4th April 2003, 3:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 4th April 2003, 4:41 PM by Nintendarse.)
I don't really understand the "special treatment" argument.
For legal grounding, look here: Romer v. Evans
If you want to see the argument that won in the Supreme Court of the United States, look here
Of note: this argument was put forth by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Assocation.
Your drug analogy doesn't work because employment decisions are made based upon the individual's ability to be productive. An employer MAY judge an applicant's decisions that affect their working ability or the working ability of others, but they are not allowed to judge an applicant's decisions that do not affect the workplace. Drugs greatly hinder one's ability to be productive. Sexual orientation does not. I'd say that religion and sexual orientation have the same amount of effect upon productivity. If an employer doesn't want to hire you because you're openly Jewish, they do not have that right. And just as a Jewish person is within his right to wear clothing that shows his religion, it should not be outside a homosexual's rights to wear a small pin or other non-intrusive accessory.
To me, denial of "special treatment" looks more like denial of "equal treatment."
A note on US history: The Democratic party was, for several decades, the conservative party. Clearly, during the reconstruction period after the civil war, the Republican party was amazingly liberal. For many decades, the conservative south was dominated by Democrats. The switch in party alignment began with FDR, but gradually (and inconsistently) progressed until we have the situation of today. While today's Democratic party is commonly considered the liberal party, such was not the case throughout United States history. Strom Thurmond, while a Democrat, was undoubtedly conservative. In fact, it is reasonable to believe that Strom Thurmond split from the Democratic party because he fundamentally disagreed with its liberal-moving policies.
EDIT: Weltall, why do you talk about the people that question their sexuality as a foreign people that does not include yourself? If it is purely conscious choice, you would have already made the decision, and would include yourself in that pool. Despite this wrinkle of curiousity, I agree that a gay gene would quickly work its way out of the population. However, just because it is not genetic does not mean that it is not biological. Perhaps it is hormonal? Perhaps it is subconscious? Perhaps it is a combination of hormones, subconscious, life experience, and conscious? The latter makes the most sense to me, as (IMO) practically all of life's decisions include these factors in varying degees.
For legal grounding, look here: Romer v. Evans
If you want to see the argument that won in the Supreme Court of the United States, look here
Of note: this argument was put forth by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Assocation.
Your drug analogy doesn't work because employment decisions are made based upon the individual's ability to be productive. An employer MAY judge an applicant's decisions that affect their working ability or the working ability of others, but they are not allowed to judge an applicant's decisions that do not affect the workplace. Drugs greatly hinder one's ability to be productive. Sexual orientation does not. I'd say that religion and sexual orientation have the same amount of effect upon productivity. If an employer doesn't want to hire you because you're openly Jewish, they do not have that right. And just as a Jewish person is within his right to wear clothing that shows his religion, it should not be outside a homosexual's rights to wear a small pin or other non-intrusive accessory.
To me, denial of "special treatment" looks more like denial of "equal treatment."
A note on US history: The Democratic party was, for several decades, the conservative party. Clearly, during the reconstruction period after the civil war, the Republican party was amazingly liberal. For many decades, the conservative south was dominated by Democrats. The switch in party alignment began with FDR, but gradually (and inconsistently) progressed until we have the situation of today. While today's Democratic party is commonly considered the liberal party, such was not the case throughout United States history. Strom Thurmond, while a Democrat, was undoubtedly conservative. In fact, it is reasonable to believe that Strom Thurmond split from the Democratic party because he fundamentally disagreed with its liberal-moving policies.
EDIT: Weltall, why do you talk about the people that question their sexuality as a foreign people that does not include yourself? If it is purely conscious choice, you would have already made the decision, and would include yourself in that pool. Despite this wrinkle of curiousity, I agree that a gay gene would quickly work its way out of the population. However, just because it is not genetic does not mean that it is not biological. Perhaps it is hormonal? Perhaps it is subconscious? Perhaps it is a combination of hormones, subconscious, life experience, and conscious? The latter makes the most sense to me, as (IMO) practically all of life's decisions include these factors in varying degees.