U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook

[pgiguere1]

You always have control and if you say you don't, what do you say about the people who are attracted to little kids? Are you willing to make an exception for them and say that is wrong or are you going to explain how they can't help who they are and we should accept them and stop being hateful?

You can compare the way homosexuals and pedophiles both have no control over their sexual attraction, sure.

But the difference in what's inherently wrong about pedophilia isn't the attraction itself, but its repercussions. Child rape or producing child pornography is the main problem. It's just inacceptable since children are too young to give consent to something as serious as sex, and adults who abuse them are often in a situation of power.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily involve abusing anyone. As long as both are consentual partners, what's the issue?

If you really want to make an analogy with pedophilia (not that you should), a more accurate one would be to compare it to an homosexual raping an heterosexual: one is sexually attracted while the other isn't, and there's no consent.

Even then, abusing a child is worse IMO, but that's still a more accurate analogy.

 

[G51989]

I think it is a misconception that my views are the minority view. We're just usually less vocal.

If we're talking about this thread, might be surprising.

But it does say you live in Iowa, not exactly the most progressive area in the country. If you go to most major cities, or the East Or West Coast,you'll find your views are in the minority. Your views are more of what you see in the middle of the country.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Want to avoid the Old Testament? OK, how about this one: Jesus criticized the Jews for not killing their disobedient children, as required by the Old Testament. Think that one still works today? (Mark 7:9-10)

You may benefit from more context on that one. Notice it comes immediately after the Pharisees chastising Jesus and his disciples for breaking OT law by not washing their hands before eating.

 

[rdowns]

Pretty much, the less faith the better. I don't base my life around angles and fairy's.

I don't know, some might call your post obtuse.

 

[anonymouslurker]

I don't know, some might call your post obtuse.

That's terrorism! Damn Al-Gebra!

 

[FreeState]

Exxon is an evil oil company and your story is from a liberal site. Oil and liberals don't mix so I'm not buying the story.

What was on the gay person's resume that told Exxon that she was gay? A rainbow sticker? Why would you put anything on your resume about your non work background that was not related to the position you were applying for? I certainly would never put on my resume that I'm a straight white christian.

That is all fine and dandy but cases like that are impossible to prove. Maybe they did not call that person because they were over qualified and wanted a less qualified person to pay them less. Maybe they lost the resume. There are a whole list of reasons that do not prove discrimination.

I'm not saying that discrimination does not exist I'm just saying that these type of laws don't prevent people from discriminating if they discriminate at all.

Again as I stated earlier the law should simply read you can't be discriminated against if your are a human being. That is it. No need to keep adding subgroups to it.

Again you did not read any of those articles - they all address the issues you are bringing up. By the way the methods being used in this case have been used successfully in the past to target companies that were not in compliance with federal law in regards to race and gender.

 

[kunai]

You do realize that the founding fathers intentionally created roadblocks in our constitutional system of government, right? The other option is tyranny. Tyrannical leaders who share your opinions are still tyrants.

Why couldn't we just do away with parties and instead promote individualism?

 

[slb]

Putting aside your religious slander for a moment, the "slippery slope" has nothing to do with imposed morality. It's an extension of the logic put forth by gay rights activists. By their own arguments, it is unlawful to prevent two men or two women from marrying. By what logical constraint do you limit other unions? The union of three men, the union of two women and a tree? When you throw out the biological underpinnings of natural marriage, what do you have left?

Polygamy has a history of exploitative social structure, particularly in small religious communities. Pedophilia takes advantage of the inability of a child to make adult decisions. Homosexuality does neither of these.

These slippery slope arguments never cease to be ridiculous. One can apply them to anything to associate something benign with something extreme, such as, "Why let people who are 18 get married without parental consent? By that logic, we have to let any teenagers get married. Where does it end?" Society draws the line wherever it deems appropriate given its cultural morality and history.

If we're going to talk about "biological underpinnings", one must consider that homosexuality is observed to occur naturally in many animal species other than human beings. It's neither dysfunctional nor defective; it is a naturally occurring sexual orientation with evolutionary explanations for its continuing recurrence in modern humans.

People opposed to gay rights are on the wrong side of history on this one.

 

[Michael Goff]

Not sure why you'd call these "loopholes"; religions aren't limited to the four church walls, you know ("the free exercise thereof" in the First Amendment).

Would you say that religions are exempt from the law concerning... abuse? Assault? Murder? Theft? Would you say that a religion could do any of the above things and that they should get away with it based on it being a part of their religion?

 

[thekev]

Putting aside your religious slander for a moment, the "slippery slope" has nothing to do with imposed morality. It's an extension of the logic put forth by gay rights activists. By their own arguments, it is unlawful to prevent two men or two women from marrying. By what logical constraint do you limit other unions? The union of three men, the union of two women and a tree? When you throw out the biological underpinnings of natural marriage, what do you have left?

The concept of a slippery slope is in itself fallacious logic, because it takes the onus off the individual to show how one thing would lead to the other and things lacking in interdependency to be portrayed in an inaccurate manner. It gives me a headache whenever I have to read through claims it is somehow valid logic when it is merely negligent reasoning. What you write has no proven connection, and you neglect the responsibility to demonstrate one.



The biological underpinnings argument is also scientifically unsound given that it assumes marriage to be tied to procreation. It has arguably evolved from a transfer of property to a social bond between individuals. The religious aspect is irrelevant, as the biggest problem has been denial of spousal rights. Even if you left the issue of whether to perform ceremonies up to individual churches, that issue would still exist.

 

[xmichaelp]

I want a bill that protects fat people. No doubt they're discriminated against. Why does everyone pander to gays?

Hopefully this goes nowhere in the house.

How would that even work?

And to the second part, really? Im pretty sure ive seen more anti progressive gay rights posts from you too. Can everyone like you just move to Russia or something please?

 

[AdonisSMU]

Now that Obamacare has proven to be an ongoing disaster I guess it's time to throw out a highly-charged partisan wedge issue to try to change the subject.

To be fair medicare and SS had rough starts also. Now they are widely popular.

 

[xmichaelp]

Those 32 are holding the line against societal degradation. It's homosexuality today. It will be pedophilia tomorrow. Sexual liberation for 13 year olds and up. Transgender, sexual identification are already being pushed into our schools now. It has no place there, but there it is. Pick the bathroom you want to use in middle school. Encourage kids to "figure out" what their sexual identity is. This is a historical calling card of the collapse of society. History backs this up.

It will be pedophilia tomorrow? Are you being serious? Is this what you idiots actually think? Go to bed grandpa.

 

[Michael Goff]

Now that Obamacare has proven to be an ongoing disaster I guess it's time to throw out a highly-charged partisan wedge issue to try to change the subject.

It has?

 

[9000]

I want a bill that protects fat people. No doubt they're discriminated against. Why does everyone pander to gays?

Hopefully this goes nowhere in the house.

Yes, we definitely do not need any more protected groups. Good thing the House will not vote yes on this.

 

[Demon Hunter]

Would you say that religions are exempt from the law concerning... abuse? Assault? Murder? Theft? Would you say that a religion could do any of the above things and that they should get away with it based on it being a part of their religion?

No, it's not about "getting away" with anything. It's about mutual respect. Are you equating abuse, assault, murder and theft with someone's desire to practice their religion which promotes none of those things?

 

[Michael Goff]

Yes, we definitely do not need any more protected groups. Good thing the House will not vote yes on this.

I do hope you're being sarcastic.

 

[9000]

Why couldn't we just do away with parties and instead promote individualism?

No. Our system just isn't set up like that.

----------

I do hope you're being sarcastic.

I hope you are.

 

[Michael Goff]

No. If we could, we wouldn't have parties.

----------



I hope you are.

You hope I'm being sarcastic that I hope you're being sarcastic? Why?

 

[9000]

Now that Obamacare has proven to be an ongoing disaster I guess it's time to throw out a highly-charged partisan wedge issue to try to change the subject.

Obamacare a disaster in what way? I think it's a horrible idea and totally un-American, but we haven't seen many negative effects yet. Just the website being bad and some people losing their plans.

 

[xmichaelp]

You always have control and if you say you don't, what do you say about the people who are attracted to little kids? Are you willing to make an exception for them and say that is wrong or are you going to explain how they can't help who they are and we should accept them and stop being hateful?

Oh my god you're actually being serious. Why would anyone choose to be a part of a group that is still hated by many of fools like yourself? And to the second part, while it's not directly comparable, no I don't think people have a choice if they're attracted to kids. Now if they actually act on it then we have a huge problem, child predators are the worst of the worst. But really, pedophiles have nothing to do with two consenting, happy same sex people who love each other. Stop making that ridiculous comparison.

 

[9000]

You hope I'm being sarcastic that I hope you're being sarcastic? Why?

Because otherwise, you'd be condescending, and I don't like it when condescending people are here.

 

[Michael Goff]

Because otherwise, you'd be condescending, and I don't like it when condescending people are here.

I'm no condescending, I just don't know when people are joking or not. I'm saying that I hope you are being.

 

[Demon Hunter]

Polygamy has a history of exploitative social structure, particularly in small religious communities. Pedophilia takes advantage of the inability of a child to make adult decisions. Homosexuality does neither of these.

These slippery slope arguments never cease to be ridiculous. One can apply them to anything to associate something benign with something extreme, such as, "Why let people who are 18 get married without parental consent? By that logic, we have to let any teenagers get married. Where does it end?" Society draws the line wherever it deems appropriate given its cultural morality and history.

If we're going to talk about "biological underpinnings", one must consider that homosexuality is observed to occur naturally in many animal species other than human beings. It's neither dysfunctional nor defective; it is a naturally occurring sexual orientation with evolutionary explanations for its continuing recurrence in modern humans.

People opposed to gay rights are on the wrong side of history on this one.

You may call the slippery slope arguement ridiculous, and perhaps it is in some ways, but you cannot argue with the fact that society's current embrace of homosexuality is unprecedented. It's either progress or the end of civilized society. Indeed, we will see what history says.

You say that homosexuality is neither dysfunctional, nor defective, but a sexual act that does not culiminate in a chance for procreation is a failure from an evolutionary perspective, is it not? What is the benefit?

I have never understood the "other species" arguement. We're talking about humans; unless you are equating the human species with other, primitive life forms than what point are you making?

 

[xmichaelp]

This is where you lost me. I can't think of anything worse than an absolute morality; one based around some dogmatic, outdated morals that have no place in modern society.

To paraphrase Dawkins, I want a morality that is thought out and reasoned. Women's rights, kindness to animals, abolishing slavery -- these are all things that are entirely recent and have come about from logical discussion, not from Bible-bashing and verse-quoting.

Thank. You.