You don't see any elements of disanalogy

> here, apparently. One might be that a law that forbids people from

> smoking pot discriminates against a group of people who are defined

> simply by that activity. This is the definitional aspect that you

> described - that ANY law is discriminatory in this sense. To be

> analogous, there would be no other activity or characteristics

> involved in same-sex marriage other than getting the actual marriage

> contract. However, we don't say that the law discriminates against

> people who want to marry those of the same sex - that is true in the

> definitional, and trivial, sense that you mention. We say that it

> discriminates against homosexuals, since marriage itself should not

> be defined so narrowly as to exclude them, and because they are a lot

> more than just simply those who might get a marriage license for same-

> sex marriage.

And what is it that you believe state-sanctioned marriage offers besides a

marriage contract and any legal implications it entails? Are you seriously

suggesting that in order to love one another, live together, share finances,

raise

a family together, committ to a life-long relationship, etc, that one needs a

marriage from the state?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>It's true that it isn't limited by the typical colloquial limitations when we

>speak about laws, but it is a perfectly valid use of the word, in a literal

>sense (I assume you agree.)

No, it's not an issue of colloquial limitations but of you picking

one meaning of the word when everyone knows perfectly well that we're

talking about a different meaning, specifically this one from dictionary.com:

>> To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without

>> regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was

>> accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor

>> of his cronies.

Introduction of other irrelevant meanings simply serves to confuse the

discussion.

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:12:16 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Re: POLITICS -- Disturbing article

>

>

>

>>> Do you not agree, though, that all laws are discriminatory,

>>

>> Not in any normal sense of the word 'discriminatory', no. Obviously,

>> a law 'discriminates' between those who obey it and those who don't.

>> And, hence then, by definition, in this forced sense of the word, all

>> laws are discriminatory. However, when we say that a law

>> discriminates, that's not what we mean.

>

> It's true that it isn't limited by the typical colloquial limitations when we

> speak about laws, but it is a perfectly valid use of the word, in a literal

> sense (I assume you agree.)

>

Well, it is valid in the strict sense that laws do discriminate in the

definitional sense that we have dexcribed, but not valid in the sense that

you shifted meanings (usages) in midstream.

> When we say a law discriminates, " discrimination " in this case has a negative

> connotation that a literal usage doesn't carry, and by implication what we

> mean is it discriminates unjustly.

No, they are NOT equivalent. We both agree that forbidding pot smoking is

unjust, and we both agree that this is discrimination (as it MUST be) in the

definitional sense, but it should be quite obvious by what I have been

saying that I do not agree that this is discrimination in the sense that we

(i.e. everyone else in this conversation) have been using. This is exactly

what is under contention, and you are just going in circles. I am starting

to remember that this is why I have sworn (weak-willed) not to get involved

in arguments with you, but here I am again.

> Discriminating between persons or groups

> of

> persons is no more discrimination than discriminating between behaviors.

?

> However, the dominant belief in our society has come to be that discriminting

> between groups of persons based on genetic characteristics unrelated to

> behavior

> is usually unjust.

>

Well, there is generally no need to label something as discrimination if it

is not unjust. However, something may be unjust and not discrimination. This

is so obvious, and so irrelevant to the points that I have been making.

> We haven't completely accepted that concept. Affirmative action is no less

> discriminatory between groups of persons as the " separate but equal " laws,

Of COURSE it is. It discriminates, but not in a sense that we would normally

use. More like the definitional sense...

> but

> we have, at this point in time, come to consider the former valid and the

> latter invalid, as a society.

" as a society " ? hogwash. I certainly consider the former valid and the

latter invalid.

> But individuals who oppose affirmative action

> and

> consider it unjust will refer to it as " discriminatory, " whereas people who

> support it rarely use that word.

>

Just as you, who don't understand the logical and ethical issues bound up in

discrimination claim that laws forbidding homosexuals to marry are not

discrimination. I, frankly, don't care! This does not impact on anything

that I've said. But I do appreciate that you enjoy saying it.

> So any law not only discriminates between persons who obey and disobey it,

Please - will you drop that. It's simply not relevant.

> but also discriminates between behaviors.

" also " ?

Oh this is stupid. I have much better things to do than to argue with you.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/18/04 9:08:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Well, it is valid in the strict sense that laws do discriminate in the

> definitional sense that we have dexcribed, but not valid in the sense that

> you shifted meanings (usages) in midstream.

Ok, I'll retract that then, if we're limiting the use of " discriminatory " to

the definition posted.

> >but

> >we have, at this point in time, come to consider the former valid and the

> >latter invalid, as a society.

>

> " as a society " ? hogwash. I certainly consider the former valid and the

> latter invalid.

I agree that was pitiful phrasing. I almost changed it, but out of laziness

didn't, as I thoguht it was apparent what I meant-- that the notion that it is

immoral to discriminate based on group identity rather than merit has become

dominant in our society.

I suppose I got wrapped up in explaining a tangential point here which

probably served to obscure the crux of the issue, which I don't think we'll come

to

an agreement on: whether the marriage laws discriminate specifically against a

group of people, or discriminate between relationships.

I did explain my position in the last email but you apparently didn't read

that far. Since, as I said before, this really doesn't impact the point of

whether the laws are just or injust, I don't see much benefit in us continuing a

debate about semantics that is only going to frustrate and irritate us.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > Like 's seemingly-insupportable distinction between second-class

> > relationships and second-class citizens, this seems like a very odd bit of

> > mental gymnastics to go through. Using that logic couldn't we ban

> > homosexual sex entirely and claim that we're just discriminating against

> > homosexual relationships and that homosexuals are in no way either

> > discriminated against or second-class citizens?

>

>Umm, no because it's morrally repugnant. Why is it you consider baseless

>discrimination between behaviors or extrinsic characteristics more just than

>baseless discrimination between intrinsic characteristics, or consider the

>equal

>application of an unjust law more just than the discriminatory application of

>an unjust law?

Why is it you can't just answer the actual question?

To reiterate, restate and clarify:

How does unequal treatment of homosexual and heterosexual relationships

cause homosexual relationships but not homosexuals themselves to be

second-class?

If the relationship can be second-class without any negative effects on the

people in or desiring the relationships, then on what basis would you argue

against other forms of unequal treatment of relationships, such as

wholesale bans of one kind or another? Responding " because it's morally

repugnant " is not a responsive answer.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/19/04 5:32:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> How does unequal treatment of homosexual and heterosexual relationships

> cause homosexual relationships but not homosexuals themselves to be

> second-class?

Because a reasonable definition of second-class would require the legal

sanction of any given oppression to be directed at a target group. I've

answered

this question a dozen times. Homosexuals are not affected by the law

differently than other groups who want to engage in contractual relationships

similar

to marriage but with persons with whom they can't under current law. Some

homosexuals, maybe most, are homosexual by intrinsic quality, but they do not

belong to the same group as many other groups oppressed by this law and listed

numerous times by me, and some of those other groups are not defined by

intrinsic

qualities.

>

> If the relationship can be second-class without any negative effects on the

> people in or desiring the relationships, then on what basis would you argue

> against other forms of unequal treatment of relationships, such as

> wholesale bans of one kind or another? Responding " because it's morally

> repugnant " is not a responsive answer.

I responded in that way because I misunderstood your question. You had

initially asked:

>>Using that logic couldn't we ban

> > homosexual sex entirely and claim that we're just discriminating against

> > homosexual relationships and that homosexuals are in no way either

> > discriminated against or second-class citizens?

If what you are asking is whether this can be considered discrimination

against a relationship rather than a person, the answer is yes, this is

discrimination against a behavior rather than a person. Why? Quite clearly:

homosexual

sex is not a person, it is a behavior.

This might sound foolish to you, but since it is entirely apparent, it is, in

my view, on your shoulders to explain why calling discrimination against a

sexual behavior discrimination against a person isn't a non-sequitor.

But now you seem to be asking a different question:

<<<<<If the relationship can be second-class without any negative effects on

the

people in or desiring the relationships, then on what basis would you argue

against other forms of unequal treatment of relationships, such as

wholesale bans of one kind or another?>>>>>

You first begin with a fallacious and non-sequitorial premise: that

discrimination against a behavior has " no negative effects " on the person who

wishes to

engage in the behavior. Of course it does: namely, that they are disallowed

from engaging in their preferred behavior.

You then proceed to ask a question with an, in my view, fallacious,

presupposition: you ask on what basis could I argue against a wholesale ban on

homosexual relationships, if I didn't regarded this as discrimination based on

person

rather than behavior. This presupposes that it is somehow less just to

discriminate based on person than behavior. I do not recognize this moral

principle, and I don't see how it has any rational basis, so I cannot answer the

question.

Chris

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@ Chris:

> Because a reasonable definition of second-class would require the

legal

> sanction of any given oppression to be directed at a target group.

I've answered

> this question a dozen times. Homosexuals are not affected by the

law

> differently than other groups who want to engage in contractual

relationships similar

> to marriage but with persons with whom they can't under current

law.

> > people in or desiring the relationships, then on what basis would

you argue

> > against other forms of unequal treatment of relationships, such

as

> > wholesale bans of one kind or another? Responding " because it's

morally

> > repugnant " is not a responsive answer.

>

> I responded in that way because I misunderstood your question. You

had

> initially asked:

>

> >>Using that logic couldn't we ban

> > > homosexual sex entirely and claim that we're just

discriminating against

> > > homosexual relationships and that homosexuals are in no way

either

> > > discriminated against or second-class citizens?

>

> If what you are asking is whether this can be considered

discrimination

> against a relationship rather than a person, the answer is yes,

this is

> discrimination against a behavior rather than a person. Why?

Quite clearly: homosexual

> sex is not a person, it is a behavior.

>

> This might sound foolish to you, but since it is entirely apparent,

it is, in

> my view, on your shoulders to explain why calling discrimination

against a

> sexual behavior discrimination against a person isn't a non-

sequitor.

>

> But now you seem to be asking a different question:

>

> <<<<<If the relationship can be second-class without any negative

effects on

> the

> people in or desiring the relationships, then on what basis would

you argue

> against other forms of unequal treatment of relationships, such as

> wholesale bans of one kind or another?>>>>>

>

> You first begin with a fallacious and non-sequitorial premise: that

> discrimination against a behavior has " no negative effects " on the

person who wishes to

> engage in the behavior. Of course it does: namely, that they are

disallowed

> from engaging in their preferred behavior.

>

> You then proceed to ask a question with an, in my view, fallacious,

> presupposition: you ask on what basis could I argue against a

wholesale ban on

> homosexual relationships, if I didn't regarded this as

discrimination based on person

> rather than behavior. This presupposes that it is somehow less

just to

> discriminate based on person than behavior. I do not recognize

this moral

> principle, and I don't see how it has any rational basis, so I

cannot answer the

> question.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Due to some extremely funky behavior, this post was

accidentally sent while I was in the middle of writing it.

@@@@@@@ Chris:

> Because a reasonable definition of second-class would require the

legal

> sanction of any given oppression to be directed at a target group.

I've answered

> this question a dozen times. Homosexuals are not affected by the

law

> differently than other groups who want to engage in contractual

relationships similar

> to marriage but with persons with whom they can't under current law

@@@@@@@@@@

So group B is second-class, but group A is not, even though group A

is a subset of group B? Whatever... More time wasted arguing the

semantics of an inherently imprecise term...

@@@@@@ Chris:

against a person isn't a non-sequitor.

@@@@@@

since you use this word so often, you might consider learning

the correct spelling... it's a " u " ...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/20/04 8:38:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

michaelantonparker@... writes:

> @@@@@@@ Chris:

> >Because a reasonable definition of second-class would require the

> legal

> >sanction of any given oppression to be directed at a target group.

> I've answered

> >this question a dozen times. Homosexuals are not affected by the

> law

> >differently than other groups who want to engage in contractual

> relationships similar

> >to marriage but with persons with whom they can't under current law

> @@@@@@@@@@

>

> So group B is second-class, but group A is not, even though group A

> is a subset of group B? Whatever...

I don't see where I said that.

More time wasted arguing the > semantics of an inherently imprecise term...

Hey don't pin that on me. We're both wasting time.

>

> @@@@@@ Chris:

> against a person isn't a non-sequitor.

> @@@@@@

>

> since you use this word so often, you might consider learning

> the correct spelling... it's a " u " ...

Thanks <g>

Chris