Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Double Standard?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Discrimination is about being negative towards a particular group of people based on their personal characteristics. Do you understand the difference between being negative and positive? Let me explain, because you don't seem to get it.
    Does this definition of dualistic and intrinsic Good and Evil come from the yin-yang religion, the Ahura Mazda/Angra Mainyu religion, or the Hydalyn/Zodiark religion? Can I use the terms interchangeably?

    If someone is having a wedding, and celebrating the happiest day of their life, then baking them a cake and helping them celebrate the happiest day of their life is a nice thing to do. It's something positive. Helping others celebrate their happiness on the most special day of their lives is something something nice, sociable, loving, kind, people would want to do.
    But the joy and happiness of a wedding for most people is to see a definite and presumably final step in their personal development: Marrying two fundamentally different people to start a new family. Showing happiness toward gay weddings tends toward the silly (most won't even keep having sex with each other exclusively, making the marriage at most just a party with better food and clothes) or ghoulish (most lesbian marriages take a turn for the sexless, utilitarian, and abusive in short order.) Taken merely with a knowledge of how these arrangements tend to go, the effect of the spectacle is only to diminish the good memories of actual weddings between people actually trying to build a life rather than people forcing applause at the gates of an insane asylum.

    Whereas, if you say "no, I can't have you being happy, because you have some personal characteristics I despise and hate, and my religious beliefs tell me to be nasty to you. Therefore rather than help you celebrate your happiness I'm going to be as nasty as possible and express my objection to your wedding even though I wasn't asked, and in no way support you in your celebrations of your happiness and try my best to make you unhappy on your special day." That's a negative thing to do. Being out to stop the happiness of others and doing their best to ruin the most special day in someone else's life is something nasty, anti-social, hate-filled, malicious people would want to do. And doing it due to their personal characteristics (being gay) makes it "discrimination".
    Your extreme dualistic religious sympathies aside, there is a time for love and a time for hate, a time for praise and a time for rebuke, a time for presence and a time for absence. "Negativity" and "positivity" are meaningless as legal constructs.

    Now in this example, the guy wanted "two cakes with anti-gay messages" according to your quoted article. Let me break "anti-gay" down for you. There is the negative component: "anti". And there is the personal characteristic: "gay". Combine those together and you get discrimination. The guy wanted a cake baked with a discriminatory message. The bakery turned him down because the bakery doesn't approve of discrimination. In this example, the man wanting the cakes baked is trying to express nastiness and hate towards a select group of people based on their personal characteristics - he is the one trying to discriminate. Whereas the bakery are the ones refusing to be a part of such an act of discrimination.
    The law should not concern itself with trifles. On that note, please stop raping the English language to promulgate your legal and religious fan-fiction.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sam View Post
      A person can be wrong and not be malicious, after all.
      That's true. And I do know that that majority of the opposition to gay rights is based in ignorance and not in malice.

      It's just that it's hard, as someone who's aware of the harm that these people do in ignorance, to not get extremely angry about it. Mass murder done in ignorance is still mass murder. The people still suffer and die. Ignorance and stupidity as a defense only gets you so far.

      This estimate suggested the death toll was around 2000 gay people per year in Canada, primarily due to the chronic stress suffered as a result of general social prejudice. That estimate seems carefully calculated, and their numbers on gay suicide rates agree with numbers I've researched myself with regard to the US and NZ. The numbers are pretty simple and clear: Anti-gay Christians kill far more Americans than do Muslim terrorists. Social prejudice and discrimination leads to gay people suffering stress, anxiety and depression in massive numbers, and leads to large numbers of suicides as well as them resorting to smoking and alcohol for stress relief, both of which carry significant dangers of their own. (Interested people should read this explanation of the health effects of discrimination on gay people.)

      So when someone says "I don't hate gay people, I just...xxxxxxxx" I find it really really hard to not simply mentally substitute in "I don't hate gay people, I just make them feel socially disapproved-of until they kill themselves" as I read the sentence, because I am well aware that that is what it boils down to.

      And frankly, when it comes to the topic of marriage, I'm not prepared to grant much clemency to the anti-gay Christians on the grounds that they're ignorant: Christians go on and on and on about how important their marriages are to them. They know how important a marriage can be to an individual on a personal and psychological level and in a day-to-day experience way. So they should be well aware of just how much harm and suffering they can cause a person by setting out to deny that person a marriage. On this of all topics, they of all people, should be aware of just how offensive and personally injurious they are being by attacking gay people's marriages. They are reasonably able to plead ignorance when it comes to not really understanding long term medical effects of chronic stress, or not really understanding how 'one or two' instances of discrimination experienced by a gay person might lead that person to have a generalized fear and anxiety about the possibility of future discrimination, or not really understanding how gay people come to feel when they think that "everyone's against me" and "maybe I'm better off dead, like they say", but they surely absolutely have to know that by attacking these people in their marriages they are hitting them where it hurts on a psychological and personal level because they know how central marriages are to people's lives and how meaningful they are to them as a person.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sam View Post
        Your subjects are a bit messed up:

        "The Constitution of the United States prevents the government from compelling someone to publish another's speech but allows for generally-applicable and neutral laws to impinge on the religious values of certain individuals."

        Not that this incredibly over-simplified sentence of yours was the content behind the "double-standard" initially stated. There, you were making a reference to a specific situation and conflating events that were not, in fact, identical in the context of what's being discussed. In that respect, you were clearly wrong on several important counts.
        It is a double standard. Just because there's a questionable legal justification for it doesn't stop it from being a double standard. For one thing, it depends on an unreasonably narrow definition of "speech". Otherwise, the bakery should have been compelled to create the imagery even if they refrained from adding the text.

        So, double standard.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by starlight
          Social prejudice and discrimination leads to gay people suffering stress, anxiety and depression in massive numbers, and leads to large numbers of suicides as well as them resorting to smoking and alcohol for stress relief, both of which carry significant dangers of their own.
          I'm well aware of the stress and the toll of being gay, having experienced suffering from tolerable to agonizing for over 20 years. But even in places where gay people experience less discrimination and prejudice(like places in Europe and the place where I live, the San Francisco Bay Area) the suicide rate for gay men is STILL much higher than that of straight men, even gay men in steady relationships. Gay men are apparently more vulnerable to clinical depression, I have it myself to such a degree that I can't even be helped by medicine.

          And the 'gay community' is pretty damn depressing in and of itself. Find a video or picture gallery of things like the folsom street fair in San Francisco. Do it from home though because the content will probably get you fired. Imagine growing up expecting to have a normal family life and a spouse to have children with. Then at 13 or so you realize you're gay and that, among other things, is how you see gay people behaving. And as for marriage, half of gay men in same sex marriages don't even remain faithful to their partner. On gay dating apps and websites, there is a checkbox for "Married."

          There is also a difference between not condoning something, not wanting to participate in it, and wanting it to be illegal for everyone who seeks it. I don't condone heavy drinking but I don't want to make it illegal. I can't be part of a gay wedding because of my religious convictions but I don't try to make issues that are almost purely religious into binding law for the public.
          Last edited by hamster; 04-06-2015, 09:33 AM.
          "Some people feel guilty about their anxieties and regard them as a defect of faith but they are afflictions, not sins. Like all afflictions, they are, if we can so take them, our share in the passion of Christ." - That Guy Everyone Quotes

          Comment


          • #20
            So now bible verses are "hate speech?"

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              So now bible verses are "hate speech?"
              Of course they are! Haven't you read anything from Canada over the last decade or so? We are far more enlightened than you Yanks when it comes to forbidding the very mention of scripture that says homosexuality is a sin!



              Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                Of course they are! Haven't you read anything from Canada over the last decade or so? We are far more enlightened than you Yanks when it comes to forbidding the very mention of scripture that says homosexuality is a sin!

                but hate speech is protected by the first amendment! Otherwise the KKK would be put out of business.

                No matter how you look at it, it is a double-standard. Liberals can force Christians to do what ever they want or else. But Christians try the same thing with Liberals and they are told that they don't have the right to do that.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  It is a double standard. Just because there's a questionable legal justification for it doesn't stop it from being a double standard. For one thing, it depends on an unreasonably narrow definition of "speech". Otherwise, the bakery should have been compelled to create the imagery even if they refrained from adding the text.

                  So, double standard.
                  That was a non-sequitor. First you argue that such a distinction requires an "unreasonably narrow definition of speech" and then go on to say that if the definition of speech were not so broad, "the bakery should have been compelled to create the imagery even if they refrained from adding the text."

                  And "long-standing Supreme Court precedent" ≠ "questionable legal justification". You're gonna have to cite some case law to get that that raw assertion up to temp.
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    That was a non-sequitor. First you argue that such a distinction requires an "unreasonably narrow definition of speech" and then go on to say that if the definition of speech were not so broad, "the bakery should have been compelled to create the imagery even if they refrained from adding the text."

                    And "long-standing Supreme Court precedent" ≠ "questionable legal justification". You're gonna have to cite some case law to get that that raw assertion up to temp.
                    Oh Sam, Sam, Sam.

                    Do you not think people can see right through you? Double-standard is your middle name. Or maybe just "hypocrite."

                    Do you think bible verses are hate speech too?

                    We already know that Christians can be forced to publish the speech of others even if they don't agree with it. Just look at the Gay Pride T-shirt incident in Lexington, KY.


                    =====================

                    Can you show me in the constitution where it says you cannot be made to publish the speech of others?

                    Then can you show me in the constitution where it says that Bible verses are hate speech and can be suppressed?

                    Thanks.


                    ===============

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                      Of course they are! Haven't you read anything from Canada over the last decade or so? We are far more enlightened than you Yanks when it comes to forbidding the very mention of scripture that says homosexuality is a sin!

                      Didn't your Supreme Court unanimously rule that distributing pamphlets regarding the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior was hate speech?

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Didn't your Supreme Court unanimously rule that distributing pamphlets regarding the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior was hate speech?
                        Exactly.


                        Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          So now bible verses are "hate speech?"
                          Amos 5:10, "There are those who hate the one who upholds justice in court and detest the one who tells the truth."

                          2 Thessalonians 2:10, "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            And "long-standing Supreme Court precedent" ≠ "questionable legal justification".
                            As if the Supreme Court has never made questionable rulings.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by hamster View Post
                              But even in places where gay people experience less discrimination and prejudice(like places in Europe and the place where I live, the San Francisco Bay Area) the suicide rate for gay men is STILL much higher than that of straight men, even gay men in steady relationships.
                              It goes down when discrimination and prejudice is less. That's been documented by a number of studies, as well as being blindingly obvious to people working in mental health fields. One study I saw, documented a statistically significant drop in gay usage of mental health services after the passing of marriage equality legislation as compared to before it.

                              I think a mistake a lot of people make is to massively underestimate the effect of a seemingly-low level of background prejudice. So to assume that in Europe, or the Bay Area, or NZ etc that there's "no prejudice" just because there's not the same level of overt prejudice, and therefore assume that there isn't a serious amount of health implications due to that prejudice is just wrong. A significant number of people in all those countries don't approve of gay marriage. A significant number of churches in all those countries won't host gay weddings. A significant number of people in all those countries believe living the 'gay lifestyle' is wrong and sinful. The tolerance and acceptance has generally got as far as the 50%-80% majority needed to pass laws like equal marriage or employment non-discrimination, but that's not nearly the same thing as a society where no prejudice is present. Having 20% of your population actively wanting to legally ban a minority group from being able to get married is a huge amount of prejudice.

                              However anti-discrimination laws and hate-speech laws do do a good job of limiting the prejudice that minorities are exposed to, and so serve to protect the minorities against these harms, and to protect the people who are prejudiced from causing harms in ignorance that they wouldn't wish to have caused had they understood the effects of their words and actions.

                              Gay men are apparently more vulnerable to clinical depression
                              It's well-established that the chronic stress and anxiety suffered by minority groups subjected to prejudice is a major cause of depression and other mental health problems. Gay people do suffer depression more often. When they know the world is out to get them, that's rather unsurprisingly somewhat depressing!

                              And the 'gay community' is pretty damn depressing in and of itself.
                              I agree. However the historical origins of that have a lot to do with that community's experiences of prejudice and persecution, and how they were forced to / chose to shape themselves with certain cultural values counter to the values of those who were oppressing them. I regard the gay culture present in some areas of the world an unfortunate historical product of prejudice, and I'm reluctant to blame the victim.

                              Then at 13 or so you realize you're gay and that, among other things, is how you see gay people behaving.
                              I agree it's a problem. I think it's slowly changing. And the most significant part of the way it's changing is due to the legalization of same-sex marriage and adoption. This is leading to a new generation of gay people who get married and have families in ways that are no different to straight people. Unfortunately those people aren't so visible, and don't have parades, but due to sheer numbers they are beginning to become far more the face of the gay rights movement than are the extremist over-sexualized minority. I think what will make a significant difference too, is that as churches soften their stance towards gay people, gay Christians will once again attend mainstream churches, and your average 13 year-old Christian will see examples of committed married gay couples raising families in their immediate church, and that will become their mental stereotype of 'gay' rather than some ridiculously flamboyant hyper-sexualized crazy person they saw on a TV clip.

                              And as for marriage, half of gay men in same sex marriages don't even remain faithful to their partner.
                              The statistics are pretty much identical for straight men.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Came across a picture on FB today that was shaky logic but on the right track. It compared baking a cake for a same-sex couple with selling a gun to a murderer. Obviously, very few people would sell someone a gun knowing that it could be used for murder and those who did wouldn't cut a sympathetic figure. But it does end up being pretty devastating if slightly tweaked.

                                Recently, Ned Luke (best known for his role as "Michael" in GTA V) helped cut a gun-information ad "telling the story" of a bunch of guns being sold in NYC (each gun had been used in a crime or domestic violence accident).




                                And, aside from being much more likely to injure or kill a family member than a violent attacker, we know that Jesus had something of an aversion to violence even in self-defense. It's unlikely (very unlikely to those of us steeped in Mennonite traditions[/i]) that Christ would encourage firearm sales for self defense. So the question becomes this: should Christian gun shop owners acknowledge Christ's pacifist history and forego selling guns to people interested in self-defense?
                                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 07:29 AM
                                10 responses
                                34 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by firstfloor, Today, 03:49 AM
                                34 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 01:18 PM
                                3 responses
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 10:44 AM
                                2 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 01:15 AM
                                13 responses
                                107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Working...
                                X