Majority of Americans support gay rights over religious freedom bills

[Hatshepsut]

Unlike for blacks, no history of chattel slavery or Jim Crow attends the other groups, whose members have generally experienced little difficulty in voting and securing employment, housing, or consumer essentials. Although it has been necessary to ban certain kinds of discrimination, we've never defined prejudice itself as a wrong, only that its absence is a virtue.

Do you have any idea how sociopathic you sound when you say things like this? This argument is one of the most immoral justifications for a law I've ever heard: "Oh, this group hasn't suffered enough to be worth protection yet." What that means is that you've quantified injustice...

O dear, I hope I'm not turning into a psychopath! Since I've covered a lot in my posts answering DeistPaladin (see above), I won't say too much here. There is a general principle in operation, however:

A law which compensates, protects, or rewards one group usually does so at the expense of other groups or of the common welfare. There's simply no way around it. I've provided some examples above. Pressure groups within a society are hardly friends with each other; they seek accommodation at best, selfish advantage at mean, and the destruction of other groups at worst. Identity politics is ugly by nature. That doesn't mean we should never pass laws addressing current issues of social equality, for instance allowing same-sex marriage. It does behoove us to use the minimum necessary scope and number of such laws, and to favor guarantees that apply to all citizens over those that apply only to defined groups.

And yes, the amount of harm redress is sought for does have a bearing on the remedy to be offered, if any.

[Silver]

What the fuck, no.
Straight people can marry.
If gay people can legally marry, what is being taken away from straight people?  
Absolutely nothing.
Stop being so fucking retarded. 

[The Grand Nudger]

We -have- laws that ostensibly apply to all citizens.  If they were working...I doubt we'd find ourselves requiring or desirous of new ones to the same effect.  In a perfect world...Hat, I would agree with you wholeheartedly.  This is not a perfect world, though, eh?

[Heywood]

Do you have any idea how sociopathic you sound when you say things like this? This argument is one of the most immoral justifications for a law I've ever heard: "Oh, this group hasn't suffered enough to be worth protection yet." What that means is that you've quantified injustice...

O dear, I hope I'm not turning into a psychopath! Since I've covered a lot in my posts answering DeistPaladin (see above), I won't say too much here. There is a general principle in operation, however:

A law which compensates, protects, or rewards one group usually does so at the expense of other groups or of the common welfare. There's simply no way around it. I've provided some examples above. Pressure groups within a society are hardly friends with each other; they seek accommodation at best, selfish advantage at mean, and the destruction of other groups at worst. Identity politics is ugly by nature. That doesn't mean we should never pass laws addressing current issues of social equality, for instance allowing same-sex marriage. It does behoove us to use the minimum necessary scope and number of such laws, and to favor guarantees that apply to all citizens over those that apply only to defined groups.

And yes, the amount of harm redress is sought for does have a bearing on the remedy to be offered, if any.

Hepshepsut, 

Esquilax will try to make the argument about you when he doesn't have a strong response.  It is one of his troll tactics.  I would just ignore it.

I agree with you but would further add that if we do pass laws addressing social equality it shouldn't be at the expense of individual freedom except in very extreme circumstances.

[Esquilax]

Esquilax will try to make the argument about you when he doesn't have a strong response.  It is one of his troll tactics.  I would just ignore it.

So did you actually read my post this time, or is this like last time, where you made that simpering report which amounted to "I didn't bother reading what Esquilax wrote, but I bet it's a strawman against me!"

Besides, when the bulk of the argument is "I don't believe this group has suffered enough to make this comparison valid," then the argument really is about why the beliefs of the person do not constitute a valid contention.

Oh, but then, you're ignoring me, aren't you? Well... except for all those instances where you try really hard to remind me that you're ignoring me.

[Heywood]

What the fuck, no.
Straight people can marry.
If gay people can legally marry, what is being taken away from straight people?  
Absolutely nothing.
Stop being so fucking retarded. 

Gay people could always marry as long as their partner was the opposite sex. Gay people have always had equality under the law.  If they don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex, then they don't have to get married.  Its their choice.  This of course is Rythmn's argument applied to gay marriage instead of business.  Hopefully he sees how silly it is.

What gays have been looking for is an expansion of marriage rights to include same sex partners.  You do ask a very legitimate question.  What are the pros and cons of such an expansion?    

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Pros: Gays have equal rights under the law.

Cons: None.

[robvalue]

But wait!

I can prove gays are evil, using two obviously true statements:

1) Gays want to spread their genes so that everyone is gay
2) Gays cannot have children

Therefor, applying these statements in order, gays will cause us to go extinct.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Oh those pesky gays! What ever will they get up to next eh??

[DeistPaladin]

I agree with you but would further add that if we do pass laws addressing social equality it shouldn't be at the expense of individual freedom except in very extreme circumstances.

Or if the individual freedoms being taken away are of women making choices about their lady parts, right?