Yuku free message boards

Credit Where Credit is Due Dept.

Aspong, I need to give credit where credit is due.You have made an EXCELLENT point, and one which has thrown me for a loop.I needed to take a couple of days off to ponder what you said, and I don`t have an answer.You stumped me!Now, I know you don`t know me very well, but folks who do would be floored.It`s not too often that someone does that to me.I usually have a good rebuttal -- but this is one time when I don`t.

I have argued the position"If it doesn`t harm another, it shouldn`t be illegal" for ages, with tons of people, and no one has before has ever presented the argument, "Should sex in public be legal?".

Honestly, in my gut, I don`t think it should be.

But I know what the next step is going to be.If I concede that sex in public shouldn`t be legal, then the line becomes arbitrary.Then why not outlaw nudity in public?Why not let the communities decide what should be their morals and so forth?The line then becomes murky.

However, I have to ask myself, "Why don`t I want to see people having sex in public?"Or "Why don`t I want to see people naked in public?"Is there truly something objectively wrong with it, or have we simply been taught to find it to be wrong?For example, for all we know, people on other planets might have sex in public and think nothing of it, while, say, the thought of eating in public might be repugnant to them.

Be it as it may, even with the possible exception of having sex in public, I otherwise feel that if something doesn`t hurt another it shouldn`t be illegal.Certainly I feel that too many people with Victorian prudish ideas should not be going around telling people what they can or cannot do if it doesn`t hurt anyone.If good looking guys want to wear bathing suits in a parade, etc., if other people don`t want to see it, then they should just not go to the parade, rather than trying to stop them so that no one at all can enjoy them.

Absolutely it is wrong.It is sex discrimination.Whenever an immutable (unchanging) characteristic [i.e., they possess a characteristic over which they have little or no control] is used against a person (e.g., they aren`t allowed somewhere because they have a characteristic over which they have no control), it is discriminatory and wrong.

I don`t care how many gay people are well-off.If even one gay person loses their job for no other reason than because they are gay, that is wrong and that means that there is still bigotry in America which needs to be fought and overcome.

Slydder wrote:

Quote:

---

"As ugly as it is, I think Americans have a constitutional right to be bigots."

---

Actually, you don`t.You can be a bigot only as far as who you invite to your private parties and with whom you wish to be friends and the like, but you do not have the Consitutional right to be a bigot in the public sector.

What I`m saying is, you cannot legally discriminate against people.You have the right to be not be friends with someone because they are, say, black -- but you do not have the right to not hire someone because they are black, or to not rent an apartment to someone because they are black, or to not let someone into your business establishment because they are black.Those latter things are called "public accomodations."You cannot legally discriminate against members of the public.

Of course, I am using blacks here only as an example.It applies to any immutable factors (things about a person over which they have little or no control, such as their skin color, sex, etc.).Many states, including California, now include sexual oritentation as one of those immutable factors.