Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Sea of red]

A bunch of liberals take over the APA and then declare it "normal". Color me shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!!

APA says homosexuals are mentally-ill in a time when we they also didn't know the connection between neurology and many mentally illness= The whole truth and nothin' but the truth.

APA and psychiatry/psychology mature as a science, improving the quality of lives around the world= Liberal conspiracy.

[Joel]

And likewise for individuals, groups of more than 2, and close relatives.

If you don't include those, then we aren't talking about moving to equality, just to a state that is differently unequal. I'm bugged by how often (probably always) I see the term "marriage equality" used to refer to a state that is merely differently unequal.

[freedom of association and choosing your friends]

Nonsense! This is a tortuous and irrelevant analogy.

Not from my perspective. Your response here suggests to me that you don't understand my position.
My position is that a person has the moral right to freedom of association. And that is the reason why you have the right to choose your friends, and it is the same reason why you have the right to decide what/whether to sell anything and whom to sell it to. I'm not making an analogy. They are examples of the same thing.

That is incorrect. Equality before the law simply means everyone is subject to the same laws, and that the law (and justice system) is no respecter of persons.

An example of inequality before the law:
Imposing different taxes on black people than that imposed on others.

Equality before the law:
Imposing equal taxation on everyone.

An example of inequality before the law:
Imposing less onerous laws on aristocrats.
Equality before the law:
The law (and justice system) makes no distinction between noblemen and commoners.

Example of equality before the law:
The law equally protects everyone's freedom of association.

This nonsensical gobbledygook is a futile attempt to make the laws against discrimination appear to be unfair to the bigots.

Your comment here is the same kind of comment that is used to justify censorship and other infringements of free speech, and infringements of other rights.
And your comment here is a way of avoiding addressing the point, that, if anything, such laws are an inequality. Instead of protecting everyone's equal freedom of association, the law unequally forces one party to associate with another involuntarily. Taking away rights of any person or group (including bigots) is inequality before the law (and in the case of bigotry, is also a kind of thoughtcrime.)

If one party X wants to exchange with another party Y, and Y does not want to exchange, then there are two mutually exclusive options:
1) The law could equally protect each party's freedom of association and property rights,
or
2) The law could force Y to make the exchange, unequally benefiting X at the expense of Y. (And something that, if X were to do that himself, it would be recognized as theft.)

It can't be both ways. (Regardless whether either party is making their choice based on bigotry.)

Not quite, 'The Enlightenment' emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority such as unevidenced religious authority.

The difference here is that the "traditional lines of authority" are now something different. You didn't ask Darth what his reason, analysis, or evidence was; you asked him about his credentials as an authority.

[Epoetker]

OK.

Let all the mentally-ill out of the wards. We can't trust the LIBERULZ who say they are dangerous.

Wasn't it the liberals who actually did that?

[Bill the Cat]

APA says homosexuals are mentally-ill in a time when we they also didn't know the connection between neurology and many mentally illness= The whole truth and nothin' but the truth.

APA and psychiatry/psychology mature as a science, improving the quality of lives around the world= Liberal conspiracy.

This says nothing about who gets to define what "normal" means.

[Sea of red]

This says nothing about who gets to define what "normal" means.

I really hope you don't take offense to this because that's not my intention.

Why base concepts of normality on texts that the key to their validity is abnormality (IE: the resurrection)? A book that has those kind of miracle stories that sound more like mythology has little credibility on human behavior for me. If it is for you then great, just don't expect that to count in a conversation.

[Bill the Cat]

I really hope you don't take offense to this because that's not my intention.

Why base concepts of normality on texts that the key to their validity is abnormality (IE: the resurrection)? A book that has those kind of miracle stories that sound more like mythology has little credibility on human behavior for me. If it is for you then great, just don't expect that to count in a conversation.

Considering everyone will get resurrected, I don't think the first fruit is abnormal at all. But homosexuality is definitely not normal where function is concerned.

[Tassman]

If you don't include those, then we aren't talking about moving to equality, just to a state that is differently unequal. I'm bugged by how often (probably always) I see the term "marriage equality" used to refer to a state that is merely differently unequal.

Not from my perspective. Your response here suggests to me that you don't understand my position.
My position is that a person has the moral right to freedom of association. And that is the reason why you have the right to choose your friends, and it is the same reason why you have the right to decide what/whether to sell anything and whom to sell it to. I'm not making an analogy. They are examples of the same thing.

Certainly, but this does not include the right to discriminate against people based upon race, gender or sexual orientation. - Wiki

That is incorrect. Equality before the law simply means everyone is subject to the same laws, and that the law (and justice system) is no respecter of persons.

An example of inequality before the law:
Imposing different taxes on black people than that imposed on others.

Equality before the law:
Imposing equal taxation on everyone.

An example of inequality before the law:
Imposing less onerous laws on aristocrats.
Equality before the law:
The law (and justice system) makes no distinction between noblemen and commoners.

Example of equality before the law:
The law equally protects everyone's freedom of association.

See above.

Your comment here is the same kind of comment that is used to justify censorship and other infringements of free speech, and infringements of other rights.
And your comment here is a way of avoiding addressing the point, that, if anything, such laws are an inequality. Instead of protecting everyone's equal freedom of association, the law unequally forces one party to associate with another involuntarily. Taking away rights of any person or group (including bigots) is inequality before the law (and in the case of bigotry, is also a kind of thoughtcrime.)

If one party X wants to exchange with another party Y, and Y does not want to exchange, then there are two mutually exclusive options:
1) The law could equally protect each party's freedom of association and property rights,
or
2) The law could force Y to make the exchange, unequally benefiting X at the expense of Y. (And something that, if X were to do that himself, it would be recognized as theft.)

It can't be both ways. (Regardless whether either party is making their choice based on bigotry.)

See above.

The difference here is that the "traditional lines of authority" are now something different. You didn't ask Darth what his reason, analysis, or evidence was; you asked him about his credentials as an authority.

Nevertheless the emphasis of The Enlightenment was (and is) on, questioning, reasoning and analysis rather than merely accepting without question the position of authority, especially religious authority.


.

[Tassman]

Considering everyone will get resurrected, I don't think the first fruit is abnormal at all.

The Christian belief in a resurrection is irrelevant to the laws of the land in a secular society.

But homosexuality is definitely not normal where function is concerned.

That is assuming that the only purpose of marriage is intercourse with the specific intention of reproduction but this isn't the case. This is evident from the variety of non-impregnating sexual behaviours we engage in, e.g. cunnilingus. Or no sexual relations at all in the case of older people. Furthermore, in large stable populations a pool of non-reproducing individuals are able to contribute to the quality of life of a community in other ways without the responsibility of raising children.

[Bill the Cat]

The Christian belief in a resurrection is irrelevant to the laws of the land in a secular society.

So what? YOU brought it up as a supposed standard for what is normal and abnormal, which transcends law. It's normal.

That is assuming that the only purpose of marriage is intercourse with the specific intention of reproduction but this isn't the case.

No it isn't assuming any such thing. Things can be abnormal and still have a function. Reproduction is a byproduct of the pairing our species typically engages in, and more often than not, the non-transitory pairings ends up in reproduction. The vast majority of human pairings are opposite-sex within the reproductive years, therefore the "normal" expression is fertile opposite sex pairings. Homosexual pairings are abnormal. Infertile pairings are also abnormal. But, please remember that "normal" and "moral" are not the same things. Along that line, Homosexual conduct itself is also abnormal because it can never truly approximate the complete spectrum of human opposite-sex sexual behavior. It can approximate sexual arousal and stimulation as well as social bonding, but can't complete the "normal" trifecta with reproduction.

This is evident from the variety of non-impregnating sexual behaviours we engage in, e.g. cunnilingus.

Which is an abnormal use of the tongue. Again, abnormal can still serve a function though.

Or no sexual relations at all in the case of older people.

Again, abnormal from a "purpose" standpoint.

Furthermore, in large stable populations a pool of non-reproducing individuals are able to contribute to the quality of life of a community in other ways without the responsibility of raising children.

But it's abnormal to do so from a sexual function standpoint.

[MaxVel]

But, please remember that "normal" and "moral" are not the same things.

AFAICT they pretty much are in Tassman's view of morality. What we value is moral (whatever that might presently be), it's the moral values that have been passed on to us by the process of natural selection. To put it another way, whatever values help societies survive are moral values.


How that justifies his moral condemnation of social groups with differing moral codes, or older societies who had different values than his 'progressive' ones, I don't know. How he thinks promoting homosexuality will help society survive, when it's clearly an evolutionary 'dead end',

[Cerebrum123]

AFAICT they pretty much are in Tassman's view of morality. What we value is moral (whatever that might presently be), it's the moral values that have been passed on to us by the process of natural selection. To put it another way, whatever values help societies survive are moral values.


How that justifies his moral condemnation of social groups with differing moral codes, or older societies who had different values than his 'progressive' ones, I don't know. How he thinks promoting homosexuality will help society survive, when it's clearly an evolutionary 'dead end',

Somebody will probably bring up the "gay uncle hypothesis" as an objection.

[Sam]

How is homosexuality an evolutionary dead end, bearing in mind Haldane's famous quote: "No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins"?

[RumTumTugger]

How is homosexuality an evolutionary dead end, bearing in mind Haldane's famous quote: "No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins"?

do you know anything about biology?

[Joel]

If you don't include those, then we aren't talking about moving to equality, just to a state that is differently unequal. I'm bugged by how often (probably always) I see the term "marriage equality" used to refer to a state that is merely differently unequal.

What do you mean "end of story"? You didn't address what I said at all. So you state what is the current legal status; that doesn't mean it is therefore equal. If that logic worked then when there was only opposite-sex marriage one could have responded to complaints of inequality by saying "That's the current legal status/definition. End of story." How is that reasonable or relevant to the question of whether it's equal?
The current state of the law is unequal. If all 50 states issue same-sex marriage licenses, that state of the law will be merely differently unequal.

My position is that a person has the moral right to freedom of association....

Certainly, but this does not include the right to discriminate against people based upon race, gender or sexual orientation. - Wiki

I was talking about a moral right, which is being violated by that part of the Civil Rights Act. The existence or absence of that law is irrelevant. My position is that the moral right does indeed include a broad freedom of choice, and whether you are choosing friends or choosing whom to buy to or sell from makes no difference.

See above.
See above.

Your "above" didn't address what I said at all.
You merely state something the Civil Rights Act does.
That has nothing to do with what equality before the law means.
It does nothing to show whether that that law is (un)just or (un)equal.
It does nothing to show whether the absence of that law would be a state of inequality before the law (As I have shown, it isn't.)

Nevertheless the emphasis of The Enlightenment was (and is) on, questioning, reasoning and analysis rather than merely accepting without question the position of authority, especially religious authority.

Indeed. That's my point. You didn't care about Darth's reasoning or analysis. You evidently rejected what he said not based on Darth's reasoning or analysis, but based on his being an authority or not. As if the proposition should be accepted or rejected based on Darth's position of authority, rather than from any reasoning or analysis. If reasoning and analysis is what matters, then whether Darth is in a position of authority doesn't matter.

[Leonhard]

How is homosexuality an evolutionary dead end, bearing in mind Haldane's famous quote: "No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins"?

Its kind of ironic that you bring up that statement, since that was Haldane's famous arguments AGAINST the theory of kin selection. Sure if each gay person is the cause of eight cousins being saved, who otherwise wouldn't have, then their traits could be selected for by natural evolutionary forces.

A more likely possibility is that the genes that cause homosexual tendency, are genes that tend to make women fertile. So the homosexual tendency is not what's selected for, its ordinary fertility, and the homoerotic attractions in men would then be a side effect. Needless to say while this hypothesis is not obviously wrong, unlike kin selection, there's no evidence to support it either.