Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lets all be mellow and stay on topic...

(every topic deserves this though)
Miniature Dachshund playing fetch with automatic ball launcher
https://youtu.be/dP7wlZTtxk8

 Orlanth wrote:
However if currently in a gay relationship and seeking housing then specific LGBT protection for the Fair Housing act will provide rights that the same individual will not gain if they switch and choose an opposite sex partner.
Thus their rights are independent of their choices.

I can't make this point too many times. Adding "sexual orientation' as a protected class would be be orientation-neutral. It would not matter who you were involved with at what point in your life. If you could prove that you were discriminated against on the basis of whatever your actual or percieved sexual orientation happened to be at the moment of the discriminatory incident (straight included), you'd be protected by the law.

Just like race, religion, and sex.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
However if currently in a gay relationship and seeking housing then specific LGBT protection for the Fair Housing act will provide rights that the same individual will not gain if they switch and choose an opposite sex partner.
Thus their rights are independent of their choices.

I can't make this point too many times. Adding "sexual orientation' as a protected class would be be orientation-neutral. It would not matter who you were involved with at what point in your life. If you could prove that you were discriminated against on the basis of whatever your actual or percieved sexual orientation happened to be at the moment of Tue discriminatory incident (straight included), you'd be protected by the law.

Just like race, religion, and sex.

That would be acceptable, no complaints there. However adding 'sexual orientation' to protected class status and adding 'LGBT' to protected class status are two different things.

@Orlanth: You're right. Sorry, here I am the victim of the confusing evolution of termjnolgy, and I should have stated in the OP that what I'd really want to see is "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity" added to both bills, rather than just the LGBT community ..

Exctending protections to the LGBT community is the result I support, but I can agree that LGBT should not be specified to the detriment of other sexual orientations, and here I am talking about straight people and people with no particular sexual orientation at all.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
No. Get rid of the act entirely.

Why?

In my opinion, the protections provided by the CRA of 64 (and it's amendments) are no longer relevant in 2015.

Now, this isn't me saying that discrimination and racism doesn't exist. That would be absurd. It absolutely does.

But the primary purpose of the CRA was to end voter discrimination, segregation of schools, and accessibility to public accommodations (businesses), and safety at work from being fired based on race/gender. I'll address each separately:

Voter Discrimination --> Its becoming increasingly apparent that the public will not let this happen. See the recent anti-gerrymandering decision made in Florida as a concrete example. But it's been apparent through the discussion of requiring an ID to vote that the majority of the US won't allow it, either socially or through legislation.

Segregation of Schools -- It no longer exists in the public system except through class demographics.. Publicly, it's completely invalid. It sill exists with private schools, most notably within HBCUs. I'm sure there some neo-nazi private school out there too, but I don't know about them.

Accessibility to Public Accommodations -- Businesses that openly discriminate in 2015 get put out of business. Simple as that. We have multiple examples from the uber litigious gay community from the past year to support that. IMO, businesses should be allowed to freely associate and reap the consequences of doing so.

Work -- See Frazz's commentary on Right to Work.

I don't think act is any longer necessary because, despite the very problems we still have with race relations in the US, I believe that we've culturally and technologically moved past the point where they're relevant. That's actually a good thing.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Orlanth: You're right. Sorry, here I am the victim of the confusing evolution of termjnolgy, and I should have stated in the OP that what I'd really want to see is "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity" added to both bills, rather than just the LGBT community ..

Exctending protections to the LGBT community is the result I support, but I can agree that LGBT should not be specified to the detriment of other sexual orientations, and here I am talking about straight people and people with no particular sexual orientation at all.

Indeed so, and this measure would any protection necessary for the LGBT community without offering favoured status.
The difference is subtle but significant, with LGBT being protected if someone who ideintifies as LGBT, but doesn't encourage favoured status and the special demands made on society favoured status often results in. Some people will demands special status anyway, but some people always do, and singling out those in the LGBT community who do so it unfair and is not sufficient to warrant a call to withhold equality legislation if society deems there is a case for it.

I think we can put this one to rest.

Housing discrimination is still highly rampant, although the publics taste for enforcing that is weakest, due to the desire of most in the majority for segregation in practice .

 Polonius wrote:
Housing discrimination is still highly rampant, although the publics taste for enforcing that is weakest, due to the desire of most in the majority for segregation in practice .

That is better covered by a significant number of banking and lending regulations (including the follow up to the 64 CRA), including ECOA, and is supported by an entire government office dedicated solely to fair housing.

Some of which, it has been argued by people more well versed than I, helped lead to the mortgage crisis in 2008.....

No, people do not switch from gay to straight (and vice-versa).

They remain either Gay, Straight, or somewhere in the middle of the Spectrum.

Only their choice of partner changes.

But as to whether they are primarily attracted to men, to women, or to both (to whatever degree) does not change.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
No, people do not switch from gay to straight (and vice-versa).

They remain either Gay, Straight, or somewhere in the middle of the Spectrum.

Only their choice of partner changes.

But as to whether they are primarily attracted to men, to women, or to both (to whatever degree) does not change.

MB

But I think that might be the point several people are trying to make. Is there an impartial metric to determine whether a person is either gay or straight? There needs to be a clear divide, and cannot be based on partner choice (as that is obviously not the same as the actual biology, and clearly changes), if a law which gives extra protection to LGBT people over heterosexual people is to be enforced fairly.

Now that I understand what the question in the OP is actually asking, the answer should pretty clearly be no; instead, amend the CRA and FHA to include sexuality as a protected class, so that one group is not unfairly favoured over the other.

Yes, there is a clear divide to Gay/Straight, which can be measured with a device known as a Plethysmograph.

If a person measures a strong sexual attraction to a scene one would be aroused by if same-sex, but measures absolutely no response to a different-sex scene of the same sort, then they are gay.

And, if they have the exact opposite reaction, then they are straight.

These are opposing ends of a spectrum, along with people lie.

And the determinants of attraction are set sometime between around 5 - 9 months gestation, and 7 years of age. Some aspects might not arise until puberty, but generally, a personal sexual attractions are set in their very early childhood.

Also, the point about protected classes is that the NEED to be favored over other classes, because they TYPICALLY ARE MALIGNED by the majority.

That is why protected classes exist.

Yes, the language of things like Racial Discrimination applies to all 'races' (even though "race" isn't a thing, we now refer to it as "Ethnicity"), but it is SPECIFICALLY MINORITIES that are protected classes, because they are whom is typically discriminated again.

The same thing applies to homosexuals, transgendered, or bisexuals.

It is these groups against whom discrimination is usually applied, not to straight, normally gendered people (especially the White, Straight Male).

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
Yes, there is a clear divide to Gay/Straight, which can be measured with a device known as a Plethysmograph.

A plethysmograph is at least as rooted in hard science as are the e-meters Scientologists use to measure auras.

BeAfraid wrote:
(even though "race" isn't a thing, we now refer to it as "Ethnicity")

Race and ethnicity aren't the same thing. If someone is using the word "ethnicity" as an analog for "race," they're incorrect. Your race can be one thing and your ethnicity can be another. Ethnic categories are also different than racial categories.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
Yes, there is a clear divide to Gay/Straight, which can be measured with a device known as a Plethysmograph.

A plethysmograph is at least as rooted in hard science as are the e-meters Scientologists use to measure auras.

My understanding is that technically they aren't measuring auras, but rather Thetans, a type of alien ghost. Or it might be a ghost alien. I'm not 100% on the specifics of Thetan ecto/astrobiology.

BeAfraid wrote:
Yes, there is a clear divide to Gay/Straight, which can be measured with a device known as a Plethysmograph.

If a person measures a strong sexual attraction to a scene one would be aroused by if same-sex, but measures absolutely no response to a different-sex scene of the same sort, then they are gay.

And, if they have the exact opposite reaction, then they are straight.

These are opposing ends of a spectrum, along with people lie.

And the determinants of attraction are set sometime between around 5 - 9 months gestation, and 7 years of age. Some aspects might not arise until puberty, but generally, a personal sexual attractions are set in their very early childhood.

Also, the point about protected classes is that the NEED to be favored over other classes, because they TYPICALLY ARE MALIGNED by the majority.

That is why protected classes exist.

Yes, the language of things like Racial Discrimination applies to all 'races' (even though "race" isn't a thing, we now refer to it as "Ethnicity"), but it is SPECIFICALLY MINORITIES that are protected classes, because they are whom is typically discriminated again.

The same thing applies to homosexuals, transgendered, or bisexuals.

It is these groups against whom discrimination is usually applied, not to straight, normally gendered people (especially the White, Straight Male).

MB

Interesting how you act like the stuff you just posted was a science fact. None of what you posted is proven science.
What you espouse is more like eugenics of the early 20th century, pseudoscience is pseudoscience.
GG

So, rather than dealing with yet another example of BeAfraid's ridiculous technobabble, I'll ask a very simple question: why does it matter if being gay/straight/whatever can change? We have all kinds of anti-discrimination laws about religion, and we grant their protection based on nothing more than statements of "I am {religion}". And we don't waste any time at all on absurd scenarios involving picking a new religion just to gain some anti-discrimination privileges, despite the fact that religion is clearly a choice. So why are we asking these pointless questions about sexuality/gender/etc?

Utah already passed such a fair housing law for LGBT people. It prevents any kind of discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of sexual gender, preference, whatever.

Ouze wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
Yes, there is a clear divide to Gay/Straight, which can be measured with a device known as a Plethysmograph.

A plethysmograph is at least as rooted in hard science as are the e-meters Scientologists use to measure auras.

Then you have no idea what a Plethysmograph is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plethysmograph

They are not admissible in Court as evidence, but the objections are currently specious, and based upon a prior bias against objective measures of arousal. They come about because a subject can fake an arousal. But the opposite is not true. They cannot fake NOT being aroused. This can complicate its use to show pathological pedophilia or some other paraphilia, because the subject can fake being just as aroused by other stimuli (they will still remain aroused by their paraphilia).

Combined with an MEG or ƒMRI, we can adequately assess if the arousal is accompanied by actual sexual thoughts or activation of the regions of the brain correlated to sexual arousal.

And, with the increasing precision of the ƒMRI, we can begin to eliminate the "faking" of the Plethysmograph. Given maybe another five years, and we can dispense with it entirely, and just look at the neural correlates of arousal (and don't get hung up on the word "correlate" here - the links are pretty well established to be causal, but because of lingering philosophical arguments by many dualists, we have to prevaricate and use "Correlates" instead of "Conjunct" or "Causal" links/connection).

MB



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
(even though "race" isn't a thing, we now refer to it as "Ethnicity")

Race and ethnicity aren't the same thing. If someone is using the word "ethnicity" as an analog for "race," they're incorrect. Your race can be one thing and your ethnicity can be another. Ethnic categories are also different than racial categories.

http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123

This is the popular media detailing what Geneticists have discovered over the last two decades since being able to sequence the genome of different groups once thought to be "races."

The Wikipedia article in this case remains fairly reliable (I know a few biologists from Stanford, Harvard, and Berkeley - at the least - who monitor the page for the typical racist baiting of the page, and attempts to alter it to suit their agendas):


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

wikipedia wrote:Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.

Since the second half of the 20th century, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context

Nature Magazine is FULL to overflowing with articles that deal with the phenotypic variations that we used to think of as "race."

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html


Ultimately, though, there remain three broad groups that can be broken down into the only things that remain in contention among biologists as possibly (NOTE: Possible) be defined as Racial:

• Negroid (Sub-Saharan African)
• Nordic and Caucasian (This includes Semitic, and Indians)
• Asian and Athabaskan (This group has the identifying epicanthic folds over the eye).

And, there are distinct genomic markers (usually either retroviral or mDNA) that allow us to identify membership into one of these groups.

HOWEVER, there are populations which belong to more than one of these groups (in some cases all three), and we use the identification of their Haplogroup membership as a more accurate means of tracking population or ethnic group membership:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup

There is no such thing as "Race" the way most people think of it.

It is an outdated, 19th-Century concept which modern biology and genetics has been shown to be based in nothing more than European (Specifically English, in this case, but the Germans obviously jumped on that bandwagon) attitudes of "Racial Superiority" that arose in the 19th Century during the Colonial Period, and continuing from earlier ages, used to justify anti-semitism.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
Then you have no idea what a Plethysmograph is.

No, you just haven't bothered to read your own links. They aren't considered valid evidence in court because they aren't reliable enough to meet the standards of legal evidence.

This can complicate its use to show pathological pedophilia or some other paraphilia, because the subject can fake being just as aroused by other stimuli (they will still remain aroused by their paraphilia).

Do you really not see how this completely undermines your "plethysmographicate them" argument? This hypothetical fake-gay person trying to get gay privileges can just fake being aroused by homosexual content. So not only have you once again tried to derail a thread with your technobabble "theories" you haven't even thought enough about them to see the obvious flaws.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, rather than dealing with yet another example of BeAfraid's ridiculous technobabble, I'll ask a very simple question: why does it matter if being gay/straight/whatever can change? We have all kinds of anti-discrimination laws about religion, and we grant their protection based on nothing more than statements of "I am {religion}". And we don't waste any time at all on absurd scenarios involving picking a new religion just to gain some anti-discrimination privileges, despite the fact that religion is clearly a choice. So why are we asking these pointless questions about sexuality/gender/etc?

This is ultimately the foundation that needs to be addressed.

Even IFF Sexual Behavior IS a choice, then it still requires legal protection, given the tremendous prejudice that homosexuals face from groups who fear/hate them (The origins of their fear and hatred turn out to be hilariously scatological when studies were actually done):

https://youreadygrandma.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/harvard-study-reveals-that-all-homophobic-people-are-gay/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html?_r=0

The more hilarious aspects of these studies are not reported here, but apparently they show an obsession by homophobes with the more scatological aspects of what they believe (wrongly) homosexuality is about.

MB


Rule 1 mate, motyak

Verging on rude here guys

Many states all ready consider sexual orientation a protected classs, so I guess it isn't as hard as some people would make it seem.

To answer the OP. Yes.

Not hard, more of a question of why? I support marriage because: 1) this puts everyone on an equal footing; 2) everyone can now suffer equally.

Adding another protected class does the opposite of that. It will inevitably lead to affirmative action in housing, hiring, etc. and will be used as a protection that others don't have.

I don't think just adding "Sexual Orientation" will lead to any of that. It's not "you can't discriminate against black people" it's "you can't discriminate based on race". Just like "you can't discriminate based on gender". They protect all people. White, black. Gay, strait. Male, female. Affirmative action is unrelated, IMO.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't think just adding "Sexual Orientation" will lead to any of that. It's not "you can't discriminate against black people" it's "you can't discriminate based on race". Just like "you can't discriminate based on gender". They protect all people. White, black. Gay, strait. Male, female. Affirmative action is unrelated, IMO.

HAHAHAHAHAHA ok thats funny

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't think just adding "Sexual Orientation" will lead to any of that. It's not "you can't discriminate against black people" it's "you can't discriminate based on race". Just like "you can't discriminate based on gender". They protect all people. White, black. Gay, strait. Male, female. Affirmative action is unrelated, IMO.

HAHAHAHAHAHA ok thats funny

Why? AFAIK (which isn't very much, I admit, so I could be making a massive mistake here ) there is nothing in the CRA about affirmative action? It just says you can't discriminate.

Sorry I was being abrupt.

No, there is nthing in the CRA about affirmative action. That developed from it, using the CRA as a legal base.

Affirmative action is in place in hiring, firing decisions, college admissions, even loan financing and home buying credits.

Ah.

Although, I doubt we'd see anything like that. Gay people really don't need any sort of affirmative action.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ah.

Although, I doubt we'd see anything like that. Gay people really don't need any sort of affirmative action.

I find the likelihood of your scenario to be statistically uncertain. Special interest groups always want more power. Its the nature of special interest groups and politics.
Put them in the CRA and they are just another special interest group.

BeAfraid wrote:
Yes, there is a clear divide to Gay/Straight, which can be measured with a device known as a Plethysmograph.

If a person measures a strong sexual attraction to a scene one would be aroused by if same-sex, but measures absolutely no response to a different-sex scene of the same sort, then they are gay.

And, if they have the exact opposite reaction, then they are straight.

These are opposing ends of a spectrum, along with people lie.

And the determinants of attraction are set sometime between around 5 - 9 months gestation, and 7 years of age. Some aspects might not arise until puberty, but generally, a personal sexual attractions are set in their very early childhood.

Also, the point about protected classes is that the NEED to be favored over other classes, because they TYPICALLY ARE MALIGNED by the majority.

That is why protected classes exist.

Yes, the language of things like Racial Discrimination applies to all 'races' (even though "race" isn't a thing, we now refer to it as "Ethnicity"), but it is SPECIFICALLY MINORITIES that are protected classes, because they are whom is typically discriminated again.

The same thing applies to homosexuals, transgendered, or bisexuals.

It is these groups against whom discrimination is usually applied, not to straight, normally gendered people (especially the White, Straight Male).

MB

What if one's normal tastes lean strongly to the heteronormative, but there's a few individuals one would not hesitate to sleep with, even though they're the same gender one is, and one can attain arousal in depictions of sexual/erotic media depicting couples of one's normal proclivities, one's rare proclivities, and stuff one isn't really into but it's still pretty hot all the same?

Not sure what you are getting at here.

There is a marked difference between fooling a plethysmograph and the act of actually having sex with someone.

I have seen gay guys try to force themselves to have sex with women without being able to, and vice-versa, seen straight guys try to force sex with other guys to no effect.

Fooling the brain is not as easy when tactile/haptic and olfactory (especially olfactory) sensations are involved. Some pre-existing or latent attraction needs to exist.

MB