hypocrisy of the gay movement

Originally posted by Lord Shark
This is absurd.

Here's a definition from Dictionary.com:

"Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

But how are the parameters that are enacted in law that apply equally to everybody chosen? On what basis do you think som ...[text shortened]... different race? By golly, you don't think it could be just prejudice or partiality do you?

maybe one should choose a country that doesn't allow gay marriage, dig up that law and post it here.

if the law sounds a little like "we don't allow gays to marry because we think they are an abomination" then it is discriminatory.

if the law doesn't mention gays and simply says "marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman" it is not discriminatory. gays would be able to marry a person of the opposite sex. just like a pedophile would be allowed to marry an adult, just like a rapist would be allowed to marry a consenting adult, just like a nudist would be allowed to wear clothes or be nude just like everyone else.

"Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."
how is this supporting your argument? i don't care about the intent behind the american rednecks supporting marriage. i don't care about what stupidity they spew every time they are asked why they are against marriage. men who cheat on their wives going on national tv and saying gay marriage is a threat to the american normal marriage is a new kind of stupidity and hypocrisy. for this argument, in this thread, i only care about the law. and if the law states marriage is between a man and a woman, the gays are no more discriminated than pedophiles being refused the "right" to marry a 10 year old. the fact that the latter is gross and wrong is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
maybe one should choose a country that doesn't allow gay marriage, dig up that law and post it here.

if the law sounds a little like "we don't allow gays to marry because we think they are an abomination" then it is discriminatory.

if the law doesn't mention gays and simply says "marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman" it is not disc ...[text shortened]... to marry a 10 year old. the fact that the latter is gross and wrong is irrelevant.

Like I said, absurd.

People make laws. There is no value-free vantage point from which to make them. So the definition that marriage is between a man and a woman is value-laden.

You keep making the point that this is not discriminatory because the law applies to everybody regardless of their sexuality. I agree it is not discriminatory in that sense. The same is true of laws that banned inter-racial marriage. The law applied equally to everybody regardless of their race.

However, the inter-racial marriage ban was discriminatory in another sense. Remember what the definition says:

"Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice"

So it seems clear that whether two people were allowed to marry under that law wasn't based on individual merit but on the 'race' to which they belong. Hence it was discriminatory.

Let us consider another type of law. Most countries won't allow people to drive until they reach a certain age, (usually 15, 16, 17, 18). So you might be 13 years old, and the most safe, responsible and skillful driver, but you won't be allowed to drive. Hence the traffic laws are discriminatory.

There are a lot of laws that are discriminatory in this sense, and a good thing too.

The prohibition on gay marriage is discriminatory in this sense, but the more important question is whether that is a good thing or not.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Like I said, absurd.

People make laws. There is no value-free vantage point from which to make them. So the definition that marriage is between a man and a woman is value-laden.

You keep making the point that this is not discriminatory because the law applies to everybody regardless of their sexuality. I agree it is not discriminatory in that sense. ...[text shortened]... ry in this sense, but the more important question is whether that is a good thing or not.

by your argument, rape laws and child abuse laws are discriminatory as well.
someone wanting to marry a 10 year old is being abused.

discrimination is not forbidding someone to do what he/she wants. it is preferential treatment. in that way something applying to everyone equally, no matter how evil or insane, is not discriminatory which you already agreed.

So it seems clear that whether two people were allowed to marry under that law wasn't based on individual merit but on the 'race' to which they belong. Hence it was discriminatory.
it is not clear at all. please refer to my "beer for spongebob" example. a law is being set into place. some people like it some don't. but all may benefit from it equally.
actually i will just copy it here.

the government gives a free beer to whomever goes to see a spongebob movie. i love beer and i love free, suffice it to say that i would love to get me that beer. but i hate spongebob. i cringe at the thought of him.

so now i have a dilema. i love beer and i hate spongebob. i just have to decide if i want the beer bad enough. i guess i could sit through half the movie and get half a beer. or i could bring my ipod to the theater and watch futurama when nobody is watching. also i could lobby the government if they could offer another viewing that shows futurama and so the people could choose where to go.
but if i decide that beer is not worth the trouble of spongebob or lobbying i would have no right to complain that i am being discriminated. the government is offering beer with spongebob and i choose not to take it. my fault.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
by your argument, rape laws and child abuse laws are discriminatory as well.
someone wanting to marry a 10 year old is being abused.
The point I'm making is that it isn't a bad thing that many of the laws we make do discriminate. (I'm not sure how that applies to rape?). What matters is the basis on which they discriminate. If it is on the basis of partiality or unwarranted prejudice, then the law is discriminatory in the pejoritive sense.

discrimination is not forbidding someone to do what he/she wants. it is preferential treatment. in that way something applying to everyone equally, no matter how evil or insane, is not discriminatory which you already agreed.
There is a distinction between criteria for application of a law, and the fact that laws can affect not just individuals differently, but definable groups.

Supposing a law was passed that nobody under 2 metres in height would be allowed to drive. The criteria for application is universal. So this law would not be discriminatory according to you. But such a law would be discriminatory against anybody under 2 metres in height because they would be barred from driving, not on their individual merits but because of an attribute shared by everybody in their group. That's discrimination. This law is no different in structure to the age law for driving, which is also discriminatory. However, the latter is not discriminatory in the bad sense, since rational pragmatic grounds can be advanced that answer any charge of partiality or prejudice.

it is not clear at all.
It should be, given the above.

please refer to my "beer for spongebob" example.
I'd argue that whether or not you like beer or spongebob is not really a question of whether it is your fault or not. But clearly the government in this case would be enacting a law that rewarded some groups and not others. If they are doing that deliberately on the basis of nothing more than favouritism or prejudice, then I'm arguing that I would have grounds to say that it is discriminatory.

Suppose, as a wine drinker and somebody who likes futurama I do in fact lobby the government to complain that they are discriminating in favour of beer and spongebob fans, but the government can come up with no compelling moral argument for why they give some people preferential treatment. (Maybe they mutter something about wine drinking undermining the institution of beer drinking, which fools nobody.) Why is this not evidence of prejudice or partiality?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]by your argument, rape laws and child abuse laws are discriminatory as well.
someone wanting to marry a 10 year old is being abused.
The point I'm making is that it isn't a bad thing that many of the laws we make do discriminate. (I'm not sure how that applies to rape?). What matters is the basis on which the ...[text shortened]... beer drinking, which fools nobody.) Why is this not evidence of prejudice or partiality?[/b]

rape laws "discriminate" against those that want to have sex with someone against their will.
The point I'm making is that it isn't a bad thing that many of the laws we make do discriminate
i don't think you realize that most laws don't discriminate. they apply to each and everyone. that is not discrimination. it may be injustice in some cases. other cases it is simply a law put in place to regulate some aspects of our society. some like it some don't(we are not supposed to all like every law since we are not all alike). someone not being ok about a law isn't discriminated unless there is a certain someone else to which that law doesn't apply. Ie, all jewish men would be allowed to marry a 10 year old but not the rest. that is discrimination.


Supposing a law was passed that nobody under 2 metres in height would be allowed to drive. The criteria for application is universal.
bad example. this IS discrimination. nobody under 2 meters would be able to drive because nobody under 2 meters could magically grow to the correct size. discrimination by height. a gay man would be able to marry a woman, except he doesn't want to, unlike the 1.9 person that even if he wanted to be 2 meters he couldn't. again refer to my "beer for spongebob" example.
now suppose there is a magical pill that would grow every person to 2m, painlessly and without side effects. the law stops being discriminatory because anyone who wants can meet the conditions. it doesn't stop being insane, stupid and stupid.


spongebob example explained.
the government doesn't care about wine. maybe in my hypothetical world there is a wine for futurama example. or cookies for chuck norris movies.
the point is :
government is giving free beer, only there is a string attached. you have to watch spongebob. thats it. the fact that some people do not like spongebob doesn't mean they cannot watch it. i can watch it. i may throw up but i can. and at the end of it i will get my free beer. the fact is there is a perk that has prerequisites that anyone can meet if they want that free beer badly enough. it is not discrimination just because not everyone wants to meet them. it is injustice. laws can be unjust without being discriminatory.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
rape laws "discriminate" against those that want to have sex with someone against their will.
[b]The point I'm making is that it isn't a bad thing that many of the laws we make do discriminate
i don't think you realize that most laws don't discriminate. they apply to each and everyone. that is not discrimination. it may be injustice in some cases. oth ...[text shortened]... to meet them. it is injustice. laws can be unjust without being discriminatory.[/b]

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
rape laws "discriminate" against those that want to have sex with someone against their will.
But by your own logic this is not discrimination since, to quote, it applies "to each and everyone. that is not discrimination." You can't have it both ways. If the state has no case to answer whether people have a preference for spongebob or not, you can hardly turn around and say that they can be accused of discimination on the basis of whether people want to rape or not.

i don't think you realize that most laws don't discriminate.
I disagree. I think we just have different criteria for discrimination. I think mine are compatible with the dictionary definition.

bad example. this IS discrimination. nobody under 2 meters would be able to drive because nobody under 2 meters could magically grow to the correct size. discrimination by height.
But this law applies to everybody. It makes no judgement ahead of time. It just says that you have to be measured. If you are below a certain height, you can't drive. It isn't the government's fault you are short of the mark.

a gay man would be able to marry a woman, except he doesn't want to, unlike the 1.9 person that even if he wanted to be 2 meters he couldn't.
But the difference is not due to a significant moral issue, it is more to do with syntax. The part of the law which allows people to marry members of the opposite sex is not the issue. It is the part which prohibits Jones from marrying Smith if they happen to be the same sex. That's discriminatory.

government is giving free beer, only there is a string attached.
It seems to me that you will only allow what I'll call first order discrimination. That is, if the government offers beer for watching spongebob to everybody, they are not discriminatory, they offered it to everybody and it isn't their fault that not everybody likes beer or spongebob.

I allow for second order discrimination. That is, somebody or a group decides on when or which strings are attached. If I can point to prejudice or partiality in that string selection process, then I'll declare discrimination in the pejoritive sense.

So far, I see no argument from you that succeeds in establishing that the restriction to first order discrimination is conducive to a productive discussion of the moral issues.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]rape laws "discriminate" against those that want to have sex with someone against their will.
But by your own logic this is not discrimination since, to quote, it applies "to each and everyone. that is not discrimination." You can't have it both ways. If the state has no case to answer whether people have a pr ...[text shortened]... rder discrimination is conducive to a productive discussion of the moral issues.[/b]

sure i agree to what you call "second order discrimination". there is such a thing. but if we allow that, then the word discrimination is in a way weakened. ie it is used to name 2 mostly different concepts which leads to ambiguity in language. not to mention that it deals with the intent behind a law, something that is very hard to apply in the context of laws in general. in courts, very rarely we are talking about the intent of the laws. we can only mostly deal with "did he break it or not".


the rape discrimination is not a contradiction of my argument, it was ironic, hence the usage of quotation marks. it goes to support my argument that if you think a law can be discriminatory because someone doesn't like it and doesn't want to follow it then the rape laws and child abuse laws are also discriminatory.

my definition of discriminatory is about someone being unable to comply to a rule because of an aspect that he cannot change.

sure he cannot change being gay. but i doubt any government describes marriage as being about a man and a woman having sex.(it would be nice though if the wife is required by law to sex up her husband twice a week). it is a union between a man and a woman to raise children and have some tax exempts. for that reason a gay man can marry a woman and still be gay(wherever adultery is not prohibited by law).

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sure i agree to what you call "second order discrimination". there is such a thing. but if we allow that, then the word discrimination is in a way weakened. ie it is used to name 2 mostly different concepts which leads to ambiguity in language. not to mention that it deals with the intent behind a law, something that is very hard to apply in the context of ...[text shortened]... a gay man can marry a woman and still be gay(wherever adultery is not prohibited by law).

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sure i agree to what you call "second order discrimination". there is such a thing. but if we allow that, then the word discrimination is in a way weakened.
I disagree. If anything, your restricted use of the term weakens the argument because it allows things that everybody knows are discriminatory to be defined not to be.

ie it is used to name 2 mostly different concepts which leads to ambiguity in language.
I think it is the same concept applied at a different level of description. In my view, most people seem to be able to cope with that without ambiguity being too much of a problem.

not to mention that it deals with the intent behind a law, something that is very hard to apply in the context of laws in general. in courts, very rarely we are talking about the intent of the laws. we can only mostly deal with "did he break it or not".
It doesn't necessarily just deal with the intent of the law, we can use as evidence how the law impacts on different groups, which in turn allows us to ask whether the result is as fair as we can make it. That seems to me to be an important dialogue.

the rape discrimination is not a contradiction of my argument, it was ironic, hence the usage of quotation marks. it goes to support my argument that if you think a law can be discriminatory because someone doesn't like it and doesn't want to follow it then the rape laws and child abuse laws are also discriminatory.
I don't think the criterion for a law being discriminatory is whether people like it or not. Rather, for me the issue is: if the law in practice applies differently to identifiable groups A and B, can the state offer a moral argument for why that should be the case? If not, the state is open to the charge of discrimination.

my definition of discriminatory is about someone being unable to comply to a rule because of an aspect that he cannot change.

sure he cannot change being gay. but i doubt any government describes marriage as being about a man and a woman having sex.
Suppose Jones is gay and can't change that. Then Jones is likely to find him or herself in a situation of being unable to marry the person they love because of an aspect of themselves that they can't change, given what the law says about same-sex marriage. That seems to me to fit even your narrow definition without even mentioning sexual activity.

it is a union between a man and a woman to raise children and have some tax exempts.
Well infertile or elderly people can get married. The state puts restrictions on marriage, you have to be above a certain age, not already married, not a close relative of, and of the opposite sex to the prospective spouse, but apart from that the state doesn't seem to care. The question is whether or not setting those criteria in that way is morally justified. If you don't want to call it an issue of discrimination because you are concerned that the ambiguity will dilute the term, that's up to you (of course).

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]sure i agree to what you call "second order discrimination". there is such a thing. but if we allow that, then the word discrimination is in a way weakened.
I disagree. If anything, your restricted use of the term weakens the argument because it allows things that everybody knows are discriminatory to be defin ...[text shortened]... re concerned that the ambiguity will dilute the term, that's up to you (of course).[/b]

that's not the way i see it.


The question is whether or not setting those criteria in that way is morally justified.
a, so it is not a matter of wheter setting those criteria is discriminatory but if it is morally justified. kind of contradicting yourself aren't you? so forbidding an adult to marry a 10 year old is a matter of morality and not discrimination. but forbidding a man to marry another man is not morality but discrimination? what is the the difference? they both want to marry someone not allowed by law. and in both cases everyone is equally forbidden to marry the object of their desires. why isn't the pedophile discriminated?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that's not the way i see it.


[b]The question is whether or not setting those criteria in that way is morally justified.
a, so it is not a matter of wheter setting those criteria is discriminatory but if it is morally justified. kind of contradicting yourself aren't you? so forbidding an adult to marry a 10 year old is a matter of morality and not ...[text shortened]... qually forbidden to marry the object of their desires. why isn't the pedophile discriminated?[/b]

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that's not the way i see it.
Maybe we should agree to differ then.

a, so it is not a matter of wheter setting those criteria is discriminatory but if it is morally justified. kind of contradicting yourself aren't you?
Not in the least. The reason setting criteria in certain ways is not morally justified is because to do so in a way that disadvantages group A over group B for no better reason than partiality or prejudice is discriminatory. You already conceded second order discrimination, so this shouldn't be a problem for you.

so forbidding an adult to marry a 10 year old is a matter of morality and not discrimination. but forbidding a man to marry another man is not morality but discrimination?
Surely that depends whether the criteria are set on the basis of sound moral argument or on partiality and prejudice?

and in both cases everyone is equally forbidden to marry the object of their desires. why isn't the pedophile discriminated?
As I pointed out before, I see discrimination in the purely technical sense as morally neutral. Whether we disapprove of discrimination depends on how the criteria are set. That is why it is important to consider second order discrimination. I think there are sound moral arguments in support of the law with respect to pedophiles, therefore said law is not discriminatory in the pejorative sense. However, I don't think the same is true of the marriage law regarding same-sex union.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what i feel is irrelevant and of no significance, for i did not write the word of God.

You just stand ready to interpret it for the rest of us. How fortunate we are (to have minds of our own!)

Originally posted by TerrierJack
You just stand ready to interpret it for the rest of us. How fortunate we are (to have minds of our own!)

yes, but a mind is not all that is needed uncle Jack, or have you never read,

(1 Corinthians 2:11-14) For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of man that is in him? So, too, no one has come to know the things of God, except the spirit of God.  Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God.  These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we combine spiritual matters with spiritual words.  But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]that's not the way i see it.
Maybe we should agree to differ then.

a, so it is not a matter of wheter setting those criteria is discriminatory but if it is morally justified. kind of contradicting yourself aren't you?
Not in the least. The reason setting criteria in certain ways is not mora ...[text shortened]... ense. However, I don't think the same is true of the marriage law regarding same-sex union.[/b]

what you call second order discrimination and to which i agree it exists i call more "i feel unhappy for not getting what i want".


a gay man wants to marry a gay man, someone he loves. he see another man marrying a woman. he feels discriminated. but wait. there are 2 different things. it is like a cocain junkie feeling discriminated when he sees a drunk.

that is why i think there is no discrimination and the gays must simply demand their marriage. instead of falling into the same stupidity opponents of gay marriage fall: mention stuff that is none of their bussiness.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what you call second order discrimination and to which i agree it exists i call more "i feel unhappy for not getting what i want".


a gay man wants to marry a gay man, someone he loves. he see another man marrying a woman. he feels discriminated. but wait. there are 2 different things. it is like a cocain junkie feeling discriminated when he sees a drun ...[text shortened]... same stupidity opponents of gay marriage fall: mention stuff that is none of their bussiness.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what you call second order discrimination and to which i agree it exists i call more "i feel unhappy for not getting what i want".
You are Humpty Dumpty, and I claim my £5 🙂

a gay man wants to marry a gay man, someone he loves. he see another man marrying a woman. he feels discriminated. but wait. there are 2 different things. it is like a cocain junkie feeling discriminated when he sees a drunk.
I disagree, this analogy doesn't work for the reasons I have discussed in detail in the previous posts. I think further progress is unlikely because you have started repeating your arguments without in my view having addressed my criticisms.

that is why i think there is no discrimination and the gays must simply demand their marriage. instead of falling into the same stupidity opponents of gay marriage fall: mention stuff that is none of their bussiness.
There is discrimination, you have admitted it, you just want to call it something else because that suits your argument. It reminds me of a Monty Python quote:
'Blackmail is such an ugly word, let's use "fish-paste" instead.'