Pretty ridiculous analogy. Taking that further, Churches won't be allowed to deny same-sex marriages in their Churches because that would be like legalizing ritualized human sacrifice at their altars.
I think it's a perfectly sensible analogy. Legalising obviously immoral thing A because people have opinions is like legalising even more immoral thing B because people are deluded.
Of course it doesn't work at all if you make thing B something that isn't obviously immoral, like probably-mostly-harmless drugs. I make no comment on my stance on marijuana except that you cannot possibly compare it with murder. The point of thing B is that it should be something worse than thing A, not potentially better. Otherwise you're trying to equate an immoral and moral act, which doesn't work.
Any analogy will break if you push it hard enough. As far as gay marriage (as opposed to civil partnerships or equivalent thereof) goes : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TQuacxEjAU
Rhys Taylor I think the analogy is fundamentally flawed.
Could a bakery refuse to put an obscene message on a cake?
That would certainly be a form of discrimination.
It's not discrimination at root here, everyone discriminates against some things, it's which discrimination is to be allowed and which is to be protected.
Jordan Henderson I think this is more about why we allow discrimination, not what we allow to be discriminated against. Certainly there are things we should discriminate against, like racism. That has been proven with certainty to be a damaging and mistaken belief, even though some people are genuinely, sincerely racist. So I don't see why someone's belief (religious or otherwise) should somehow entitle them to special privileges. People believe all kinds of crazy things; someone's opinion is simply not sufficient to allow them to discriminate.
The true Societal timebomb is that we don't allow PERSONAL, much less societal discrimination against the dysfunctional/unacceptable. Most people are too young to remember the times before Blackism was introduced as a societal disruption tool. Just 35 years ago, no civilised man swore in front a female. The better class of male never swore without great reason. The disgusting animal sounds and actions of Black African males would have resulted in jail terms. All very similar to the disintegration of the incredible empire that was Rome. ( A great lesson of history for the USA and UK of today.)
John Rigby "The disgusting animal sounds and actions of Black African males would have resulted in jail terms." Are you saying you don't like being discriminated against because you're a racist ?
Due to a small but consistent influx of spam, comments will now be checked before publishing. Only egregious spam/illegal/racist crap will be disapproved, everything else will be published.
Like we did with private security companies ?
ReplyDeletePretty ridiculous analogy. Taking that further, Churches won't be allowed to deny same-sex marriages in their Churches because that would be like legalizing ritualized human sacrifice at their altars.
ReplyDeleteLegalizing discrimination because some people have strong beliefs is like legalizing marijuana because some people really like it.
ReplyDeleteOh wait ...
Nah, we are legalizing it because the basis for making it illegal is ridiculous, James Karaganis. That and lots of people really like it ;)
ReplyDeleteDoes it sound crazy for an atheist if I tell them that even the Bible says in Revelation chapter 17 and 18 that the religion will be destroyed?
ReplyDeleteI think it's a perfectly sensible analogy. Legalising obviously immoral thing A because people have opinions is like legalising even more immoral thing B because people are deluded.
ReplyDeleteOf course it doesn't work at all if you make thing B something that isn't obviously immoral, like probably-mostly-harmless drugs. I make no comment on my stance on marijuana except that you cannot possibly compare it with murder. The point of thing B is that it should be something worse than thing A, not potentially better. Otherwise you're trying to equate an immoral and moral act, which doesn't work.
Any analogy will break if you push it hard enough. As far as gay marriage (as opposed to civil partnerships or equivalent thereof) goes :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TQuacxEjAU
Rhys Taylor I think the analogy is fundamentally flawed.
ReplyDeleteCould a bakery refuse to put an obscene message on a cake?
That would certainly be a form of discrimination.
It's not discrimination at root here, everyone discriminates against some things, it's which discrimination is to be allowed and which is to be protected.
Jordan Henderson I think this is more about why we allow discrimination, not what we allow to be discriminated against. Certainly there are things we should discriminate against, like racism. That has been proven with certainty to be a damaging and mistaken belief, even though some people are genuinely, sincerely racist. So I don't see why someone's belief (religious or otherwise) should somehow entitle them to special privileges. People believe all kinds of crazy things; someone's opinion is simply not sufficient to allow them to discriminate.
ReplyDeleteThe true Societal timebomb is that we don't allow PERSONAL, much less societal discrimination against the dysfunctional/unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteMost people are too young to remember the times before Blackism was introduced as a societal disruption tool.
Just 35 years ago, no civilised man swore in front a female. The better class of male never swore without great reason.
The disgusting animal sounds and actions of Black African males would have resulted in jail terms.
All very similar to the disintegration of the incredible empire that was Rome. ( A great lesson of history for the USA and UK of today.)
John Rigby
ReplyDelete"The disgusting animal sounds and actions of Black African males would have resulted in jail terms."
Are you saying you don't like being discriminated against because you're a racist ?
Your post is a non sequitur.
ReplyDelete(First read. Then think. Then read again before going public looking foolish.)