Lawrence v. Texas: Discuss

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
No, of course not. All I'm trying to say is that morality IS relative, to a point. Some things CAN be wrong that a society sees as bad... things that hurt others. Such as human sacrifice or slavery... but something that is purely a moral issue like that? No.

...Sex with children is definitely not a purely moral issue. And besides which, just because it doesn't cause physical harm to someone doesn't mean it should be legal. I mean, does it physically harm someone to see a person walking naked down the street? No. But it's still illegal to do. Should we legalize that activity on that basis? Or let's take it a step farther by allowing public masturbation. That doesn't cause any physical pain. Hell, why not go all out and allow full-blown public sex? Full-blown public ANIMAL sex? It's not hurting anyone! Anyone, except for young children, who would see such a thing and do their damnest to emulate it, like children always do. Obviously, that's not a healthy environment.

Whether you mean it or not, telling homosexuals that they MUST stay in the closet or they will have major reppucussions is absurd and should be illegal. Its blackmail, really... forcing people to act one way just so they don't be kicked out by the paranoid society. That is absolutely wrong for issues such as this.

Its not "not telling people what happens in their own bedrooms"... that should be private, normally. But homosexuality doesn't mean that, not even close... its not like homosexuals have to have (or have had) a sexual partner to be found out as homosexuals and fired or whatever...

I fail to see the difference. I think anyone, regardless of their sexual preference, deserves whatever consequences that come with revealing your sexual behavior should that person make a decision to do so. Gay or straight, it's nothing but a distraction in the workplace and should be supressed. It's not an idea born from fear or hate, but of mere decency.

You're right. It's not like gays have to even BE gay to be fired for being gay. The employer doesn't know what's going on in their private bedroom. If a particular employer really has a hatred for gays and would fire one if he discovered one (and I really think that particular brand of thinking is in the minority)
it goes without saying that this person would likely have fired people for even the suspicion of being gay, meaning that there are probably as many heterosexuals fired for being 'gay'. Obviously, a person isn't going to overtly fire someone for being gay, if they really want a particular person canned for whatever reason, they will FIND a reason to do it. How is any sort of law supposed to stop a practice that is almost completely a unilateral decision anyway? And then there is the adverse effect of anti gay-discrimination laws: How many people will use this as a basis for a lawsuit when they are fired, even if it was for a perfectly legitimate reason? What will stop a person from claiming discrimination? You already see it happening all the time on racial issues and it's disgusting... incompetent people claiming to be fired just for being black. And even though it's almost never true, the minority always gets the benefit of the doubt and that makes the employer afraid to fire particular people for ANY reason. Now imagine how the problem will be compounded when the trait in question can't be detected as easily as skin color...

This particular can of worms has more consequences than it's worth, really. It may help true discrimination victims, but it will also put employers in a state of fear that they currently experience with racial issues. And then you have the fact that without being told by a person yourself, it's very hard in most cases to tell if a person is gay. Therefore, if there is some evil employer who likes firing gays, he'll fire people who might not be gay but he thinks is. How will discrimination laws protect them? What if they did? What if ANYONE could claim discrimination as an anathema for getting fired?

Given these very real possibilities, I think the 'keeping personal business personal' practice is a much better alternative in many ways.