Zeta-Flux and other readers of this thread,

I am experiencing medical symptoms that probably made me more irritable than reasonable for the past half-day (starting about post #269). I apologize for not having recognized sooner that I should not have been posting any complaint during this time.

Specifically, I apologize to Zeta-Flux for the wording of my past few posts that came out more negative than I intended even irritably, and for posting at all during this time.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;135254]you could give a few specific instances where you percieve arrogance[/quote]I did not perceive you or your posts as arrogant.

I'll wait until I can more clearly choose my wording before posting again.

[QUOTE=only_human;135258]YES. e.g.: Sickle Cell Anemia

Evolution does not know what evolution needs. Evolution is under active direction all the time when we make choices based on beauty, strength, size, etcetera but the overriding importance of a diverse gene pool is sine qua non. I don't see the situation returning anytime soon but it has been recently suggested that the human population was reduced to as little as 2,000 individuals as recently as 70,000 years ago.

People always worry about the consequences of the dominance of some faction or the diminishment of another. Evolution is a continuing process of optimizations and it is of primary importance to allow diverse choices.

Imagine the optimization to be a billy goat looking for the highest piece of mountaintop to stand upon. It is only through going very far downhill and much astray that the goat would be able to reach a much taller mountain than the one upon which it originally stood.

So deciding not to ever let the goat go downhill defeats the purpose and it is best not to get into the hideous process of adhering to any particular belief of downhill. Added: Also best to not get too specific into the nature of the goat itself; it could be singular or many kinds of groups. (Gratuitous final addition follows -- I just couldn't resist) For that matter, best not to be too specific about the nature of the mountain either (or the number of turtles necessary to support it).[/QUOTE]Never going downhill is not the best. I agree. But if I was faced with the prospect of having to choose whether a specific sperm and egg were joined, which would eventually end in a child being born with a horrible condition, I know what choice I would make.

Genetic diversity is just bits of data. Ones and zeros. People are people. Do we only value them only for the genetic diversity they provide? Do we value them only because they allow our species to continue and diversify?

[quote=Zeta-Flux;135264]Never going downhill is not the best. I agree. But if I was faced with the prospect of having to choose whether a specific sperm and egg were joined, which would eventually end in a child being born with a horrible condition, I know what choice I would make.

Genetic diversity is just bits of data. Ones and zeros. People are people. Do we only value them only for the genetic diversity they provide? Do we value them only because they allow our species to continue and diversify?[/quote]
We value them, surely, for their personality, for the way they enrich the lives of those around them, and for the contributions they make to society at large.

Discussion about moral dilemmas concerning genetic manipulation or selection is not appropriate in this thread. There is no dilemma here. We are not talking about an inherited disease. Sexual orientation is not a criterium for evaluating someone, anymore than the colour of their hair is.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;135267]Sexual orientation is not a criterium for evaluating someone, anymore than the colour of their hair is.[/QUOTE]I agree. In fact, [i]no genetic markers [b]whatsoever[/b][/i] are a criteria for evaluating someone's worth. That doesn't mean that, if it is genetic, it isn't less desirable.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;135272]I agree. In fact, [i]no genetic markers [b]whatsoever[/b][/i] are a criteria for evaluating someone's worth. That doesn't mean that, if it is genetic, it isn't less desirable.[/QUOTE]Zeta, sometimes you appear to be in support of Eugenics. I happen to have a very personal stake in such a subject because if you had been one of my parents, I would not have ever been born because I am disabled.

[quote=Jwb52z;135288]Zeta, sometimes you appear to be in support of Eugenics. I happen to have a very personal stake in such a subject because if you had been one of my parents, I would not have ever been born because I am disabled.[/quote]

Good point. Also Zeta, what if you found out that your partner was pregnant with a child who had a horrible condition after the fact? Would you opt for abortion?

Sorry to take this so far off-topic but I'm just picking up on cheesehead's thread and Zeta-Flux's positions on science/god, eugenics/abortion appear rather contradictory to me.

Zeta-Flux, please don't post in haste. Count to 20 and think about what I just said. It often helps me when I get riled up with posts on the board.

Where Gay "rights" is taking us!
 

This is where homosexual marriage and gay "rights" is taking us. How can that be considered a good thing? Following on the heels of a similar law passed in Montgomery County, Maryland some three months ago. Where is it going to stop?

[URL]http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26781&s=rcmc[/URL]

text of link:

[quote]
In the quadrennial marathon to see who can be the nation’s worst governor, Colorado’s Bill Ritter is in a full sprint. On Thursday, Ritter signed [URL="http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2008a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/BD7A295EB6F4460E872573F5005D0148?open&file=200_enr.pdf"]Senate Bill 200[/URL] which expands “anti-discrimination” law to cover sexual orientation, meaning not only homosexuality or bisexuality, but also “transgender status or another person’s perception thereof.”

The bill is so ripe for abuse and creates so much risk for private business that it’s no surprise the ordinarily media-hungry Ritter signed the bill late in the afternoon (too late for most newspapers to cover the story) with no fanfare (although he frequently has bill-signing ceremonies and particularly for measures such as this which have received this much media attention). It isn’t even mentioned on his Web site, whereas a look at the [URL="http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1186476454793&pagename=GovRitter/GOVRLayout"]page[/URL] shows that he routinely issues press releases on bills he signs into law.

A major criticism of the bill by conservatives is that it appears to allow men who self-identify as “transgender” a legal right to demand to be able to use women’s bathrooms, health club showers, bathhouses, and any other “public accommodation”.

Importantly, the bill does not define “transgender”. The [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#cite_note-sexualityintstg-43"][COLOR=#2e5477]Wikipedia entry on the term[/COLOR][/URL] notes that “the precise definition for transgender remains in flux, but includes:

• A person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender, but combines or moves between these.
• People who were assigned a gender, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves, and
• Non-identification with, or non-presentation as, the gender one was assigned at birth.”

In other words, not only is there no legal definition for transgender, but there isn’t even a solid dictionary definition for a court to rely on. Instead, transgender status is a matter of self-identification, rendering such a claim to be nearly impossible to prove or disprove.

In a fascinating [URL="http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KHOW-AM/052908HOUR3.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=DENVER-CO&NG_FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=636&STATION_ID=KHOW-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Caplis_and_Silverman&PCAST_CAT=Spoken_Word&PCAST"][COLOR=#2e5477]radio interview[/COLOR][/URL], Representative Joel Judd, the main sponsor of the bill in the Colorado House, refused to say that criticism is untrue, and basically said that courts will decide on a case-by-case basis whether, for example, a man who goes into the health club’s ladies’ locker room claiming that he “has the mind of a woman” has a legal right to do so or has a valid lawsuit against a health club that prevents him from doing so. The primary overall sponsor of the bill was State Senator Jennifer Veiga, the state’s only openly gay legislator. She refused to be interviewed for the radio show.

Judd said that the bill represents a “choice” as to how society deals with transgender people. Strangely, he asked the radio show host “Where do you think this individual is going to the bathroom today?” and, regarding transgender people, said the bill is just “trying to accommodate this very odd occurrence. Those folks are walking around today and doing the best they can.”

Although the bathroom issue has gotten the most attention in the media, it is not the law’s most dangerous effect.

As if it weren’t a large enough invitation for lawsuits, the law prohibits anyone who owns or runs a public accommodation from publishing, distributing, or “displaying in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method…any communication, paper, book, pamphlet…notice, or advertisement of any kind…that is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates….”

On its face, this makes the law unconstitutional. Free speech still trumps political correctness, but apparently not in Bill Ritter’s mind. It is not beyond the pale to imagine a radical gay-rights organization suing a company that advertises using the image of a typical American family, i.e. a man and woman, a kid or two, etc, claiming that the advertising discriminates against gays. It is not impossible to imagine an activist judge ruling that the radicals are right. This may land in the Supreme Court quickly, but not quickly enough to stop Colorado's Ritter-caused tumble away from our reputation as a business-friendly state.

The law gives radical gay rights organizations a legal hammer with which to try to force pro-“alternative lifestyle” education into school curricula. Even for those of us who consider ourselves social-issues liberals, the idea of public schools being forced to teach “Billy has two dads”, or having to spend taxpayer dollars to defend not teaching such things, is reprehensible.

Other areas of “public accommodation” which may not discriminate “directly or indirectly” include barber shops, mortuaries, cemeteries, swimming pools, or a “public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.” While the law says that places of worship are not included as “places of public accommodation” and that protections of free exercise of religion remain in place, it is easy to imagine religious objections to being forced to serve transgender, homosexual, or transsexual people…living or dead.

Of late, gay rights organizations are actively seeking to gain rights through activist courts that they routinely fail to acquire through votes of citizens. Given the hard left turn that courts, including state supreme courts such as California and Colorado have taken in recent years, it is easy to imagine a judge ruling in favor of a man who claims to think like a woman and sues for the right to shower in a health club’s women’s locker room.

To ensure that the most aggressive “gay rights” agenda is pursued, the law creates a seven member “Colorado civil rights commission” with “at least four members who are members of groups of people who have been or who might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, or because of marital status, religion, or age.” These commissioners will “receive a per diem allowance and shall be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses…” In other words, Colorado taxpayers will pay “victim group” activists, modern-day inquisitors, to scour the state for citizens and businesses to sue.

Bill Ritter ran as a moderate (for a Democrat), including being anti-abortion. He lived up to that reputation for a few weeks before caving in to liberal special interests, such as when he signed an executive order allowing government workers to unionize…something he also did late in the afternoon after reporters were done for the day. In Colorado politics, there is a group of four ultra-wealthy liberal political activists, sometimes called “The Four Horsemen” who contribute or help raise large amounts of money for liberal candidates and ballot initiatives. Two of the four are gay, and one of these, Tim Gill, is an activist for gay causes and founder of The Gay and Lesbian Fund for Colorado. Senate Bill 200, now law thanks to Governor Ritter’s signature, seems an obvious payback to gay activists who opened their checkbooks to elect Democrats.

Colorado’s new “anti-discrimination” law thus offers a critical lesson, namely that even a “moderate” Democrat can not and will not stand up against special interest groups even when their goals are directly at odds with a functioning civil society.
[/quote]

It may be worth noting that some parts of the bill make it unconstitutional, however that doesn't seem to deter gay activists.

nelson

[quote=Nelson;135331]This is where homosexual marriage and gay "rights" is taking us. How can that be considered a good thing? Following on the heels of a similar law passed in Montgomery County, Maryland some three months ago. Where is it going to stop?

[URL]http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26781&s=rcmc[/URL]

...

It may be worth noting that some parts of the bill make it unconstitutional, however that doesn't seem to deter gay activists.

nelson[/quote]
Leaving your quoted writer's general paranoia aside (public bathrooms, his inability to extend his self-professed social-liberalism to teaching about same sex relationships in schools, and taxpayers funding court cases which fight discrimination), how is the new bill unconstitutional? I have looked through it, and apart from some inoccuous clarification and tidying up it seems to merely add religion and sexual orientation to existing legislation outlawing discrimination on account of various other attributes including disability, race, sex, marital status. Is there something in Colorado state constitution or national USA constitution which permits anti-discrimination laws against the other categories but not on grounds of sexual orientation? Please explain to this mystified non-USA citizen.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;135391]Please explain to this mystified non-USA citizen. [/QUOTE]

The 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act[/url]

[quote=wblipp;135393]The 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act[/URL][/quote]
How is adding sexual orientation to that list in state legislation unconstitutional as stated by Nelson and the journalist he quotes?

[quote=Brian-E;135398]How is adding sexual orientation to that list in state legislation unconstitutional as stated by Nelson and the journalist he quotes?[/quote]
Because it infringes on the right to freedom of religion, as defined in the 1st Amendment. If you want to practice homosexuality, that's your problem, just don't make the Christians and others who believe it to be a sin be forced to recognize and condone it legally. As stated numerous times already in this thread, such a law would infringe on, say, a church's right to preach that homosexuality is a sin based on the doctrine that it is founded upon. Or on their right to refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony. Et cetera...

This alone is enough to declare this recent act of state legislation unconstitutional: the U.S. national constitution, in which the right to religious freedom is defined, trumps state legislation and even state constitutions, according to U.S. law.