Thursday, December 01, 2011

Anti-anti-discrimination

David said:
there is a need for legislation to protect gays from discrimination

I'm doubtful of this; that's the thing.
To be clear, if I meet a gay person dressed -ahem- flamboyantly, I have every desire to treat them with the love of Christ. Violence is not an option, and it's not attractive to me either.
That said, if a person were to come to an interview for a serious job dressed flamboyantly, I'd treat that the same way as I'd treat someone who came in with a T-shirt and sandals - this person isn't treating the interview or opportunity seriously. S/he better be WAY more qualified than any other applicant if s/he wants to be considered for the hire.

That's why I've been asking "How would the interviewer know to ask?" about the interviewEE's preferred manner of sex? Was it b/c the homosexual person dressed in such a way as to warrant the asking? I've been in many job interviews and not once has any question ever approached a question about sexual preference. Don't know if I've even been asked if I'm married.

As for the legislation you claim is necessary, it seems to me the inverse is also necessary but I don't see anyone clamoring for it. It's far more politically correct to be loud-and-proud homosexual than to be loud-and-proud hetero. When's the last Hetero Pride March you heard of? When's the last time anyone suggested proclaiming "Heterosexual History Month"?  If we are to celebrate historical achievements by remarkable people, why bring up their sexual orientation at all?  What difference does one's sexual orientation make in a great invention or discovery?  Who among us speaks in the following way: "Albert Einstein, a great mind and influential scientist, who was also heterosexual, is the originator of the theory of relativity"?

We don't need anti-discrimination legislation to protect gay people. We need regular laws to protect them from unprovoked violence just like everyone else is protected from unprovoked violence. If gays are targeted by people for violence, from where I stand there's at least a solid argument to be made that some of that is due to homosexuals' demanding super rights and that they not only be tolerated but fully accepted for whatever perverse things they want to do in public, such as parade down a street naked and wave sex toys around.
Where is the "Missionary Position Pride Parade" where people who prefer missionary position sex march around proclaiming their preferred manner of sexual expression? It's not there. So many of the most visible homosexuals are most visible b/c they insist on flaunting their sexual preferences in public, and not everyone is OK with that. Not everyone prefers to peacefully share the Good News of Jesus with homosexuals like I do. Some prefer violence against the Other. In that case, the answer for the Other is to prioritise carefully. For what reason is s/he spending all this time and energy flaunting his/her sexual preference all over the place?


Do you have any problem with protecting against discrimination after the hiring?

Is open discussion of whether employees prefer to watch porn during sex or prefer sex doggie-style acceptable within the workplace?
How precisely would it become known that the hypothetical homosexual person is in fact homosexual? Are you asking what if s/he flaunts it? Should we also introduce anti-discrimination legislation that guarantees that anyone can talk about anything at any time in any workplace without any adverse consequences?


If he can do the job, then hire him. This seems like a trivial reason to deny employment.

Precisely my point. His preferred manner of sexual expression shouldn't enter into the question at all, and that includes both sides of the equation. Why would the prospective employer ask? Why would the prospective employee tell?

178 comments:

merkur said...

Can you just clarify what legislation you're referring to, and what it is exactly that you refer to it? And what are these "super rights" that teh gayz are demanding that you so violently object to - where can we find examples so we know what you're talking about?

David said...

Another post on this subject? Are you doubling down on red herrings and ignorance? Wow, you really have issues with gays. I'm now more in favor of anti-discrimation legislation than before. Just keep in demonstrating the need, old boy.

merkur said...

Sorry, that should read "what it is exactly that you object to in it?"

zilch said...

I can see where you're coming from here, rho, at least in your implication that anti-anti-discrimination is a form of discrimination in its own right. I won't deny that the issues are complex, and that all kinds of affirmative action create problems of their own.

But when you say: If gays are targeted by people for violence, from where I stand there's at least a solid argument to be made that some of that is due to homosexuals' demanding super rights and that they not only be tolerated but fully accepted for whatever perverse things they want to do in public, such as parade down a street naked and wave sex toys around.

... that sounds an awful lot like white power groups whining about blacks- or Jews. Do you really believe that people beat up gays because they demand "super rights", such as being allowed to marry or not be discriminated against in the job market? It seems more likely that these punks are afraid of gays, as you seem to be too. If you don't like people parading down the street naked and waving sex toys around, don't watch. Your distaste here is revealing.

Andrew said...

Yeah Rho, your dislike of people doing private things in public is a sure sign of sickness. How dare you question the wholesomeness of a man wearing nothing but platform shoes, body glitter, and a Marylin Monroe wig marching down a public street while being fondled by other men and throwing butt-plug necklaces to the crowd? Your form of bigotry is surely the worst. You make me sick. s.i.c.k. SICK!

zilch said...

Andrew- it's of course rho's prerogative to not find homosexuality wholesome. But that's not all that he's saying: he's saying that legislation to protect gays against discrimination is not necessary. If there really were no discrimination, then I would agree with him. But alas, we don't live in that world.

merkur said...

Zilch didn't say that Rhology's "dislike of people doing private things in public [was] a sure sign of sickness," he merely pointed out that it's revealing, as is your own response. Do you think that lying so blatantly is a useful contribution to the discussion?

Rhology said...

merkur,

Sure. Some examples of super rights they request and work toward are prevention of public criticism of homosexuality, preaching from the pulpit or in public areas that h-ity is a sin, non-discrimination in the workplace over actions they choose to take (though other actions legitimately warrant discrimination, such as drug use), open acceptance of parades in which public nudity and perversity are flaunted. Andrew is exactly right.

And your "teh gayz" comment shows how seriously you take this topic. You are showing yourself to be hopelessly biased in this matter. Save your vitriol for someone who hates homosexuals and prefers violence to reasoned discussion.



zilch,

... that sounds an awful lot like white power groups whining about blacks- or Jews.

Blacks and Jews who want EQUAL acceptance for WHO THEY ARE ONTOLOGICALLY are to be commended.
Homosexuals who want SUPER RIGHTS because of HOW THEY PREFER THEIR SEX are to be relentlessly criticised and called out for the perverse sickos they are.


If there really were no discrimination, then I would agree with him.

And what I'm saying is that h-als contribute mightily to that discrimination.
How is anyone supposed to know that Joe is homosexual or not? He'd have to tell others, wouldn't he?
Do you know anyone who goes around asking "Hey, are you gay?" to everyone s/he knows? Yeah, me neither. How in the world would anyone know that JOe is gay unless he volunteered the information?

merkur said...

I'll get back to you on the question of super rights, but I don't think you answered my first question (which was the important one): can you just clarify what legislation you're referring to, and what it is exactly that you object to in it?

zilch said...

Rho- are you ontologically heterosexual, or is it just how you prefer your sex? Just curious.

merkur said...

I've just realised that you didn't answer either of my questions, since I asked for specific examples of the demands for "super rights". You provided one link to a WND article, which contains no mention of homosexuals demanding "super rights" of any kind - in fact it doesn't mention homosexuals asking for anything, which suggests that once again you've selected a shitty example to try and prove your point. Do you want to put some actual evidence into play? Because it really is starting to feel like your disgust is directed at things that don't actually exist.

Rhology said...

zilch,

Ontologically hetero. I'm a Christian, remember? There is no such thing as an ontological homosexual.

David said...

Everyone needs to keep in mind that when dealing with Alan, we're dealing with someone who would make the following argument.

"The employer may have strong convictions that someone who is so deep into sin and perversity that he would appear in public with his "boyfriend" also has a good chance of being deep into sin and perversity in other areas, such as finance and accountability."

That is, Alan is drawing conclusions about a man's honesty in accounting on the basis of sexual orientation.

How fast can we pass some more anti-discrimination legislation?

Rhology said...

Keep in mind, in David we have a guy who has never been able to provide an objective basis for morality in his worldview. IOW he doesn't know what he's talking about. But he sure likes to act like he does!

David said...

Honestly, Alan, I think that you'd be better off if you just let this gay thing go. If you want to keep digging, go right ahead. There is no need for my to add anything. You're out there for all to see.

merkur said...

"Ontologically hetero. I'm a Christian, remember? There is no such thing as an ontological homosexual."

How can there be such a thing as "ontologically hetero" but no such thing as "ontologically homosexual"? Either sexual orientation is ontological, or it isn't.

Rhology posing as David said...

Rhology,

Sure, I don't know what good and bad are. Sure, I don't have any way to differentiate between sexual preferences beyond what the chemical reactions in my head make me say. Sure, all I can say about moral questions is "I don't like it" or at best "Me and some other people I've heard of don't like it".
But seriously, I am 100% confident you're wrong. Because I feel you are.

Rhology said...

Either sexual orientation is ontological, or it isn't.

Or Christianity is true, and God makes all people heterosexual and people turn away from the truth and embrace lies and evil, some of them evolving to prefer homosexual sex, suppressing the truth. Romans 1.

I don't know what your worldview is, but I'd like to know. How do you know what you think you know about sexual orientation, if your worldview is true?

David said...

Hey Alan. Don't you think it's time you came out of the closet?

Rhology said...

Boy, David sure got me there. One only wishes everyone could argue as rationally as he.

merkur said...

Still no examples of the legislation you're protesting so loudly, or of gays demanding "super rights". As you admitted on the other comment thread, you "don't exactly spend [your] time compiling these sorts of things", which is to say that you don't have any specific examples. Given that you don't have any specific examples, would it be fair to say that what you're objecting to in these blog posts only exists in your mind?

merkur said...

"Or Christianity is true, and God makes all people heterosexual and people turn away from the truth and embrace lies and evil, some of them evolving to prefer homosexual sex suppressing the truth."

It doesn't matter if homosexual sex results from turning away from the truth; if God made all people heterosexual, then sexuality *in general* is ontological.

Here's another question: if a man commits adultery, is he an adulterer?

David said...

Well, obviously, the closet comment was intended as a joke, and not intended to be particularly "rational", but anyone who has said the following...

"The employer may have strong convictions that someone who is so deep into sin and perversity that he would appear in public with his "boyfriend" also has a good chance of being deep into sin and perversity in other areas, such as finance and accountability."

...should be careful about complaining about the "rationality" of other's arguments. Glass houses and all of that.

In any event, I'm pretty much done here. You stand revealed, and your own words are best argument for anti-discrimination laws that I can think of. Not much else to add.

merkur said...

"The employer may have strong convictions that someone who is so deep into sin and perversity that he would appear in public with his "boyfriend" also has a good chance of being deep into sin and perversity in other areas, such as finance and accountability."

Do you believe this to be true yourself?

zilch said...

Yeah, rho, I figured this would ineluctably get back to the Bible. You're doing a Christian critique of homosexuality, and trying to pass it off as a non-religious critique. Sorry, the word "ontological" has no real-world referent for us reality-informed types.

bossmanham said...

So you guys think that if someone is gay, they should have the ability to go around in public naked and dress like an idiot at work and act extremely flamboyantly and expect no reaction whatsoever.

You know, I think I should have legal protections to make every effort to pass gas loudly in meetings at work, disrupting the environment often.

Rhology said...

bossmanham said...
So you guys think that if someone is gay, they should have the ability to go around in public naked and dress like an idiot at work and act extremely flamboyantly and expect no reaction whatsoever.

No no no! They're saying that if you have a problem with it, you should be punished until you learn to stop your thoughtcrime.

merkur said...

"So you guys think that if someone is gay, they should have the ability to go around in public naked and dress like an idiot at work and act extremely flamboyantly and expect no reaction whatsoever."

No, and nor has anybody here made that argument, and the way that you conflate being homosexual, going around in public naked, dressing like an idiot at work and acting extremely flamboyantly is simultaneously hilarious, pathetic and revealing. This would come as news to my gay friends, none of whom have ever done the latter three or had any interest in doing the latter three. Please keep posting - you're doing a fabulous job of demonstrating that your argument isn't rooted in the bible at all, but in your own fear and ignorance. You're absolutely welcome to your opinion, of course, but perhaps you should consider that maybe everybody else is also welcome to their opinions.

zilch said...

I was going to reply to boss here, but merkur took the words out of my mouth.

cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch

David said...

"Hilarious, pathetic and revealing."

Amen, brother, amen!

All you have to do is sit back, and these two will make your argument for you. Amazing.

bossmanham said...

No, and nor has anybody here made that argument, and the way that you conflate being homosexual, going around in public naked, dressing like an idiot at work and acting extremely flamboyantly is simultaneously hilarious, pathetic and revealing

Hey. Einstein. That's what the "antidiscrimination" laws would do. The laws we have NOW do just fine for everyone. If you're arguing for more laws to protect a certain segment of society then there must be something they do that you're trying to protect. That's what the militant gay lobby does.

bossmanham said...

Amen, brother, amen!

All you have to do is sit back, and these two will make your argument for you. Amazing.


All you have to do is sit back and David will cheerlead to the stupidest comments available on the board. What this says about little David is pretty obvious.

JesusSaves said...

Our Savior is speaking to us today!! See the link below for this glorious message from our Lord!!

http://flipthatbird.com/random/jesus-christ-velvet-painting-finger/

merkur said...

"That's what the "antidiscrimination" laws would do."

Anti-discrimination laws would conflate being gay with dressing flamboyantly? I would have thought you would be happy with that outcome - at least then your argument would make sense. Of course, that's not what the antidiscrimination laws would do, and I challenge you to present a shred of evidence that they would.

"The laws we have NOW do just fine for everyone."

Oh, I see. We should never make any laws ever again, because we've got it exactly right already. Have you considered that perhaps the laws you have NOW don't do just fine for everyone? Of course you haven't - like Rhology, you apparently find it near-impossible to imagine that other people aren't like you.

merkur said...

It's increasingly clear that the common thread running through your antipathy is not religious faith but lack of empathy. There's some interesting research to be done there, no doubt!

Rhology said...

merkur said:
Of course you haven't - like Rhology, you apparently find it near-impossible to imagine that other people aren't like you.

You know, bossmanham, merkur is right. We are blinkered, short-sighted, and myopic.
If I could do it all over again, I think I know what I could've done better, for my part. I would've learned at least 3 foreign languages and practiced them incessantly before I turned 40. I would've started a blog with an uncensored comment box and invited open conversation and debate with all comers. I would've read the Qur'an through and striven to understand it fairly and consistently. I would've been a long-term missionary in a very foreign place where I didn't even know the language. I would've gone out of my way to talk to people who are different than me about matters of importance.

I mean, it's too late now, but I'm just saying that merkur has really opened my eyes to all of this. I mean, all this time I thought that merkur was just like me too! What a fool I've been.

bossmanham said...

Anti-discrimination laws would conflate being gay with dressing flamboyantly?

When you learn to read what I said, get back to me.

Oh, I see. We should never make any laws ever again, because we've got it exactly right already.

Not laws that target a specific group of people to protect when they're already protected under current law.

like Rhology, you apparently find it near-impossible to imagine that other people aren't like you.

Sigh. What in the deep blue sea does this have to do with anything?

Rhology said...

bossmanham said:
Not laws that target a specific group of people to protect when they're already protected under current law.

Bingo.

merkur said...

“If I could do it all over again, I think I know what I could've done better, for my part. I would've learned at least 3 foreign languages and practiced them incessantly before I turned 40. I would've started a blog with an uncensored comment box and invited open conversation and debate with all comers. I would've read the Qur'an through and striven to understand it fairly and consistently. I would've been a long-term missionary in a very foreign place where I didn't even know the language. I would've gone out of my way to talk to people who are different than me about matters of importance.”

None of these things are in and of themselves evidence of having empathy for others. Once again, the fact that you think they do is quite revealing.

Rhology said...

I've decided that you have no empathy for others, merkur.

merkur said...

“When you learn to read what I said, get back to me.”

I said: “the way that you conflate being homosexual, going around in public naked, dressing like an idiot at work and acting extremely flamboyantly is simultaneously hilarious, pathetic and revealing.”

You responded “That's what the "antidiscrimination" laws would do.” Substituting my original words, the expanded version of your response would read: “[conflating] being homosexual, going around in public naked, dressing like an idiot at work and acting extremely flamboyantly” is “what the "antidiscrimination" laws would do.”

But let's imagine for a moment that this distressingly simple piece of interpretation is beyond me. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what you actually meant?

“Not laws that target a specific group of people to protect when they're already protected under current law.”

It's your opinion that the law already protects that group sufficiently; clearly at least some members of that group do not share your opinion. You state your opinion as if it is fact, but it is not; however feel free to make your case.

“Sigh. What in the deep blue sea does this have to do with anything?”

What does lack of empathy for people who aren't like you have to do with your opposition to those people? SRSLY?

merkur said...

"I've decided that you have no empathy for others, merkur."

I bet that quick wit wows them in the playground.

David said...

"All you have to do is sit back and David will cheerlead to the stupidest comments available on the board. What this says about little David is pretty obvious."

And what this all say about Brennon is pretty obvious, too. Nothing need be added.

David said...

Bingo? All that you and Brennon have managed to do is demonstrate exactly why we need laws to protect specific groups.

Rhology said...

Not everyone cares about the playground, merkur. It doesn't appear you have much empathy for my point of view.

merkur said...

Just as a reminder: are you going to give any examples of the legislation that you're railing against, or the "super rights" that you object to, bearing in mind that none of the links you've provided so far have mentioned either of those things?

bossmanham said...

But let's imagine for a moment that this distressingly simple piece of interpretation is beyond me. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what you actually meant?


Exactly what I said. These dumb laws would protect silly behavior like that under the auspices of anti gay discrimination. They'd say stifling their "free expression" of their lifestyle or whatever is discriminating against them. Whether or not the majority of homosexuals do that is irrelevant. Same with protections of cross-dressers. Sorry, just as if I wore a t-shirt to my recent job interview they would have the right to consider me as not serious, so too should men who feel the need to dress as women be ignored.

It's your opinion that the law already protects that group sufficiently

No it's fact. If someone murders me they will be punished by the law. If someone murders Neal Patrick Harris, they will be punished by the law. Murder is punishable by law in both instances.

What does lack of empathy for people who aren't like you have to do with your opposition to those people? SRSLY?

Empathy is irrelevant here, RLY.

David said...

As Tony Kornheiser says, here's information for life.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

bossmanham said...

It's like talking to an amoeba...

Rhology said...

Only repressed gays say "amoeba", bossmanham.

bossmanham said...

Haha.

merkur said...

So this legislation will specificalyy protect behavior such as "going around in public naked, dressing like an idiot at work and acting extremely flamboyantly"? Can you actually point us to the legislation - current or proposed - which will implement such protections?

bossmanham said...

So this legislation will specificalyy protect behavior such as "going around in public naked, dressing like an idiot at work and acting extremely flamboyantly"? Can you actually point us to the legislation - current or proposed - which will implement such protections?

Then if it's not going to protect nonsense like this, what the hell are they arguing for? There has to be something different that they do that they're trying to protect, because right not THEY ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE LAW!!!

David said...

Hmm, I don't think that there was anything in this research about amoebae.

Hey, the science is what it is. But I can understand why you'd find the conclusion of the researchers distressing.

Rhology said...

Yes, very distressing.

In other news, bossmanham and I have a date in the not too distant future. No lie.

bossmanham said...

Pretty worried here, David. The wife and I will have to have a long discussion.

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
merkur said...

"Then if it's not going to protect nonsense like this, what the hell are they arguing for?"

What the hell are who arguing for what? if this legislation is so futile and offensive, then point us to it so that we can see for ourselves. I've asked Rhology for examples, and he hasn't provided any at all; perhaps you can help us out.

David said...

"In other news, bossmanham and I have a date in the not too distant future. No lie.

I dunno. A Calvinist and an Arminian? I don't see a long-term relationship here, but conflict CAN make for hot sex in the short run.


"Pretty worried here, David. The wife and I will have to have a long discussion."

Oh, you're married? Well, that proves your straight, right? Married guys are never gay. Well, if I were you, I wouldn't sign up for any research studies with penis monitors.


"THEY ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE LAW!!!"

Are they? Are you sure? Given the very long history of discrimination on the basis on sexual orientation alone, I can see how someone who is gay might doubt this. Given your words and the words of Alan, I can truly see why someone who is gay might see a need for legal protection against attitudes such as....

"The employer may have strong convictions that someone who is so deep into sin and perversity that he would appear in public with his "boyfriend" also has a good chance of being deep into sin and perversity in other areas, such as finance and accountability."

You don't understand? Look at your own words. As I said, the more you argue, the more you convince me that the legislation in question is needed.

So, by all means, continue.

bossmanham said...

Oh, you're married? Well, that proves your straight, right? Married guys are never gay.

Chances are probably less, eh?

But like I said, I'm really worried.

Are they? Are you sure? Given the very long history of discrimination on the basis on sexual orientation alone, I can see how someone who is gay might doubt this.

ORLY? Doesn't really matter what they doubt. Objective evidence exists.

David said...

Objective evidence exists....of a long history of discrimination against gays.

bossmanham said...

Objective evidence exists....of a long history of discrimination against gays.

Pretty ambiguous, but objective evidence exists that the laws that are on the books would cover the same crimes as if they were committed against straight people too.

In fact, I can point to more crimes committed against non gays than against gays. True story.

bossmanham said...

that are on the books would cover the same crimes as if they were committed against straight people too. * and gays.

Point is, they're sexual orientation neutral.

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

"Pretty ambiguous, but objective evidence exists that the laws that are on the books would cover the same crimes as if they were committed against straight people too."

Pretty ambigous? You want a reading list?

Crimes? As should be clear, I don't think that the main issue here is just murder. We're talking about much more than just so-called orientation neutral laws. That should be very obvious.

But given your inability to point to specific legislation that you object to, it's rather difficult to have a discussion of the matter. My old man used say "don't cry until you're hit".

bossmanham said...

Pretty ambigous? You want a reading list?

Sure, but we must assume in this conversation that the discrimination is criminal. As Rho has already pointed out, and as anyone with a brain (I am wondering if this includes you) can recognize, there are valid cases of discrimination. If I walked into a job interview in my PJ's I would expect them to discriminate against me.

So any reading list you gave me could not contain these kinds of occurrences. Furthermore, I assume you'll bring up the case of the poor man who was beheaded and dragged behind a car. In that case, people read into the criminals actions a motive that almost certainly wasn't there (that they were hating on gays). That's the biggest problem with these kinds of laws. They require officials to determine whether there was a further motive for committing the crime. Law isn't about determining how someone feels while committing a crime. Law is about punishing crime, period.

So, this reading list may be interesting, but if a crime is committed against a homosexual, there are already laws that protect them, and you, and me.

But given your inability to point to specific legislation that you object to, it's rather difficult to have a discussion of the matter. My old man used say "don't cry until you're hit".

Hate crime laws such as the ones I mentioned above would unjustly add extra penalties to crimes simply because someone is LGBT. That's discrimination against straight people, who wouldn't have those same protections.

Game, set, match.

bossmanham said...

My old man used say "don't cry until you're hit".

Pretty ironic considering what you're whining for.

merkur said...

"Law isn't about determining how someone feels while committing a crime. Law is about punishing crime, period."

Intent ("how someone feels") is an essential part of criminal law, particularly in the case of e.g. homicide, and also an essential part of civil procedure such as tort law. You are in error.

"If I walked into a job interview in my PJ's I would expect them to discriminate against me."

That's not discrimination in the sense that is being discussed here, or in the sense that is discussed in legislation against discrimination. You wouldn't be discriminating against somebody for what they are, but what they did. In the case of homosexuals, or "blacks", or women, you're discriminating against them based on what they are. I agree that cross-dressing is a more difficult case, but hardly one that can be dismissed out of hand.

"Hate crime laws such as the ones I mentioned above would unjustly add extra penalties to crimes simply because someone is LGBT."

Any examples of those laws?

David said...

“If I walked into a job interview in my PJ's I would expect them to discriminate against me.”

And are we talking about this sort of case? Are these laws designed to protect interviewees in PJs? No. You know it isn’t. Straw man, red herring. This is why it’s hard to take your arguments seriously. You keep showing that you either don’t understand what folks are concerned about or maybe you just can’t see it, because you’ve never experienced it yourself. You keep coming back to the same absurd examples, and I don’t understand why.


“So any reading list you gave me could not contain these kinds of occurrences.”

No problem. There are plenty of books that detail the history of discrimination in employment that have nothing to do with PJ or dancing naked in the street. Surely you are familiar with the expression “smear the queer? There are countless documented cases of beatings, murders, etc., that were the direct result of a criminal’s desire to do harm to someone just because they were gay. You’ve heard of the Holocaust, yes? It wasn’t just Jews in the gas chambers. How many examples do you need?


“They require officials to determine whether there was a further motive for committing the crime. Law isn't about determining how someone feels while committing a crime. Law is about punishing crime, period.”

As Merkur has pointed out, this is simply wrong. We determine motive all of the time, and clearly the penalty for the crime is linked to how someone feels while committing a crime. You know this, so I can’t understand why you made the argument that you did.


“If a crime is committed against a homosexual, there are already laws that protect them, and you, and me. Hate crime laws such as the ones I mentioned above would unjustly add extra penalties to crimes simply because someone is LGBT. That's discrimination against straight people, who wouldn't have those same protections.”

Well, I don’t see any example of a particular law, so I can only guess about the laws that what you’re referring to. I thought that the discussion was about discrimination in employment, but ok, let’s talk about other crimes?

What if individuals of a certain group are much more likely to become victims of crimes, just because they are gay or black or Christian or named Brennon? Ya think maybe these individuals might need a little extra protection? Don’t you think that society has some obligation to make the probability of becoming a victim equal for all groups?

We’re talking about cases where the probability of a crime against the individual is more likely because of some trait of that individual (they’re gay, they’re straight, they’re Christian, doesn’t really matter). The goal of the hypothetical legislation is to reduce the probability of attack when the probability is higher for one group than another. Compared to straights, gays are more likely to be attacked just because of their sexual orientation. So the extra penalties are put into place to deter future attacks against gays, because gays are more likely to be attacked just because they’re gay. In effect … and you should approve is this … the ultimately goal is to make crime orientation-, race- and/or religion-neutral.


When straights are being targeted and assaulted just because they’re straight, then I have no problem with hate crime legislation to protect straights. Same would be true if Christians were being singled out. But as you would say, why pass legislation when there is no need?


“Game, set, match.”

You have a very creative way of keeping score.



“Pretty ironic considering what you're whining for.”

So, you’re saying that gays have never been hurt in any way shape or form for no other reason than that they were gay? No discrimination in the past, no possibility of discrimination in the future? Really, try to think through what you’re saying.

Rhology said...

if I were you, I wouldn't sign up for any research studies with penis monitors.

LOL, don't worry.

David said...

Actually, it just occurred to me that hate crime laws that address sexual orientation would automatically protect straights, too. Everyone has a sexual orientation. If someone beat up a straight guy because he was straight, then this would be a hate crime, too. So, straights do get extra protection from these laws.

bossmanham said...

Merkur,

Intent ("how someone feels") is an essential part of criminal law, particularly in the case of e.g. homicide, and also an essential part of civil procedure such as tort law. You are in error.

I didn't say anything about intent. Intent is not synonymous with "how someone feels." Intent is about what someone means to do. Intent is important to help determine if a murder occurred, because it's important to know if they meant to kill the person. For a criminal court do delve into the personal motivations (completely different from intent) in a murder is irrelevant as it pertains to a penalty for the crime. Not only is it irrelevant, but it's hopelessly ambiguous. How can a judge or jury really know what the violent offender feels personally about someone and why is it relevant?

Murder is murder is murder whether someone is murdered because people don't like what they say or whether someone is murdered because they don't like what color they are. And guess what, we already have laws on the books to punish murderers!! If someone murders someone it doesn't matter why they did it in any criminal court. The same applies to any violent crime. You are in error sir.

That's not discrimination in the sense that is being discussed here

As I said.

In the case of homosexuals, or "blacks", or women, you're discriminating against them based on what they are.

Which also isn't always wrong. The NFL doesn't allow skinny white guys or women to play because they aren't qualified. Homosexuals also aren't qualified to be in some fields, such as spending inordinate amount of time with young boyscouts, because of certain temptations and dangers that could (and do) arise. This applies equally to straight men and girl scouts. Clearly there are certain times when who you are does call for discrimination. Don't believe me? Walk into the women's restroom anywhere at all and tell me what happens.

But this is a digression anyway. What color one's skin is has nothing to do with physical actions. Being homosexual does. You can't choose color, you can choose to participate in homosexual relationships (notice this bypasses the irrelevant debate about whether genetics determine sexual orientation). Your actions do play a legitimate factor in how society treats you, and that's what is attempting to be protected by anti-discrimination laws. The gays want their vile orgy parades uninhibited by us dumb Christians.

Now, in a neutral type of job setting, say the IT field, I would agree that choices like who you sleep with aren't relevant. But in childcare or if trying to demand work at a religious institution it certainly is.

I agree that cross-dressing is a more difficult case, but hardly one that can be dismissed out of hand.

By your own poorly thought out standards it should be. No one has to cross dress.

Any examples of those laws?

Any proposed hate crimes legislation. The whole point is to add on extra protections based on who the victim is and the perceived feelings about that person of the offender.

bossmanham said...

David,

And are we talking about this sort of case

How could you both miss that I'm trying to distinguish between proper discrimination and improper discrimination? Are you that poor of a reader?

Are these laws designed to protect interviewees in PJs? No. You know it isn’t. Straw man, red herring.

It's an example. The gay lobby is trying to legitimize and force acceptance of their actions.

You keep showing that you either don’t understand what folks are concerned about

I assume it's more than just being protected from violent crimes, because there are already laws that punish them!

There are plenty of books that detail the history of discrimination in employment that have nothing to do with PJ or dancing naked in the street.

And I just listed several legitimate reasons to discriminate in employment. Are any of these like that? And anyway, it's always legitimate to discriminate against people's actions.

There are countless documented cases of beatings, murders, etc., that were the direct result of a criminal’s desire to do harm to someone just because they were gay.

Hello!? Can you read!? Once more since apparently there's 14 inches of skull to get this through...erhem THERE ARE ALREADY LAWS THAT PUNISH THESE CRIMES.

You’ve heard of the Holocaust, yes?

Really? Come on, we're talking about American law. Everyone knows the Nazis were evil. Irrelevant to this discussion.

As Merkur has pointed out, this is simply wrong. We determine motive all of the time, and clearly the penalty for the crime is linked to how someone feels while committing a crime

And as I corrected above: nope.

Well, I don’t see any example of a particular law, so I can only guess about the laws that what you’re referring to.

Are you seriously this dense? Can you not see that any law that affords a particular group of people extra protections isn't legitimate? That's why the equal protection clause exists. If gays get extra protections, it's automatically discriminating against non-gays, whatever the legislation happens to be. For the love of logic learn to friggin think, man.

What if individuals of a certain group are much more likely to become victims of crimes, just because they are gay or black or Christian or named Brennon?

What is this a subtle threat? Enforce the law. Put more law enforcement officials in their area or whatever to enforce the laws already there to protect people. New super special gay laws not needed, nor constitutional.

When straights are being targeted and assaulted just because they’re straight, then I have no problem with hate crime legislation to protect straights.

How do you know every crime against a straight person isn't because they're straight? Who told you? You can read minds?

zilch said...

I really need popcorn for this thread. But now I'm really curious- could someone please give me some examples of these proposed anti-discrimination laws? It's pretty hard to judge whether they're a good idea or not if you don't know what they state.

merkur said...

“Intent is not synonymous with "how someone feels”... For a criminal court do delve into the personal motivations... in a murder is irrelevant as it pertains to a penalty for the crime.”

This is a fair criticism, and I withdraw my previous statement. When you are talking about “how someone feels”, you're referring to motive rather than intent. However motive does play a role in legal proceedings; explicitly in tort law (in cases such as malicious prosecution) and implicitly in criminal law (particularly during the pre- and post-trial stages). The sentencing for a crime such as murder is frequently mitigated by consideration of motive. So motive (“how someone feels”) is not irrelevant to the penalty for at least some crimes, and my point still stands.

“The NFL doesn't allow skinny white guys or women to play because they aren't qualified.”

Being skinny is directly relevant to your abilities to perform the duties of an NFL player; being gay is not relevant, and that's what anti-discrimination legislation is intended to address.

“Homosexuals also aren't qualified to be in some fields, such as spending inordinate amount of time with young boyscouts... This applies equally to straight men and girl scouts.”

The Girl Scouts website shows that they welcome volunteers both “women and men 18 and over”. To be consistent, I assume you would also object to straight women being boy scout leaders, but for some reason you don't mention that. Luckily the Boy Scout website can help us out: “Every leadership position is open to women. In fact, more than one-third of Scout volunteers are women.” So you are not basing your argument on the facts.

“Clearly there are certain times when who you are does call for discrimination. Don't believe me Walk into the women's restroom anywhere at all and tell me what happens.”

Nothing happens, if it's a unisex restroom like the one in the restaurant I was at last night, or the one in the office I worked in last year. Once again, you are mistaking your personal experience for a universal norm.

“What color one's skin is has nothing to do with physical actions. Being homosexual does. You can't choose color, you can choose to participate in homosexual relationships (notice this bypasses the irrelevant debate about whether genetics determine sexual orientation).”

You can be homosexual and not participate in homosexual relationships, as one of my friends does. I assume you would offer no obstacle to my friend entering employment?

“in a neutral type of job setting, say the IT field, I would agree that choices like who you sleep with aren't relevant. But in childcare or if trying to demand work at a religious institution it certainly is.”

Who you sleep with is irrelevant in childcare. Who you sleep with is irrelevant for most positions t most institutions; the guy who mops the floors once a week doesn't have to be heterosexual. In fact there are almost no positions I can think of in which who you sleep with would be relevant.

“Any proposed hate crimes legislation.”

You've been very specific about what you object to. You claim that you are objecting to specific legislation which will specifically give homosexuals specific protection to pursue specific behaviours (such as “going around in public naked, dressing like an idiot at work and acting extremely flamboyantly"), and that this is “discrimination against straight people, who wouldn't have those same protections.”

All I am asking for is an example of this legislation so that everybody can judge for themselves.

merkur said...

"But now I'm really curious - could someone please give me some examples of these proposed anti-discrimination laws?"

I don't want to pre-empt anybody, but I'm pretty sure that the answer to that question is "no".

zilch said...

"Merkur" is the name of a supermarket chain here in Austria. Just sayin'.

David said...

“How could you both miss that I'm trying to distinguish between proper discrimination and improper discrimination? Are you that poor of a reader?”

And as example of “proper discrimination”, you continue to give irrelevant examples. This is my point. Show me why it is proper to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I don’t mean discrimination on the basis of how “flamboyant” a man’s shirt is (although I think that this is silly criterion), I mean something that doesn’t reflect your stereotyping of gays.



“It's an example. The gay lobby is trying to legitimize and force acceptance of their actions.”

Again, you provide no specific examples of this. Instead, we get irrelevant examples and straw men.



“I assume it's more than just being protected from violent crimes, because there are already laws that punish them!”

Yes, and I’ve explained the rationale behind so-called “hate crime legislation”.


“And I just listed several legitimate reasons to discriminate in employment. Are any of these like that? And anyway, it's always legitimate to discriminate against people's actions.”

And do any your examples demonstrate that it is legitimate to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? Is it ok to fire a guy just because he’s gay? By legitimate to discriminate against people’s actions, do you mean it’s legitimate to discriminate if a man has sex with another man? All you’ve demonstrated here is that you have bizarre ideas about the daily lives of gay men.


“Hello!? Can you read!? Once more since apparently there's 14 inches of skull to get this through...erhem THERE ARE ALREADY LAWS THAT PUNISH THESE CRIMES.”

Calm down, and don’t be an ass. Try to understand the point. I’m trying to explain why gays might conclude that there was a need for laws that specifically address sexual orientation. Again, given your attitude towards gay, I think that you’re making their point for them.



“Really? Come on, we're talking about American law. Everyone knows the Nazis were evil. Irrelevant to this discussion.”

No, it’s not irrelevant. It explains why gays feel a need for the type of laws that you object to. You keep demanding to know why gays are insisting on certain laws. I’m trying to explain the source of their fears. But empathy is clearly not your strong suit.

David said...

“And as I corrected above: nope.”

And again, you’re wrong. Intent matter, motive matters. It matters in terms of the initial criminal charge, and it matters in terms of sentencing. What happens to the defendant depends on the intent and attitude to the defendant. Talk to a lawyer if you doubt what we are saying.


“Are you seriously this dense? Can you not see that any law that affords a particular group of people extra protections isn't legitimate? That's why the equal protection clause exists. If gays get extra protections, it's automatically discriminating against non-gays, whatever the legislation happens to be. For the love of logic learn to friggin think, man.”

Can’t you see that you haven’t shown me a specific example of an actual law that you object to? Show me a specific law, and we’ll discuss it. Again, don’t cry until you’ve been hit.

Again, there is indeed “equal protection” here. As I said, you have a sexual orientation, too. If you are attacked or discriminated against specifically because you are straight, then these laws protect you, too.

And take a Xanax, man. You’re gonna pop a blood vessel!

(It’s so cute when you say “friggin”. Such a wimp way of saying “f*ckin’. Be a man. Say what you want to say.)


“What is this a subtle threat? “

It’s not a subtle threat at all. It was just an attempt to get you to walk a mile in another man’s shoes. It’s obviously a futile effort.


“Enforce the law. Put more law enforcement officials in their area or whatever to enforce the laws already there to protect people. New super special gay laws not needed, nor constitutional.”

Now you’re a constitutional scholar? Again, show me a specific law that is in violation of the Constitution. Again, these laws don’t say “extra protection if you’re gay”, they say “extra protection in the case of attacks motive by orientation”. You have an orientation. There nothing that is super special gay here.


"How do you know every crime against a straight person isn't because they're straight? Who told you? You can read minds?"

Sigh. Again, this objection has been answered. This is done every day in criminal courts all over the country.


This has become tiresome and redundant. I'm tired of saying "again"". It’s clear that you cannot discuss this matter in a calm and rational way, and you might want to think about why this is so. However, you’ve really done a great service for the cause of anti-discrimination legislation, and I thank you for that.

bossmanham said...

However motive does play a role in legal proceedings

Only in terms of determining if there was intent, since motive can imply intent. It is irrelevant in terms of punishment for a crime.

being gay is not relevant, and that's what anti-discrimination legislation is intended to address.

It is relevant in some cases, as I've already explained.

The Girl Scouts website shows that they welcome volunteers both “women and men 18 and over”.

Unless the organization has gone bat poop crazy, they do not allow the men to be alone with the girls on camping trips and whatnot.

To be consistent, I assume you would also object to straight women being boy scout leaders, but for some reason you don't mention that.

Do you seriously need to be led around by the hand like a child?

Nothing happens, if it's a unisex restroom like the one in the restaurant I was at last night, or the one in the office I worked in last year

Because the unisex ones are a one person thing, you nitwit.

Once again, you are mistaking your personal experience for a universal norm.

No I'm not, I'm pointing out legitimate cases of discrimination based on what you are. Your silly responses highlight the silliness of your position.

You can be homosexual and not participate in homosexual relationships, as one of my friends does. I assume you would offer no obstacle to my friend entering employment?

Did I not just say that? There are Christians who struggle with homosexual urges. No one makes them act on them. I would advise them to avoid temptation, however, and not sign up to be in positions where they have authority over young boys. But if someone isn't out there flaunting it, no one will know will they? It's all about action here.

Who you sleep with is irrelevant in childcare.

Clearly it's not.

All I am asking for is an example of this legislation so that everybody can judge for themselves.

I'll say it one last time.

ANY----PROPOSED------HATE CRIMES-------LEGISLATION

David said...

"ANY----PROPOSED------HATE CRIMES-------LEGISLATION"

So, you have no examples of actual legislation?! So, this has been just been about the boogey man who lives under Brennon's bed? Wow, this has really been a total waste of time.

bossmanham said...

And it is a fact that there are higher rates of pedophilia in the homosexual community. Pragmatism requires prudence.

bossmanham said...

So, you have no examples of actual legislation?!

I don't need a specific example to point out a fundamental feature of it, thick. Just like I don't need a specific example of a triangle to point out that a fundamental feature is their three-sidedness.

Bernd said...

Ok, Brennon. Whatever you say. I don't want you to stroke out here.

David said...

Sorry. Last comment was from David. I've been having fun elsewhere as "Bernd".

bossmanham said...

Good to know you keep multiple accounts.

Rhology said...

Not that I had a lot of respect for you before, David, but now I have even less. An anonymous sockpuppet to cover for your other anonymous acct? Really?

David said...

"Good to know you keep multiple accounts."

It's the beauty of the internet, although in fairness to Alan, it's not necessary when posting here, because he allows anyone to say almost anything. We obviously see things quite differently, but unlike many other Christian sites, there's very little moderation of comments here, and it's almost impossible to get banned. It really is very commendable. Hat tip to the Rho-man.

David said...

"An anonymous sockpuppet to cover for your other anonymous acct? Really?"

I always go by the same name here.

David said...

...To you, my friend, and to Brennon, I'll always be David.

zilch said...

Well, I didn't have any popcorn, but chips did just fine. Thanks for the entertainment, guys.

zilch said...

And while hearing it for the rho man, let's hear it for the boss man, who similarly doesn't moderate comments (though he does toss vulgar ones). Credit where credit is due- most fundamentalist Christians I know moderate. Most atheists do not.

wassail from Vienna, zilch

David said...

Zilch,

You're quite right. The Boss Man deserve a lot of credit, too. I should have noted this in my previous comment. No matter what, Brennon posts my comments. (And I have no objections to tossing vulgar comments.)

Anonymous said...

“And it is a fact that there are higher rates of pedophilia in the homosexual community.”

The evidence is equivocal due to the difficulty of estimating true rates of homosexuality and paedophilia; it is not a “fact”, nor is it necessarily relevant, unless you propose that all homosexuals should be treated as guilty until proven innocent of paedophilia.

“Only in terms of determining if there was intent, since motive can imply intent. It is irrelevant in terms of punishment for a crime.”

This is not true. Motive is relevant to punishment in that it influences sentencing and parole, i.e. punishment. It is also relevant in prosecution and defense strategies, see http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive for details.

“Unless the organization has gone bat poop crazy, they do not allow the men to be alone with the girls on camping trips and whatnot.”

Not relevant. You claimed that straight men are not qualified to spend time with girl scouts. You have been shown to be factually wrong, and your underlying argument has been refuted as a result.

“Because the unisex ones are a one person thing, you nitwit.”

No, they were both large toilet facilities with multiple cubicles and multiple washbasins, used by both men and women, at the same time. There is in fact no need for discrimination in toilet facilities; it's just a cultural habit which once again you are mistaking for a universal norm.

“Clearly it's not.”

That's not an argument. Make an argument.

“ANY----PROPOSED------HATE CRIMES-------LEGISLATION.”

Yes, I understand that you feel very strongly about this “PROPOSED------HATE CRIMES-------LEGISLATION”, but that wasn't what you were talking about. You were talking about anti-discrimination legislation, which is a different thing, and I am asking you to give an example of such legislation.

Does not it not cause you any pause for reflection that you can't find a single example of legislation that specifically protects homosexuals “ability to go around in public naked and dress like an idiot at work and act extremely flamboyantly.” That's specifically what you were objecting to, but I'm starting to wonder if it isn't all in your mind.

It's pretty simple. A single link to a single piece of legislation that we can discuss. You clearly have access to the web, so you should be able to find such an example easily.

merkur said...

Last comment was mine, apologies for the Anonymous.

bossmanham said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bossmanham said...

The evidence is equivocal due to the difficulty of estimating true rates of homosexuality and paedophilia;

Not really. You see a bunch of gay dudes in the statistics who are pedophiles and voila. Statistics bear that out.

it is not a “fact”, nor is it necessarily relevant, unless you propose that all homosexuals should be treated as guilty until proven innocent of paedophilia.

No, but I do believe that prudence ought to be practiced. Take away the temptation and it's far less likely to happen.

This is not true. Motive is relevant to punishment in that it influences sentencing and parole, i.e. punishment. It is also relevant in prosecution and defense strategies, see http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive for details.

Only to determine intent. Was it the intent to harm? Was the intent premeditated? Doesn't matter why they did it.

Not relevant. You claimed that straight men are not qualified to spend time with girl scouts

I didn't say time without exception. I said inordinate amounts of time. Don't lie.

You have been shown to be factually wrong, and your underlying argument has been refuted as a result

Sniff sniff wah!

No, they were both large toilet facilities with multiple cubicles and multiple washbasins, used by both men and women, at the same time. There is in fact no need for discrimination in toilet facilities; it's just a cultural habit which once again you are mistaking for a universal norm.

I clearly said women's restroom. Not my fault that your facility has given up all rules of decorum. If you walked into a women's restroom, not a unisex bs restroom, you'll get some backlash. Learn to read.

That's not an argument. Make an argument.

I did.

You were talking about anti-discrimination legislation, which is a different thing, and I am asking you to give an example of such legislation.

That is an example of anti-discrimination legislation. Are you kidding?

David said...

Can't resist, have to point out a couple of things.

"Take away the temptation and it's far less likely to happen."

Then heterosexual men should never be allowed to adopt girls. Wouldn't be prudent.


"It doesn't matter why they did it."

Yeah, it does. Compare the sentences of men who killed when they found their wives in bed with another man to men who killed for fun. Motive matters.

bossmanham said...

Then heterosexual men should never be allowed to adopt girls. Wouldn't be prudent.

The rates of pedophilia are far less there.

Yeah, it does. Compare the sentences of men who killed when they found their wives in bed with another man to men who killed for fun. Motive matters.

Hmm, this still seems to be linked to the intent. At most motive here tells the mental state of the person. Whatever the case, this is a digression. The law already punishes murder.

David said...

The rates of pedophilia are far less there."

I'm not just talking about pedophilia (and you keep acting as if you know these rates). I'm talking about what happens when the adopted daughter reaches 16, 17or 18. Sex at that age ain't pedophilia.

If we're going to follow your advice and be "prudent", then I don't think it's at all prudent to let heterosexual males adopt girls. Adult male...attractive 17 year old girl...alone together...no biological relationship... You do want to be prudent, right?


"Hmm, this still seems to be linked to the intent. At most motive here tells the mental state of the person. Whatever the case, this is a digression. The law already punishes murder."

Yes, the intent is the same, that is, the intent is to kill someone. However, the motive and mental states are clearly different in these two cases, and this DOES affect the penalty. Yes, the law already punishes murder, but the penalty varies for different types of murder. Murder is murder, but the punishment is not always the same. And that's what hate crime laws are all about. It's about the penalties.

David said...

...In other words, the legal system discriminates against those who are killed by jealous husbands. Non-philanderers get extra protection.

merkur said...

“You see a bunch of gay dudes in the statistics who are pedophiles and voila. Statistics bear that out.”

I'm sorry, I made the mistake of thinking that you were actually basing your argument on facts. Not only do you appear to be unfamiliar with those facts, but you also appear to be unfamiliar with basic probability theory.

We don't have time to go into a full-on tutorial here, but the short version is this: even if a majority of paedophiles are homosexual, that does not mean that any individual homosexual is more likely to be a paedophile.

(If you have difficulty understanding that, try this substitution: a majority of astronauts are men, but that does not mean that you are more likely to be an astronaut.)

“No, but I do believe that prudence ought to be practiced. Take away the temptation and it's far less likely to happen.”

Prudence is a fine motive, but in this case it has to be balanced against other factors, such as the presumption of innocence in the case of a homosexual who has no previous record of paedophilia.

“Only to determine intent. Was it the intent to harm? Was the intent premeditated? Doesn't matter why they did it.”

I've explained myself as best I can, and provided you with a link that provides a basic overview of the legal issue. That link – and other sources – clearly indicate that motive is relevant not just in determining intent.

“I didn't say time without exception. I said inordinate amounts of time. Don't lie.”

I'm not lying. You can replace the word “inordinate” in your sentence and my response still holds.

“Not my fault that your facility has given up all rules of decorum. If you walked into a women's restroom, not a unisex bs restroom, you'll get some backlash. Learn to read.”

Neither the office or the restaurant I referred to have given up all rules of decorum. Do you genuinely not understand that not everybody is you? Do you genuinely not understand that your “rules of decorum” are culturally specific not universally normative? I mean, it appears that you do, but I just find it astonishing.

“I did.”

Saying “Clearly it's not” is not an argument, it's a statement. Your previous attempt at an argument was to say “But in childcare or if trying to demand work at a religious institution it certainly is” - again, not an argument, but just a statement of opinion. We have seen how sexual orientation is irrelevant in both legal terms (presumption of innocence) and statistical probity (as I explained in the first part of the response). The challenge for you is to make an argument that isn't simply a statement of opinion.

“That is an example of anti-discrimination legislation. Are you kidding?”

I'm asking for an actual example of the legislation that you specifically referred to that specifically protects homosexuals “ability to go around in public naked and dress like an idiot at work and act extremely flamboyantly.” Do you or do you not have such an example?

bossmanham said...

I'm not just talking about pedophilia (and you keep acting as if you know these rates). I'm talking about what happens when the adopted daughter reaches 16, 17or 18. Sex at that age ain't pedophilia.

Sure it is.

If we're going to follow your advice and be "prudent", then I don't think it's at all prudent to let heterosexual males adopt girls. Adult male...attractive 17 year old girl...alone together...no biological relationship... You do want to be prudent, right?

You do know people go through background checks when adopting, right? But this situation is different anyway. Scouts are spending large amounts of time with scout masters and in delicate situations (such as taking showers and getting dressed in the woods etc). No, people that are sexually aroused by such things should not be involved.

Someone who takes a parental role in a young woman's life is making a decision not to get sexually involved. Add to that they should be married and should have a good background and the pedophilia rates are not similar at all, your argument again fails sauce.

However, the motive and mental states are clearly different in these two cases, and this DOES affect the penalty

Nope. The intent determines the penalty. Did the crazy dude premeditate the intent to kill? Yes. Did the man who killed in a jealous rage? No. Why they killed really isn't the court's deal. It shouldn't be. The law is supposed to be blind to such things. Otherwise we're instituting thought crimes as well as criminal action.

bossmanham said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bossmanham said...

even if a majority of paedophiles are homosexual, that does not mean that any individual homosexual is more likely to be a paedophile.

Statistics about groups do say things about individuals. But it's not about the statistic here, it's about the fact that homosexuals are sexually attracted to men, and that they shouldn't be in a situation where they are continuously around boys in delicate situations. You don't like common sense I'm sorry, but that's the way it should be.

That link – and other sources – clearly indicate that motive is relevant not just in determining intent.

I don't really care about the link, I'm more interested in the fundamental philosophy of law, and that personal moral convictions or prejudices are irrlelvant when it comes to punishing crimes. Otherwise we're criminalizing personal opinion (thoughtcrimes).

I'm not lying. You can replace the word “inordinate” in your sentence and my response still holds.

No it doesn't. I'm not arguing that no time at all is allowable.

Do you genuinely not understand that not everybody is you?

Who I am and who others are is irrelevant. Argument ad hominem.

Do you genuinely not understand that your “rules of decorum” are culturally specific not universally normative?

It doesn't matter. The rules of decorum in the majority of bathroom stalls in the US are as I've described, and justifiably so. They discriminate based on who people are, which proves your stupid argument incorrect.

Saying “Clearly it's not” is not an argument

The arguments have been made far above that post.

We have seen how sexual orientation is irrelevant in both legal terms

This has never been an issue. The issue is if a private business or organization is justified in discriminating based on someone's sexual orientation. I gave several examples of where this would be acceptable. Who someone is actually does call for discrimination in many situations. Your office letting men and women potty together is an abberation of the cultural norm here at the very least, and there isn't a lot of argument about the acceptability of that discrimintation.

And the fact that behavior of all sorts gives businesses jsutifiable reasons to discriminate is also enough to defeat your assertion that homosexuality is irrelevant in these cases.

I'm asking for an actual example of the legislation that you specifically referred to that specifically protects homosexuals “ability to go around in public naked and dress like an idiot at work and act extremely flamboyantly.” Do you or do you not have such an example?

I don't need one, as I said above. It is a fundamental feature of them. Any law that would say "you are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation" would then permit interpretations of that sort.

David said...

>Sex at that age ain't pedophilia.

“Sure it is.”

Tell me, when you were 16, 17, 18, etc., were you sexually attracted to 16, 17 and 18 year old females? Of course you were, because such females are not sexually immature children.


“You do know people go through background checks when adopting, right?”

I have no problem with background checks, but I don’t see the relevance. Assuming that the background check comes back without any problems, then why make a distinction between gay and straight, other than your personal bias? And do you really think that any man who might have sex with his adoptive daughter is going to speak right up and say so during the background check?


“But this situation is different anyway. Scouts are spending large amounts of time with scout masters and in delicate situations (such as taking showers and getting dressed in the woods etc). No, people that are sexually aroused by such things should not be involved.”

Don’t you think that fathers are going to have much more close contact time with their adoptive daughters than any scout master and boy scout? The occasional “getting dressed in the woods” somehow adds up to more opportunity for sex or abuse than living with someone? I think that you are far too worried about the woods and far too unconcerned about other opportunities for sex or abuse. Well, bias will do that.


“Someone who takes a parental role in a young woman's life is making a decision not to get sexually involved.”

And gays can’t make a similar decision when it comes to their adopted children? Why not? More bias and stereotyping. You’re big on the Constitution. Look up innocent until proven guilty.


“Add to that they should be married and should have a good background and the pedophilia rates are not similar at all, your argument again fails sauce.”

Well, let gays marry, and they’ll give you what you ask for. First you deny someone the right to marry, and then you complain that they shouldn’t adopt because they’re not married. That’s some catch, that Catch-22. And again, you’re making assumptions about pedophilia rates.

Again, your words and attitude demonstrate the need for anti-discrimination legislation. You’re all about “prudence” when it comes to gay men, but you’re much more trusting when it comes to straight men. A lot more children are sexually assaulted by straight men than by gays, but with gays, we have to be “prudent”. For you, a gay man is guilty until proven innocent.


“Nope. The intent determines the penalty. “

If intent determines the penalty, then the penalty should be the SAME for both the spree killer and the jealous lover. The INTENT was to KILL. Is it not MURDER if I kill my wife’s lover? Yes or no? I INTEND to kill my wife's lover. Murder is murder is murder, right? But now you're saying that there are different kinds of murder with different penalties, and that's ok.


“Did the crazy dude premeditate the intent to kill? Yes. Did the man who killed in a jealous rage? No. “

The man who killed in a jealous rage intended to kill. Murder is murder is murder. This is not just about “premeditation”, it’s also about what motivated the killing. We are much more “forgiving” of the man motivated by jealousy. In among cases where the killing was the result of rage, we routinely make distinctions based on what caused that rage (i.e., motive).

“Why they killed really isn't the court's deal. It shouldn't be. The law is supposed to be blind to such things. Otherwise we're instituting thought crimes as well as criminal action.”

Again, we do take “why” into consideration. We really do! Talk to a lawyer!


"I don't need one (an actual example), as I said above."

So much crying before you've been hit! So many boogeymen under the bed.

Damn, this is gotten repetitive again. If nothing new comes up, I’m outta here.

axisoflogos said...

David said...
Damn, this is gotten repetitive again. If nothing new comes up, I’m outta here.

This has been a difficult one to step into, mid-stream. Popcorn (or chips) indeed.

David said...
I'm not just talking about pedophilia (and you keep acting as if you know these rates).

Merkur said...
The evidence is equivocal due to the difficulty of estimating true rates of homosexuality and paedophilia...

Here's some stats to liven things up.

Of a group of ten randomly selected homosexual men in their thirties...

Four of the ten are currently in relationships, but only one of those is faithful to his partner, and he will not be within a year.
Four have never had a relationship that lasted more than a year, and only one has had a relationship that lasted more than three years.
Six are having sex regularly with strangers, and the group averages almost two partners per person per month.
Three of them occasionally take part in orgies.
One is a sadomasochist.
One prefers boys to men.
Three of the four are currently alcholics.
Five have a history of alcohol abuse.
Four have a history of drug abuse.
Three currently smoke cigarettes
Five regularly use at least one illegal drug
Three are multiple drug users.
Four have a history of accute depression.
Three have seriously contemplated suicide
Two have attempted suicide.
Eight have a history of sexually transmitted diseases
Eight currently carry infectious pathogens
Three currently suffer from digestive or urinary ailments caused bythese pathogens.
At least three are HIV-infected.
One has AIDS.

David said...
Well, let gays marry, and they’ll give you what you ask for.

A good example of a super-right...

David said...
First you deny someone the right to marry

Nope,there has been no denying anybody this right.

David said...

Your statistics are about twenty years twenty to twenty-five years old. The world has changed a lot in the last two decades, especially with respect to attitude towards gays. And the attitude of straights towards gays play a big role in these stats.


I tracked down the source of your list of "stats", and this little gem has been copied and pasted by evangelicals since 1995. It’s from a book called Straight and Narrow by Thomas Schmidt. In this book, among other sources, Schmidt cites Paul Cameron on the issue of pedophilia.

In 1984, ten years BEFORE Schmidt used him as a “scientific” source, Cameron was kicked out of the Nebraska Psychological Association (NPA) and from the American Psychological Association (APA) for "violating the Ethical Principles of Psychologists." In 1985, a federal judge concluded that Cameron had engaged in "fraud" and "misrepresentation" when he testified in a gay-related case in Texas. (Baker v. Wade, 106 Federal Rules Decisions 526 [N.D. Texas, 1985]) Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron".

But still, I’m sure that your stats are “reliable”. Right?

But let’s suppose that there are higher rates of suicide and drug abuse among gays. What accounts for these higher rates? Being gay? Or being hated for being gay? Do you think that some of these rates might be changed if more people had an attitude towards gays that was fundamentally different from that of you, Brennon and Alan? How about a reduction in discrimination in employment? How about laws that add penalties for assault for reasons of orientation (laws that protect you, too)? How about laws that allow gays to enter into the same type of legal contract that I have with my wife? Think that might help?


Putting that aside, what would like us to conclude from your list? What is your point? Are you saying that if a given group has a higher rate of drug abuse or STDs or sex partners than another group, then it's ok to discriminate against anyone who is a member of that group simply because they are a member of that group?

As far as marriage and "super-rights" go, I'm not going to waste my time banging my head against that wall again. You condemn gays for having more sex partners and higher rates of STDs, and then you forbid them from entering into the very type of relationships that would lower these rates.

axisoflogos said...

Hello David, thanks for the prompt rejoinder.

David said...
Your statistics are about twenty years twenty to twenty-five years old...

You know this, but neither you nor merkur seem to be able to provide stats for incidence of pedophilia in the gay population? Please update all my info with the latest and greatest. Also, the statistics of incidence of HS in the overall population would be helpful. I think in 1995 it was claimed 10%, but now down to what, three percent?

...And the attitude of straights towards gays play a big role in these stats.

Do you have some hard research to back up this claim?

I tracked down the source of your list of "stats", and this little gem has been copied and pasted by evangelicals since 1995.

This was a conversation starter. I would like nothing more than voluminous current statistics about the HS population before we do any grand social experiments.

In 1985, a federal judge concluded that Cameron had engaged in "fraud" and "misrepresentation" when he testified in a gay-related case in Texas...etc.

Thank you for this info - sincerely, clear citations! Preliminary search indicates this particular judge was charged with bias in another case. It looks interesting, and I might check it out, but there are probably politics on both sides and such things puts me to sleep at times...

But still, I’m sure that your stats are “reliable”. Right?

I believe there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Do you think that some of these rates might be changed if more people had an attitude towards gays that was fundamentally different from that of you, Brennon and Alan?

As you previously said, more bias and stereotyping. We've just met. I'm a specific individual in that group you mentioned. But perhaps our group would be more tolerant if your group had a better attitude towards us. But now that I've said that, it kinda sounds like a weak emotional profile for the group, eh? Perhaps the APA can help. But they caved to political pressure back in the day rather than continue to evaluate statistical data and pursue treatment of HS about twenty to twenty-five years ago or something like that. Anything that that happened that long ago surely needs to be reevaluated!

How about laws that allow gays to enter into the same type of legal contract that I have with my wife?

Gays currently have that right.

axisoflogos said...

David said...
Putting that aside, what would like us to conclude from your list? What is your point?

Conversation starter, you seemed to be getting bored. I saw the question of statistics came up. I wanted to pursue some questions when it did not interfere with the established discussion too much.

Are you saying that if a given group has a higher rate of drug abuse or STDs or sex partners than another group, then it's ok to discriminate against anyone who is a member of that group simply because they are a member of that group?

Alcoholics have certain characteristics that are typically part of a package of behaviors: denial of abnormality of behavior, strong affinity to socialize with others who engage in the same behavior, peer pressure reinforcing of the behavior, blame of outside pressures for risky activity, depression, poor work performance. This package of attitudes also produces certain risk profiles for the group with regards to health and familial relations.

I don't consider social or statistical arguments against HS to be the most important focus from a Christian perspective. However, as an employee with group insurance, I would not like a group who chooses to engage in risky behavior to raise my costs when my choices avoid risk. Who gives them the right to impact my economic freedom? Are the alcoholics willing to change their behavior for the right to join my group insurance...to seek treatment perhaps?

I would also like the people who argue for normalization of the HS lifestyle to tell me how their arguments are completely different from the same arguments used by people who practice polygamy, or the NAMBLA group, or people who want to marry various animals or objects.

As far as marriage and "super-rights" go, I'm not going to waste my time banging my head against that wall again.

Not an argument you've had with me yet, but whatev. If you got bruises there, you might need to rest-up. Don’t want people who get TBI from voluntary repetitive injuries in my group either.

You condemn gays for having more sex partners and higher rates of STDs, and then you forbid them from entering into the very type of relationships that would lower these rates.

No, I would be ecstatic if they entered into types of relationships that lowered these rates.

I put an issue on the table. I'm not big on condemning people but think a number of disciplines indicates that the HS lifestyle is harmful, and here, I mean for the individuals. I am interested in their true well-being. I am doubtful that gay marriage will seriously reduce the incidence of risky behavior of the group. I don't think the correlation plays out that way at all. I think decreasing the social pressure and allowing the gay culture to normalize will cause an increase in risky behavior of the population. It would be great if the HS community supported the APA in putting the package of HS behaviors that silly persistent rumors seem to indicate is a significant part of the lifestyle back into the DSM manual and seeing some new research produced.

Bernd said...

This was a conversation starter."

Translation: "This was not intended to be a factual statement" (Jon Kyl)


"Alcoholics have certain characteristics that are typically part of a package of behaviors."

Oy vey, so now we're comparing gays to alcoholics.


"No, I would be ecstatic if they entered into types of relationships that lowered these rates."

Excellent. May I suggest allowing gays to marry other gays as a means to this end?

Well, there's nothing else here that worth responding to. I'm tired of fighting everyone's personal demons. I've wasted too much time on this as it is.

Rhology said...

Forgot to de-sockpuppet there, David/Bernd.

For real, just pick one profile and stick with it.

David said...

"Forgot to de-sockpuppet there, David/Bernd."

Oops. My apologies. It was uninteded. Yes, it's tricky when I'm actively following two different conversations at the same time.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive. (blushes)

However, as I understand the term, this is not “sock-puppeting” as I am not using multiple names on the same thread. I’m not using one name to praise another name or to create the illusion that multiple people are supporting my position. One may say that I actg in a deceptive manner, for reasons other than these.

As I said, Alan, I'll always be your David.

axisoflogos said...

David said...
Translation: "This was not intended to be a factual statement" (Jon Kyl)

It looked like a lot of bluffing was happening on the need for statistical info. It seemed important to you at points in the convo. So I provided some, you challenged and claimed to know the info was not correct but don't seem to have your own to provide. Bluff meet counter.

Oy vey, so now we're comparing gays to alcoholics.

I'm surprised you are not thinking about the special rights needed for individuals in the alcoholics group. After all:

...what if individuals of a certain group are much more likely to become victims of crimes, just because they are gay or black or Christian...[or alcoholics]?

Drunks need special rights too, correct? It would be better to engage the argument.

May I suggest allowing gays to marry other gays as a means to this end?

You have been, but I don't believe statistics and studies would show this is a solution. If you look at microcosms where such a culture-group is promoted, you don't find more wedding chapels, you find more bath houses.

I'm tired of fighting everyone's personal demons.

Points of view are demons? That's weird.

I've wasted too much time on this as it is.

Sorry to hear this. Maybe another time.

merkur said...

"It looked like a lot of bluffing was happening on the need for statistical info. It seemed important to you at points in the convo. So I provided some, you challenged and claimed to know the info was not correct but don't seem to have your own to provide."

There was no bluffing. Bossmanham made a specific claim - that "it is a fact that there are higher rates of pedophilia in the homosexual community" - and I merely pointed out that it isn't a "fact", and that the evidence is equivocal, for which I would cite Howitt 1995.

You didn't provide any statistical information, you provided secondhand anecdotal information from a widely discredited source. If you think that's a counter, then you are going to lose at poker fairly consistently.

I can counter in this way: out of 5 gay men in my immediate circle of friends, 3 are married, 1 is in a long-term relationship and 1 is still a bachelor; none of them have had sex with an underage partner, except when they themselves were underage. Unlike your source, I don't believe that this constitutes particularly solid statistical; but it does explain why I may not be so quick to believe scare tactic stereotypes about homosexuals.

Interestingly, bossmanham has decided that "it's not about the statistic here", despite the fact that he was basing most of his argument on that statistic. Now it's all about "common sense", because we know that common sense is never wrong, right? Except that common sense is wrong for much of the time, as recent books by Duncan Watts, Dan Ariely, Daniel Kahneman, Christopher Chabris and a host of others have described in great detail.

David said...

A drive-by comment...

Anyone here able to figure out the difference between homosexuality and alcoholism? Anyone?

merkur said...

"Anyone here able to figure out the difference between homosexuality and alcoholism?"

Homosexuality used to be deemed a mental illness, and now is now seen as a moral failing / Alcoholism didn't used to be seen as a moral failing, but is now deemed a mental illness.

Could explain some of the confusion...

Rhology said...

Both are propagated by a series of choices made to initiate a specific action.

The homosexual chooses to have sex with another person of the same gender.

The alcoholic chooses to drink another drink.

The similarities are several, it would seem.

merkur said...

Bossmanham:

Sex at the age of 16/17/18 is not paedophilia.

“The intent determines the penalty. Did the crazy dude premeditate the intent to kill? Yes. Did the man who killed in a jealous rage? No.”

You appear to be contradicting yourself here, since “jealousy” is of course a motive.

“I'm more interested in the fundamental philosophy of law, and that personal moral convictions or prejudices are irrlelvant when it comes to punishing crimes.”

There are a number of different philosophies of law – which one are you referring to? If we haven't persuaded you by now that the law is far from blind to motive (see Motives Role in Criminal Punishment, Hessick 2006) then we probably won't be able to. However I recognise now that your position may simply be that, regardless of whether the law actually considers motive or not, the law should not consider motive. That is a far more reasonable position, but not one that I agree with: I don't think that considering motive is equivalent to prosecuting thoughtcrime, because motive only comes into play during a trial for an actual crime.

“it's about the fact that homosexuals are sexually attracted to men, and that they shouldn't be in a situation where they are continuously around boys in delicate situations. You don't like common sense I'm sorry, but that's the way it should be.”

As I pointed out above, “common sense” is frequently not a reliable guide to how things are, let alone the way things should be (I can recommend all of the books that I mentioned, by the way, especially Kahneman and Watts). Since boys are not men, your reasoning does not follow (particularly in these unspecified “delicate situations”), but again – I doubt we'll be able to persuade you of that.

“Who I am and who others are is irrelevant. Argument ad hominem.”

It wasn't an argument, ad hominem or otherwise. It was an observation that you seem unable to grasp that other people have different “rules of decorum”, different cultural norms, different assumptions. If you grasped that, you might recognise that your own rules, norms and assumptions are not necessarily universal.

“Your office letting men and women potty together is an abberation of the cultural norm here at the very least, and there isn't a lot of argument about the acceptability of that discrimintation.”

“Potty together” is more than a little revealing of your own cultural norms. Unisex toilets are not an aberration of the cultural norm, they are an aberration of a cultural norm, i.e. yours. And once again: separate toilets is not discrimination since both sexes get equal access to equivalent toilet facilities.

merkur said...

Bossmanham:

“I don't need one, as I said above. It is a fundamental feature of them. Any law that would say "you are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation" would then permit interpretations of that sort.”

Since you continue to be reticent, allow me to help you prove your case. Wisconsin's Fair Housing Law is a generic example of anti-discrimination legislation as required by Section 106.50 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

It should therefore be simple for you to describe exactly how Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 220 (Fair Housing) can be interpreted as protecting homosexuals' “ability to go around in public naked and dress like an idiot at work and act extremely flamboyantly.”

merkur said...

"The homosexual chooses to have sex with another person of the same gender... The alcoholic chooses to drink another drink."

The heterosexual chooses to have sex with another person of a different gender, so I guess that means that you believe that heterosexuality and homosexuality are likewise similar.

Rhology said...

Another non sequitur!

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

Ooops, typo needs correcting.

Thank you, Merkur. I genuinely appreciate your willingness to continue in what I fear is a futile effort. Merci.

And thank you, Alan, Brennon, and now Axisoflogos. Hate to sound like a broken record, but the Rhoblogy Trinity have really opened my eyes to to the desparate need for anti-discrimination legislation. I had no idea that the need remained so great in 2011! Merci beaucoup.

merkur said...

What exactly is the non sequitur?

Rhology said...

When you said:
I guess that means that you believe that heterosexuality and homosexuality are likewise similar.

That's a non sequitur.
If God made all people with the default hetero orientation, this would not be the case, but my own statement would stand.
Since that's in fact the real situation, so much the better.

merkur said...

"If God made all people with the default hetero orientation, this would not be the case, but my own statement would stand."

So you're arguing that the heterosexual doesn't choose to have sex with another person of a different gender?

Rhology said...

I said a while ago that there is no such thing as someone who is ontologically homosexual.

But let me clarify, b/c your question is valid. Yes, of course each chooses.
One is unnatural, the other is natural. I didn't communicate very well a few comments ago.

merkur said...

"But let me clarify, b/c your question is valid. Yes, of course each chooses. One is unnatural, the other is natural. "

Good. Your original comment was that homosexuality was similar to alcoholism on the basis that both are questions of choice. If that is the case, you therefore believe that heterosexuality is similar to homosexuality on the basis that both are questions of choice. Glad we could clear that up.

As to whether homosexuality is natural, then it all depends what you mean by natural. What do you mean by natural, Rhology?

merkur said...

If somebody is "ontologically hetero", it must also be possible to be "ontologically homosexual". Either sexual orientation itself is ontological, or it isn't.

Rhology said...

No, all people are hetero.
A "homosexual orientation" is an active suppression of one's hetero ontology.

I'm using "natural" in this case to mean "instilled in humans by God", or "the way God created humans".

merkur said...

"A "homosexual orientation" is an active suppression of one's hetero ontology."

Oh, that's something new. Is an "alcoholic orientation" an active suppression one's sober ontology?

"I'm using "natural" in this case to mean "instilled in humans by God", or "the way God created humans"."

How do you know in which way God created humans? If we take Genesis as any indication, disobedience to God would appear to be natural.

zilch said...

No, all people are hetero.

Got any evidence for this, rho? It certainly doesn't seem to be the case prima facie.

Rhology said...

merkur,

Yes about alcoholism.
I know the way God created humans b/c I've read the Bible numerous times. Disobedience is a perversion, which is precisely what Genesis (as well as many other passages) says.


zilch,
Yes, the most powerful evidence that can ever be adduced is what God says.

merkur said...

"Yes about alcoholism."

Good to know. I would ask more questions, but I think you've had enough rope for today.

"Disobedience is a perversion, which is precisely what Genesis (as well as many other passages) says."

At what exact point did the perversion of disobedience manifest, how and why? Ditto for the perversion of homosexuality?

Rhology said...

The fall of man and afterward, please read Genesis.

merkur said...

"The fall of man and afterward, please read Genesis."

Yes, I know that much. At what exact point did the fall happen?

zilch said...

Yes, the most powerful evidence that can ever be adduced is what God says.

I was under the obviously mistaken impression you were offering a critique of homosexuality on naturalism, rho. No point in any further discussion with atheists, then.

David and merkur: kudos for your patience.

Cheers from cool Vienna, zilch

axisoflogos said...

merkur said...
You didn't provide any statistical information, you provided secondhand anecdotal information from a widely discredited source.

Yes, everybody has their experts, and the other side's experts are always discredited by other experts. When I replied to David that I sincerely appreciated his citation of the counter-evidence, I meant it. That was a detailed and specific response, and it helped me assess his ability to think.

If you think that's a counter, then you are going to lose at poker fairly consistently.

I don't play poker, but perhaps I could say that only the first card had come off the deck in my discussion with David, and I didn't think he would fold so quickly. I understand that this is a long thread and he had been debating with others before I started up. He said he was tired so I will be charitable in my evaluation of both his withdrawal and subsequent passive-aggressive comments.

I can counter in this way: out of 5 gay men in my immediate circle of friends, 3 are married, 1 is in a long-term relationship and 1 is still a bachelor; none of them have had sex with an underage partner, except when they themselves were underage...I don't believe that this constitutes particularly solid [statistics]...

Fair enough, you seem to understand anecdotal evidence. Of the men I knew were gay, most of them had destructive behaviors and emotional problems that impacted their lives and other's lives in a very depressing way. This is also anecdotal.

...but it does explain why I may not be so quick to believe scare tactic stereotypes about homosexuals.

There have been many things referred to as "scare tactics" about the political and social direction of this culture-group that have proved true.

merkur said...

"There have been many things referred to as "scare tactics" about the political and social direction of this culture-group that have proved true."

Such as?

zilch said...

Even if homosexual men are more promiscuous on the average than heterosexual men (which would not be surprising, because men are more promiscuous than women on the average, resulting from the fact that sperms are smaller than eggs), what harm would it do to allow them to marry? How would gay marriage increase promiscuity, or any of the other alleged problems of homosexuality? If your church has a problem with that, fine: they don't have to perform gay marriages. But what advantage to society is there in preventing gay marriage? It just seems like Bible-inspired bigotry to me.

merkur said...

And just as a reminder of where this all started: I asked Rhology to clarify what legislation he was referring to, what it is exactly that he objects to in it, and what are the "super rights" that he believes they're asking for. So far, we have received no answers to these questions, despite the vehemence of his objections. Strange, that.

David said...

"I didn't think he would fold so quickly."

You play a lousy card, try to introduce bogus stats, reveal your inpenetrable biases...and you thought I was "folding"? Wow.

"He said he was tired so I will be charitable in my evaluation of both his withdrawal and subsequent passive-aggressive comments."

You will be "charitable"? How very, very big of you. Yes, I'm TIRED! Very tired. And disgusted. Got it straight now?

And there was nothing "passive" about my subsequent comments. I suspect that you don't understand the phrase "passive-aggressive".

Adieu.

Chemist said...

Zilch,

I'm not following you here: "(which would not be surprising, because men are more promiscuous than women on the average, resulting from the fact that sperms are smaller than eggs)"

What theory are you referring to? How does the size of the sex cell impact frequency of having sex and with the number of partners?

zilch said...

Chemist- as I'm sure you're aware, differential reproductive success is the name of the game in evolution: getting more of your genes into the next generation. The minimum investment for a woman is a few minutes of sex, nine months of pregnancy, and (at least in traditional societies) several years of nursing. The minimum investment for a man is a few minutes of sex, period.

Because of this asymmetry, a woman can only have maybe twenty children if she's lucky (Mrs. Duggar is a good example), but a man can have hundreds. This makes the ideal mating strategy of men and women somewhat different: women tend to be more interested in looking for quality mates who will take care of their children, and men tend to be interested in fucking anything that moves. After all, what do they have to lose but a few drops of semen? Women have a great deal more at stake.

Now, of course this is way oversimplified- it's only an average tendency, and it's obviously often mitigated or even nullified by culture. But it's there, and it goes back, ultimately, to that asymmetry between the sizes of eggs and sperms.

cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch

Chemist said...

I get all the stuff about time investments, not the size differences. I don't think the time investiment necessarily follows from the size of sex cells. At any point, this is a rabbit trail.

zilch said...

That's okay. I'm not really interested in giving biology lectures anyway.

axisoflogos said...

David said...
You play a lousy card...

If you cannot play the hand you are dealt, then you are going to lose at poker fairly consistently.

...try to introduce bogus stats...

You had a challenge line earlier in the thread that someone "...[kept] acting as if [they knew these rates]..." which implies you do know these rates. I see that argument resolving in one of two obvious ways: (1) you can state you don't know the rates either (hence the "bluff" characterization) or (2) you have more reliable statistics (which I have invited you to supply).

Please note that my preamble to the stats included identifying the purpose: to liven things up since the conversation had gotten repetitive for you, or else you said you would be outta here.

You engaged so that did liven things up and I gave you a complement for your initial response, and even restated my appreciation later.

...reveal your inpenetrable biases...

Characterizing people who provide different points of view as doing so because of personal demons obviously evidences your unbiased foundation to stand and weigh other's positions.

...and you thought I was "folding"? Wow.

Your response substituted assertions and statments for any argument and then concluded with ...there's nothing else here [that's] worth responding to...I've wasted too much time on this as it is. Please note that I was provided a poker analogy by merkur and so I played the hand I was dealt.

How very, very big of you [to be "charitable"]. Yes, I'm TIRED! Very tired. And disgusted. Got it straight now?

All I want to know is, are you in or are you out?

And there was nothing "passive" about my subsequent comments. I suspect that you don't understand the phrase "passive-aggressive".

You provided a follow-up post you self-identified as a drive-by comment directed at "anyone." It looks eriely like an indirect response to my argument that HS and alcoholism were similar which appears passive-aggressive. I suppose you could claim that I am a member of the set "anyone" which is also passive-aggressive. If it was a plea for help with the argument from others, I apologize.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but the Rhoblogy Trinity have really opened my eyes to to the desparate need for anti-discrimination legislation. I had no idea that the need remained so great in 2011!

No genuine engagement here...more insinuations without argument...and a last chance to plant the flag, proclaim victory and run.

passive-aggressive - being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive way.

axisoflogos said...

merkur: I had written my response to you earlier but reread some of our convo and decided my answer was not direct. I will rework prior to posting.

zilch: I have read some of your comments over the previous months. I hope to respond to your recent comments soon...what kind of instrument is shown in your picture?

zilch said...

axis- the instrument is a horn made of bull kelp. As an instrument maker, I have the annoying habit of picking up stuff wherever I am and trying to make sounds with it, and kelp lends itself very well to this. Just cut off half the bulb at the big end, cut a cup shaped mouthpiece at the other end, and you've got a pretty good horn. Don't take it home with you, though, unless you like the smell of rotting kelp....

cheers from landbound (alas) Austria, zilch

David said...

“No genuine engagement here...more insinuations without argument...and a last chance to plant the flag, proclaim victory and run.”

Open your eyes. The Trinity made the argument for me.

When the pro-discrimination crowd brings NAMBLA, et al., into the discussion, I know that I’m dealing with the impenetrable. You go with the full Santorum, and the conversation is over at that point.

150 comments, and no one ever brought an actual, concrete, in place, put-into-practice piece of legislation to the discussion. Yikes.

merkur said...

"150 comments, and no one ever brought an actual, concrete, in place, put-into-practice piece of legislation to the discussion."

You sound surprised.

Chemist said...

That's ok Zilch. There wasn't much in the quick internet search that I did on this anyway, other than a slightly expanded version of what you typed out. I'm pretty sure you have a correlation going on, not a causation, with this thing.

zilch said...

Chemist- of course, you may be right. But it is at least suggestive that there is a progression in asymmetrical investment in offspring that starts with the size difference between egg and sperm. Both pack identical amounts of genetic information: the egg is only bigger because it has nutrients (or machinery to get such) added, which means more investment (if only a tiny bit) for the female. From there it's a smooth increase (in evolution) in relative investment for the female: larger eggs, placentas and pregnancy, nursing...

And the cross-cultural data on the differences in behavior between men and women belies any claim that it is purely cultural, not to mention studies on non-human animals. Just two examples: how many women rape men? How many men are prostitutes for women? Anyone who thinks this is purely cultural has blinders on.

cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch

Rhology said...

At what exact point did the fall happen?

The moment of sin and disobedience to God's command. Where Eve ate the fruit.

zilch said...

Ah yes, the Fall, that catch-all for sticky stuff. When lions suddenly got long teeth and short guts, and genes started jumping. I guess we're whupped.

Rhology said...

Complaints about it won't help you. Arguments might, though.

zilch said...

How can one argue against God's Word, which is true by definition? Once you get behind that barrier, you're impervious to logic or facts.

Rhology said...

That assumes there are any facts to dispute against the Word of God.

By what authority would you bring one forward? How could you know it was correct?
Hint: You can't, as we've seen over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

This is the rebellion in which you find yourself. It's why I pity you so greatly.

zilch said...

By what authority would I bring a fact forward? Hint: I don't need an "authority"- I'll trust the world to provide me with facts, not an authority. Authorities can be wrong; the world is what it is.

And I don't pity you greatly, Alan- you seem to be having fun, and I suspect you don't lack for food, shelter, or companionship. It does seem rather a waste of an intelligent mind to talk seriously about eschatology, salvificity, and all that other imaginary stuff, but who am I to talk? Chacun à son goût.

cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch

merkur said...

Are humans ontologically obedient, or ontologically disobedient?

merkur said...

Also: can you clarify what legislation you were originally referring to, what it is exactly that you object to in it, and what are the "super rights" that you believe homosexuals are asking for?

merkur said...

Can we take it that this persistent silence means that no such legislation in fact exists?

Rhology said...

Legislation to require recognition of same-sex marriage.

Look, there's lots more, but since you can't be troubled to learn more about my position when all you have to do is click a few times and do some reading, right here on this blog, I have no confidence that you'd do any reading even if I had time to provide you more instances on this topic.

merkur said...

Look, there's lots more, but since you can't be troubled to learn more about my position when all you have to do is click a few times and do some reading, right here on this blog, I have no confidence that you'd do any reading even if I had time to provide you more instances on this topic.

I've read almost everything you've written in the last three years. It's largely incoherent, but there you go. In particular, you don't seem to have any well-thought-through position on gay rights, other than a general fear (verging on hatred) of homosexuals in general.

In this instance, all you have to do is to cite one specific piece of legislation that we can then examine to see if it really does contain all the horrors that you describe.

It's the simplest thing in the world for you to do - it would have taken less time than it took you to write that last comment, even - and yet still you are either unable or unwilling to do it. Does this give you any cause to wonder about whether your animated position on the issue might not - in fact - be rooted in reality?

Rhology said...

other than a general fear (verging on hatred) of homosexuals in general.


What a foolish thing to say. I've been giving you more credit than you deserve.


Does this give you any cause to wonder about whether your animated position on the issue might not - in fact - be rooted in reality?

Any doubt I might have had has long been dispelled by the inept arguments of pro-homosexuality proponents.

merkur said...

So just to recap: you have no specific examples from the real world of the type of legislation you object to, or specific examples from the real world of demands from homosexuals for "super rights", but you object to them anyway.

Incidentally, my last question is still standing: are humans ontologically obedient, or ontologically disobedient?

merkur said...

"Any doubt I might have had has long been dispelled by the inept arguments of pro-homosexuality proponents."

Yes, the ineptness of their arguments must be the reason why the gay rights movements has made such tremendous progress.

Rhology said...

Ontologically our natures are corrupted, so disobedient.

And the progress of the gay rights agenda can easily be accounted for by the prevalence of low-quality government school edjamakayshun (but I repeat myself) in this country.

merkur said...

“Ontologically our natures are corrupted, so disobedient.”

You just said that our natures became corrupted at the fall. Yet the fall was caused by an act of disobedience. How was that possible if Adam and Eve were both ontologically obedient?

“And the progress of the gay rights agenda can easily be accounted for by the prevalence of low-quality government school edjamakayshun (but I repeat myself) in this country.”

That makes literally no sense at all, but I'm pretty sure you're as well-informed about education policy as you are about race and ethnicity, utilitarian philosophy and civil rights legislation, so your explanation should be pretty entertaining.

Rhology said...

home support dnlds seatools

Now you're switching topics a bit. This is biblical theology now. But OK, with that in mind...
Adam and Eve were in a unique state, and we don't have a ton of information about them, so I don't know. Fortunately, it's of little importance. I'd say that their natures were uncorrupted but they were obviously peccable; that is, they were potentially sinful. When they did sin, the potential was actualised.
Contrast that with everyone born after them, who's born into sin, a corrupted nature.

And I know you can SAY that my explanation makes literally no sense, but you didn't show how it doesn't. And no wonder - it explains the situation just fine.

merkur said...

“And I know you can SAY that my explanation makes literally no sense, but you didn't show how it doesn't. And no wonder - it explains the situation just fine.”

If you think that one sentence constitutes an explanation, that explains a lot about your writing. How about this? “The progress of the bank bailout agenda can easily be accounted for by the prevalence of low-quality government school edjamakayshun in this country.” See? You could put anything in front of the word “agenda” and the sentence would have exactly the same explanatory value. That's why it's not an explanation, because an explanation has to explain something.

merkur said...

“Adam and Eve were in a unique state, and we don't have a ton of information about them, so I don't know.”

In another post, you've claimed that “I DO have access to [God's knowledge of every individual's thoughts]” but now you're claiming that you don't have much information about the most important thoughts of two of the most important individuals in history. Can you decide which it is?

merkur said...

“I'd say that their natures were uncorrupted but they were obviously peccable; that is, they were potentially sinful. When they did sin, the potential was actualised.”

So humans were created by God to be ontologically peccable, i.e. susceptible to temptation. So when humans succumb to temptation and commit a sin, they are acting according to their ontological nature. So on what basis do you object to sinful behaviour?

Rhology said...

See? You could put anything in front of the word “agenda” and the sentence would have exactly the same explanatory value.

I'd agree with that one, too.
maybe you could choose a better analogy, one that I wouldn't disagree with.
The fact that you proposed a counterexample that works fine gives me the distinct suspicion that you DO actually understand, but don't want to agree, but are just playacting like you don't understand.



In another post, you've claimed that “I DO have access to [God's knowledge of every individual's thoughts]” but now you're claiming that you don't have much information about the most important thoughts of two of the most important individuals in history.

1) And how did I go on to clarify the extent of the access I have?
2) OK, let's grant that they were important thoughts and important individuals. Now make the connection - why is it inconsistent with that statement that I don't know them?
3) And I never said I don't know anything about what they were thinking. The passage tells us a great deal about their thoughts, actually, if you read it. You swapped in "thoughts" when I told you we don't have a great deal of info about their NATURES. be careful - stay on target here.

merkur said...

“And one of my questions has been on what authority "utilitarianism" defines it that way. And why anyone else should. And how the equivalence is known to be true.”

On what authority does mathematics define a triangle as having three sides? It's built into the system. If you want to discuss the mathematical concept of a triangle, you have to accept the mathematical definition of a triangle.

The Stanford encyclopedia sums it up simplest: "utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good". Thus we can see that the concepts of "morally right" and "good" are separate, and that "good" need not be tightly defined in general discussion (but will be more closely defined in specific cases).

merkur said...

“I'd agree with that one, too. maybe you could choose a better analogy, one that I wouldn't disagree with.”

I selected a point that I thought you were likely to agree with precisely in order to demonstrate that there is no explanatory value to the sentence.

Let me make it simpler for you: how exactly does low-quality government school education account for the progress of the gay rights agenda?

merkur said...

And just to clip the end of this thread: you do not in fact have any examples of the sort of legislation you referred to in the original post; nor are you even clear about what it is exactly that you would object to in your imaginary legislation; nor can you provide specific examples of "super rights" that homosexuals are demanding.