The Moral Arc

[Aeson]

It is possible to think up an infinite number of laws to constrain an infinite number of possible terrible outcomes for an infinite number of groups. To consider the lack of those laws an attack on each group, and so a reason why that group needs special status, is lunacy. And an attack on our rights. And is an attack on the groups that do need special status.

Your argument here isn't ever going to justify the government doing awful things to people.

Obergfell and Lawrence were both rulings based on the equal protection clause of the 14th. They aren't about treating homosexuals differently ... but the exact opposite ... about treating homosexuals and their relationships the same as heterosexuals.

It is not lunacy to continue with the current court's interpretation of the Constitution in regards to the equal protection clause.

By the way, due to this thread, attacks on homosexuals are a bigger concern for me than they were previously (I previously had the probability of an attack on homosexuals being approximately 0, I have raised it to 1 in 100). So this is actually an example of a change in my position. A 1 in 100 is cause for some concern and it is reasonable to take action. Just not to freak out.

Are you talking about individual attacks, or a broad "rights" attack such as a SCOTUS ruling? In either case, with around 10 million LGBT Americans, attacks on 1% (whether 1% of the population, or the whole population 1% of the time) is still an awful lot of expected horrible **** happening. We as a nation routinely (pretty much on a daily basis) "freak out" about far less.

[Elok]

Aeson, again: gays are not a cohesive cultural group. It's biologically impossible to extirpate them. It is only possible to be vicious to individuals--and going back to jailing them for sodomy is extremely implausible, while Russian-style repression would require the entire culture of the country to shift radically. As of 2004, most of the anti-sodomy laws on the books were almost never enforced anyway, which is how they remained on the books in the first place.

[Kidlicious]

Over 180 years of open sustained attacks on their lives, property, liberty and pursuit of happiness and the rest of the years (since the founding of this country) they have experienced a combination of hidden and open sustained attacks on their lives, property, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

So yes, I am happy to forget equal rights. I don't hold 'equal rights' as sacred, rather as a first order optimum.

JM

What does 180 years ago matter? Are those people alive now that we should all make sacrifices for them?

Jews and homosexuals are more likely to be the victims of hate crimes than blacks.

http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/probability-hate-crime

But I just can't believe that you are AGAINST equal rights. That's because you believe in group rights (your special favorite group) and not individual rights. You don't give a damn about the suffering of individuals, only the collective suffering of groups.

[Kidlicious]

Over 180 years of open sustained attacks on their lives, property, liberty and pursuit of happiness and the rest of the years (since the founding of this country) they have experienced a combination of hidden and open sustained attacks on their lives, property, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

So yes, I am happy to forget equal rights. I don't hold 'equal rights' as sacred, rather as a first order optimum.

JM

What does 180 years ago matter? Are those people alive now that we should all make sacrifices for them?

Jews and homosexuals are more likely to be the victims of hate crimes than blacks.

http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/probability-hate-crime

But I just can't believe that you are AGAINST equal rights. That's because you believe in group rights (your special favorite group) and not individual rights. You don't give a damn about the suffering of individuals, only the collective suffering of groups.

[Elok]

Basically, for it to get to the point where the Feds were not only jailing gays, but throwing them from rooftops, society would have to change so dramatically for the worse that everyone, and not just gays, would be miserable. Which is possible, but only in the sense that a communist revolution is possible, or even hardcore persecution of Christians (which, to extend your argument, is roughly as common in the world today as the mistreatment of gays, and in much the same places). Certainly none of the three is plausible in the near term.

[Kidlicious]

BTW, only 5.63/100,000 black people we're victims of hate crimes in 2013, so that's irrational fear.

[Kidlicious]

BTW, only 5.63/100,000 black people we're victims of hate crimes in 2013, so that's irrational fear.

[Jon Miller]

Your argument here isn't ever going to justify the government doing awful things to people.

Obergfell and Lawrence were both rulings based on the equal protection clause of the 14th. They aren't about treating homosexuals differently ... but the exact opposite ... about treating homosexuals and their relationships the same as heterosexuals.

It is not lunacy to continue with the current court's interpretation of the Constitution in regards to the equal protection clause

Are you talking about individual attacks, or a broad "rights" attack such as a SCOTUS ruling? In either case, with around 10 million LGBT Americans, attacks on 1% (whether 1% of the population, or the whole population 1% of the time) is still an awful lot of expected horrible **** happening. We as a nation routinely (pretty much on a daily basis) "freak out" about far less.

We aren't talking about the government doing awful things to people.

We are talking about special protections and classes and so on.

I am adamantly and entirely opposed to the government doing awful things to people. As I said, due to this thread I have went from near 0 certainty that homosexuals were not in danger of the government doing awful things to them to being 1% certain that homosexuals are not in danger of the government doing awful things to them. That is enough for a few letter campaigns/protests but not enough to panic and take up all of the speech space (liberal or otherwise). Particularly when other groups are near 100% certainty.

JM
(It is a 1% fear of a small number of attacks... there have never been an open, sustained and systematic attack on homosexuals in the US in US history, even when laws supporting it were on the books. There never was a case when even 0.1% of homosexuals (who make up roughly 10% of the population) had their lives or property under attack by the government.)

(Even in the societies where homosexuals have been under an open, sustained and systematic attack by the government, the number of people attacked for such has been small. If we take 10% as the percent of the population that is homosexual, even in Nazi germany (67 million people) where there was an aggressive, open, sustained and systematic attack on homosexuals between 1933 and 1940 only had 100k people prosecuted (and only 10k of those sent to camps) out of an estimated homosexual population of 6 million. That is less than 2% of the gay population (so less than 0.2% of the overall population). If you are wanting to point to number of people, attacks on homosexuals are always going to be extremely rare versus other at risk groups.)

[Aeson]

You're arguing a straw man. The Feds aren't the ones who want sodomy laws. It's states like Texas. And you don't have to regress to the point of jailing homosexuals before harm worthy of legitimate concern is being done.

[Jon Miller]

BTW, only 5.63/100,000 black people we're victims of hate crimes in 2013, so that's irrational fear.

Hate crimes have nothing to do with the government assault on a group of people (or allowing the majority to assault them).

For example you look at number of African Americans in jail for drugs crimes versus number of Whites and consider the fact that drug use is similar. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3941346.html and links there in or google. Blacks are incarcerated at almost 20x the rate of whites for a crime that 2x more whites commit. That is a sustained government attack on African Americans (not completely open).

That is why I put the probability for a sustained attack on African Americans to be approximately 100% and heavily support African Americans being a special class and having special protections.

JM

[Jon Miller]

You're arguing a straw man. The Feds aren't the ones who want sodomy laws. It's states like Texas. And you don't have to regress to the point of jailing homosexuals before harm worthy of legitimate concern is being done.

I would argue that you are arguing the straw man. You are saying that it is an extreme danger to have one person being in a position to make law who supports allowing others, if they choose, to use the government to attack homosexuals.

If there was a great interest from the government (I mean police, state judges, federal judges) to do this, and their was other support on the Supreme Court (you mention Scalia, but he is dead) for this, I might agree. But there isn't. It is likely that he would have the same effect as my grandfather's neighbour when he voted for Bush. None.

So the probability is minuscule and the damage is a lot smaller than other groups (the nightmare scenario is 1% damage, and as Elok said in that scenario other groups would be experiencing 10-100% damage).

It is relatively unimportant, it is taking too much of the liberal speech space and that is one of the reasons why many people who voted for Obama didn't vote for Clinton v2.

JM

[Jon Miller]

The Supreme Court is not protecting the lives and property of homosexuals. Popular opinion is. Which is great!

The Court should only be used when people/society fail to do so, at a significant level (1% of the group is significant).

That isn't anywhere near the case for homosexuals.

JM

[Elok]

You're arguing a straw man. The Feds aren't the ones who want sodomy laws. It's states like Texas. And you don't have to regress to the point of jailing homosexuals before harm worthy of legitimate concern is being done.

Still not that severe a threat, as sodomy laws are very difficult to enforce without actually having cameras in every bedroom. Which is part of the reason why nobody was enforcing them beforehand; they were left on the books half out of indifference and half out of a desire to express a purely nominal disapproval. And at present, the country is divided more starkly in half than I can ever remember it being divided in my lifetime. If one half of the country starts symbolic sanctions against gays, the other half will basically treat them as interstate refugees, and the division of America will continue apace--which is a far greater threat to peace and stability in the long run.

[Kidlicious]

JM,

Well you said that black people deserve special treatment because of hate crimes. Now you move the goal posts.

As far as incarceration is concerned you are talking about 10% of black people who use cocaine? You don't specify how many exactly are discriminated against because most black people don't use cocaine.

Reading your article I see that the "problem" is that police go into low income neighbor hoods (assuming to fight other crimes besides drug possession). So the government is not attacking black people, not even the police. More crime takes place in black neighborhoods, so the police are there. Naturally they are going to make more drug busts there. It's right there in the article you posted.

[Jon Miller]

JM,

Well you said that black people deserve special treatment because of hate crimes. Now you move the goal posts..

I said that black people deserve special treatment because of the sustained and systematic (and usually open) attacks they receive.

Making criminal laws and sentencing so that one group, that has been historically attacked, continues to be attacked is a prime example of the problem that needs to be fixed by special laws/classes/etc. Criminal laws and sentencing is how governments attack groups.

JM