whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Sexuality, Reproduction, & Abortion => Topic started by: Gnu Ordure on October 18, 2012, 03:24:46 PM

Title: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 18, 2012, 03:24:46 PM
I was looking at a new Gallup poll today, and I was wondering why a few people would refuse to answer a question, or maybe even lie about it.  Particularly when the poll is anonymous/confidential.

This was the question:

Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?

You're offered four options:

1. Yes
2. No.
3. I don't know.
4. I refuse to answer that question.


So I've got three questions about that:

a. Why would any straight people pick 4? (I understand why some LGBT people might).
b. Why would anyone say they don't know? (Some late adolescents, I suppose...)
c. Would some LGBT people lie and pick option 2?

So I thought I'd run the poll here. I imagine most people will pick options 1 or 2, honestly. But hopefully some people will explain why they would choose options 3 or 4; or admit that they would lie about choosing 1 or 2.

But if no-one does, this still might be an interesting snapshot of our little community anyway.
Title: Re: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Graybeard on October 18, 2012, 03:43:48 PM
I always refuse to answer such questions; likewise ones that ask my racial origins. They are usually asked by organisations that have a statement that says, "We do not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation."

If that is true, why do they want to know?
Title: Re: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Nam on October 18, 2012, 03:47:37 PM
I put "No".

I am not gay, not atracted to men. Not a lesbian (wish I were, though ;)). And am not transgendered. Even though people think my mouth is another asshole. ;)

Sorry about the above comment, wish I could delete it.

INam
Title: Re: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Graybeard on October 18, 2012, 03:51:22 PM
What comment? GB
Title: Re: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 18, 2012, 03:58:48 PM
I always refuse to answer such questions; likewise ones that ask my racial origins. They are usually asked by organisations that have a statement that says, "We do not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation."

If that is true, why do they want to know?

GB, this a Gallup poll, not a job interview. No need for paranoia. Their polls are anonymous and confidential, and they simply want to know what people think.

This is the poll I'm talking about (http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication), by the way; it's very interesting.
Title: Re: Sexuality Question.
Post by: wright on October 18, 2012, 04:43:32 PM
No.

I wonder if some heteros might choose #4 because they find the question's implications so terrifying; they take refuge in an angry none of your business!!

I have a hetero friend who stopped donating blood partly because he was asked by a staffer if he'd ever had sex with a man, as part of the screening process. It was too scary / insulting for him to simply be asked; he hasn't donated since.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Nam on October 18, 2012, 04:50:14 PM
Damn those blood banks. Imagine if they asked him if he had AIDS?!?! Imagine the homosexual implications that would go through his prejudiced mind!

Too much?

-Nam
Title: Re: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 18, 2012, 05:01:28 PM
I have a hetero friend who stopped donating blood partly because he was asked by a staffer if he'd ever had sex with a man, as part of the screening process. It was too scary / insulting for him to simply be asked; he hasn't donated since.

Whoah. That's fucked up. And sad, because he's stopped giving blood for an irrelevant emotional reason.

But OK, that's a possible answer to my OP, Wright: some people are so offended at being asked about their sexuality that they refuse to answer any questions about it.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Nam on October 18, 2012, 05:11:12 PM
Gnu,

They are called "prudes". Sadly, they represent a good portion of the population.

-Nam
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Onesimus on October 18, 2012, 06:00:41 PM
I'm amazed that this is still a "thing".  Unless confronted with the issue, I forget about it entirely for weeks at a time.
Title: Re: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Graybeard on October 18, 2012, 08:27:36 PM
GB, this a Gallup poll, not a job interview. No need for paranoia. Their polls are anonymous and confidential, and they simply want to know what people think.
Really? Gallup are not employed by anyone to collect any information? They just randomly select a few interesting questions for their own purposes and publish them? I think not.

Quote
This is the poll I'm talking about http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication , by the way; it's very interesting.
As long as it was answered correctly.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Garja on October 18, 2012, 10:44:38 PM
opps. I must be getting tired (actually very). I misread the question.  I thought it was asking if I WOULD answer that question.  Yes I would answer, but no I'm not.  So yeah, mentally remove 1 from yes and move it to no.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: kindred on October 18, 2012, 11:02:48 PM
I do not understand the problem with that question. Irrational discrimination is bad, I get it. Racism, sexism, homophobia etc. is irrational discrimination so therefore it is bad BUT a business would NOT irrationally discriminate against sexuality. The only thing businesses care about is money. So if a business does anything, it does it because it will increase their profits not to irrationally discriminate.

A business will not shun homosexuals because the managers find homosexuals to be morally repugnant, a business will shun homosexuals because they are hard to market. There are no established homosexual men or women for a business to model their employees or human products(popstars etc.). Unless you are a niche market built specifically to market to homosexual males/females or transgenders, why would you hire a one in a position where they can make people uncomfortable and hurt profits?
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 21, 2012, 04:24:23 PM
Well, this is no good - 19 votes and nobody has picked options 3 or 4.  :(

GB, this a Gallup poll, not a job interview. No need for paranoia. Their polls are anonymous and confidential, and they simply want to know what people think.
Really? Gallup are not employed by anyone to collect any information? They just randomly select a few interesting questions for their own purposes and publish them? I think not.
Nice straw man. What's important in a poll is how it's conducted, the sample selection, the phrasing of the questions, the confidentiality, and so on. Who is paying for it is largely irrelevant.

I do not understand the problem with that question. Irrational discrimination is bad, I get it. Racism, sexism, homophobia etc. is irrational discrimination so therefore it is bad
No. Discrimination is bad. It doesn't matter if it's rational or irrational.

Quote
A business will not shun homosexuals because the managers find homosexuals to be morally repugnant, a business will shun homosexuals because they are hard to market.
And that would be illegal.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 21, 2012, 04:40:51 PM
Damn those blood banks. Imagine if they asked him if he had AIDS?!?! Imagine the homosexual implications that would go through his prejudiced mind!

Too much?

-Nam

My favorite question at blood banks is "Have you ever had sex with anyone who has ever had sex with someone for money or has ever shared a needle"

I'm all like... o_0
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: madeline on October 21, 2012, 05:07:33 PM
Its been a while since I gave blood but I don't ever recall being asked that question..

Is there a 5..all of the above? Wouldn't that be interesting?
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Nam on October 21, 2012, 05:33:00 PM
When I was a pre-teen, or just turned 13 (I don't remember) I had to go to this clinic in south Florida where they stuck me with a needle countless times in both my arms (the inside of the arms down where the elbow is) removing a shitload of blood from my body (apparently I had too much blood in my body) and I am never doing anything like that or similar again.

-Nam
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Graybeard on October 21, 2012, 05:39:41 PM
Nice straw man.
No.
Quote
What's important in a poll is how it's conducted, the sample selection, the phrasing of the questions, the confidentiality, and so on. Who is paying for it is largely irrelevant.
And you live in a sunny world of fluffy bunnies and little kittens?

Whoever pays, get the results. Once they have the results they can do what they want with them.

A couple of days back I had a visit from a guy representing Mori Polls[1] - supposedly respectable. I said that I was willing to help by completing a record of my radio listening habits.

Now why would he want my name? Regardless of what I said about my listening habits, how would it help anyone to know my name? Do I really need more junk mail?
 1. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Nam on October 21, 2012, 05:44:30 PM
Should've said you're name was Graybeard.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 21, 2012, 06:29:07 PM
Quote
What's important in a poll is how it's conducted, the sample selection, the phrasing of the questions, the confidentiality, and so on. Who is paying for it is largely irrelevant.
And you live in a sunny world of fluffy bunnies and little kittens?
And you live in a paranoid world of patronising pricks?

Your turn.

Quote
Whoever pays, get the results. Once they have the results they can do what they want with them.
Such as publish them. So then everyone has the results, and can do what they want with them. At that point, it doesn't much matter who paid for the survey.

Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: on:bread:alone on October 21, 2012, 07:00:24 PM
eventually this question will be an obsolete device. there won't be any lines between gay or straight. once skynet takes over, sexual stimulation will be done electronically, not physically, like the poor little lab-rats that starve themselves in leiu of orgasms. reproduction will be done in sterile environments, children will be raised by machines... we'll all be hooked on soma. it will be beautiful.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 21, 2012, 07:15:16 PM
Such as publish them. So then everyone has the results, and can do what they want with them. At that point, it doesn't much matter who paid for the survey.

But what use would they have for his name? If the people asking the questions for the poll you have linked asked the people their names...that might be enough to skew the results.

Think about it, some random person walks up to you or calls you on the phone telling you that they are with "so and so polling" and would you mind answering a few questions about your sexuality and the first thing they ask you is to state your name...That's enough to trigger suspicion of the polls anonymity in my mind.

I'd be very likely to either hang up or walk away. Depending on what mood I'm in I might give a false name[1] and give the most bizarre answers available. 
 1. Unless they called me, then they probably already have my name at which point I would likely get very aggressive and ask them how the fuck they got my number
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Nam on October 21, 2012, 07:37:39 PM
Interviewer: Hello, sir. I am holding an anonymous poll about one's sexuality. Would you like to participate?

Mr. Blackwell: Sure.

Interviewer: first, can we have your first and last name....

Mr. Blackwell: I THOUGHT THIS WAS A GODDAMN ANONYMOUS POLL YOU MOTHERFUCKING ASSHOLE--WAIT, HOW DID YOU GET MY FUCKING NUMBER, AND IF YOU HAVE MY NUMBER HOW COME NOT MY NAME, TOO!!!

Interviewer: Um....

[Line dies...]

:P

-Nam
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: kindred on October 21, 2012, 08:22:19 PM
@gnu

Why would discrimination be bad? Without discriminating on people, you'd just be randomly selecting them. You discriminate based on job aptitude, image, marketability etc. If you didn't then you'd essentially be just choosing at random.

Moreover, there is no logical reason why you can't discriminate race, nationality, gender etc. because of marketability. If you want a store that will have the cultural and aesthetic appeal of a certain demographic then you employ people of that demographic to foster an atmosphere that will be most profitable.

If you were trying to market a gym as an all women place where women can let go and not need to fuss over their image, would you employ staff that could potentially undermine that atmosphere? Would you employ ripped and well toned men that'll conflict the vibe you are trying to sell?
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Nam on October 21, 2012, 09:05:13 PM
^I would. But that's cause it'd be funny.

-Nam
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 21, 2012, 09:14:57 PM
I think it would be even funnier to have a bunch of fat sweaty middle aged guys with hairy backs as the personal trainers of an advertised "female only" gym.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Nam on October 21, 2012, 09:18:37 PM
^agreed.

-Nam
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Timtheskeptic on October 23, 2012, 07:56:00 AM
So I've got three questions about that:

a. Why would any straight people pick 4? (I understand why some LGBT people might).

Because some folks considers it as a personal question and isn't anyone's business, other folks may consider not labeling themselves. We're all basically human, our sexuality does not define who we are.

Quote
b. Why would anyone say they don't know? (Some late adolescents, I suppose...)

Because people don't focus on their own sexuality. I didn't know what my sexuality is until in my late teens or early twenties, mostly because i don't think about it. Some are even afraid of being gay, bi, transgender considering their religious belief and what lies they heard about LGBT folks.

Quote
c. Would some LGBT people lie and pick option 2?

Denial. Many LGBT people want to deny their sexuality based on their belief that homosexuality, bisexuality, or being transgender is wrong or that you'll burn in hell or you'll lead a tragic life.

Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Graybeard on October 23, 2012, 02:30:51 PM
Such as publish them. So then everyone has the results, and can do what they want with them. At that point, it doesn't much matter who paid for the survey.
I think that was my point. You may be happy to give your personal details to someone who will pass them on or sell them together with an assessment of your opinions and thus your preferences and social type, but I am not.

If you are from the UK, you will know that there is the Data Protection Act - a useless piece of legislation but it does define "Personal Data" and "Sensitive Data"  and addresses it in (IIRC) section 29 and 31. Apparently, the government and the EU are concerned when such things are used. However, if you volunteer them, then you are outside the protection of the Act.

There are some details that should not concern other people. Government and marketing departments should operate fairly and address all races, religions, sexual orientations, disabilities, etc. They should not make assumptions nor should they target.

That irresponsible firms do collect this data for less than beneficial purposes; they do collect sensitive data and they do use it.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: nogodsforme on October 23, 2012, 03:14:10 PM
I do not understand the problem with that question. Irrational discrimination is bad, I get it. Racism, sexism, homophobia etc. is irrational discrimination so therefore it is bad BUT a business would NOT irrationally discriminate against sexuality. The only thing businesses care about is money. So if a business does anything, it does it because it will increase their profits not to irrationally discriminate.

A business will not shun homosexuals because the managers find homosexuals to be morally repugnant, a business will shun homosexuals because they are hard to market. There are no established homosexual men or women for a business to model their employees or human products(popstars etc.). Unless you are a niche market built specifically to market to homosexual males/females or transgenders, why would you hire a one in a position where they can make people uncomfortable and hurt profits?
That is why sometimes the government has to intervene and tell people that if you do that kind of discrimination, you will lose certain benefits. If the thing you are discriminating on is not a bona fide job qualification, like being able to type or having experience working with kids, it is illegal. And sometimes the government has taken the lead in non-discriminatory hiring, like the post office and the military were integrated employers who paid equal wages, long before the rest of society caught up.

Some people wonder why so many black people, women, etc. have worked for the government--because that was the one employer who had to hire based on qualifications only, paid fairly, gave equal benefits and had a pension plan. Many private employers did not do this until they were forced to.

Like there are religious groups that don't want to hire people of other faiths or no faith or gay or whatever. They can do that, but should not get any government funds that all of us pay for through taxes. So you can discrimination on non-bona fide qualifications like sexual orientation or race, if you don't mind losing those government benefits. I say, they should stick to their guns (so to speak) hire only the kind of people they prefer, and not take any government money. And no tax breaks for you, either. :)
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Traveler on October 23, 2012, 04:01:03 PM
... b. Why would anyone say they don't know? (Some late adolescents, I suppose...) ...

When I decided I no longer wanted to be married I was VERY pissed off at men in general. No, it was not rational. Yes, I was projecting. But I was VERY pissed at some things that had passed between myself and my now-ex, and considered whether I might prefer to be with women than deal with men ever again. If anyone had asked my sexuality at that time I would have answered "I don't know," despite having never been with a woman, and despite being in my 30s. In discussing this type of thing with other women, I've met very many who've wondered the same thing, especially when going through a divorce.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Onesimus on October 23, 2012, 04:17:03 PM
In discussing this type of thing with other women, I've met very many who've wondered the same thing, especially when going through a divorce.

It goes the other way, too.  I once knew a teenager who came out as a lesbian in high school and now dates only men because she learned that women actually drive her crazy.  She still window-shops but never buys, so to speak.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Nam on October 23, 2012, 04:46:45 PM
If I was a girl, I'd probably go both ways. But, that's only 'cause I am so used to having a penis, I would miss it. But if born a girl: I have no idea.

-Nam
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: earthfreak on October 25, 2012, 12:55:07 PM
Nam - if you were a girl you'd be gay, except for your horrible lack of penis?  I'm confused...

I'm a girl and swing both ways (at least in my head and maybe my heart, if not so much in practice) but I'm also monogamous, so hopefully someday I will be with or without a penis in my sex life permanently.

I think women's sexuality is much more emotional, and not as exclusively physical as many men's.  I think we're much more likely to consider other options at various points (and we have to deal with being women in a sexist society no matter what, where it often strikes me that gay men have a horror of women's bodies, and straight men have a horror of even hinting at taking on a "woman's role" that influences the intensity of their orientation?)
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 25, 2012, 04:27:12 PM
@ earthfreak

Me thinks you project too much.

I think women's sexuality is much more emotional, and not as exclusively physical as many men's. 

Your thinking does not match reality. YOUR sexuality may be more emotional but I have met (and been used) by plenty of women who were only interested in one thing.

They were gone just as soon as I even hinted at love.


Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: earthfreak on October 25, 2012, 06:44:01 PM
Mr. Blackwell - I'm sorry about your experience.

I didn't exactly mean to be projecting.  it's true the MY sexuality is more emotional than I think any other mammal's on the planet, (by a lot) - but I think that could be true even if I was a guy, I'd just be even more of a freak as a guy than I am as a woman.

I was thinking more of studies like this one:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm

which suggest that women are actually physically aroused by either sex, while men really tend to fit, in terms of basic physical arousal, into one camp or the other.

It was my own leap to say, though, that women end up making this choice emotionally (as opposed to physically) - they may make it based on the earning potential of the guy or something.  I certainly do.  I can be physically aroused by a wide range of people (male/female, short/tall, whatever ethnicity)  - but I have to feel a pretty significant connection with them emotionally.

I tend to think that this is true in terms of things other than sexual orientation - that men are much more likely to have a physical "type" than women are.

I'm sorry that you've been used, and I have to wonder if it was really for sex.  Not that I think all women are above that, just, again, in my experience, women's sexuality is more complicated - it's more difficult to make love to a woman in a way she will find satisfying, especially the first or second time.  I think some women engage in casual sex to boost their egos or something?  I don't know, it's amazingly far from my experience.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: Nam on October 25, 2012, 08:11:51 PM
Nam - if you were a girl you'd be gay, except for your horrible lack of penis?  I'm confused...

That's not what I said. The first part is in present-tense which eludes to me being bisexual, if I were a girl based on the fact I am guy, and I would miss having a penis since I have had one for 35 years.

The last part is different in meaning, if I was actually born a girl, I wouldn't know what sexual orientation I would prefer based on the fact I was born a guy.

But basically the first part was me being facetious. One can tell this by the "penis" remark.

Quote
I'm a girl and swing both ways (at least in my head and maybe my heart, if not so much in practice) but I'm also monogamous, so hopefully someday I will be with or without a penis in my sex life permanently.

Good for you.

Quote
I think women's sexuality is much more emotional, and not as exclusively physical as many men's.

Men/boys think about sex all the time. We can't help it. However, this doesn't mean we are all perverts or dogs, and doesn't mean the vast majority of us do not feel the same (to the same degree) emotions as women do.

Quote
I think we're much more likely to consider other options at various points (and we have to deal with being women in a sexist society no matter what, where it often strikes me that gay men have a horror of women's bodies, and straight men have a horror of even hinting at taking on a "woman's role" that influences the intensity of their orientation?)

Why would gay men see women's bodies as being horrific?

-Nam
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: kindred on October 25, 2012, 11:49:06 PM
I do not understand the problem with that question. Irrational discrimination is bad, I get it. Racism, sexism, homophobia etc. is irrational discrimination so therefore it is bad BUT a business would NOT irrationally discriminate against sexuality. The only thing businesses care about is money. So if a business does anything, it does it because it will increase their profits not to irrationally discriminate.

A business will not shun homosexuals because the managers find homosexuals to be morally repugnant, a business will shun homosexuals because they are hard to market. There are no established homosexual men or women for a business to model their employees or human products(popstars etc.). Unless you are a niche market built specifically to market to homosexual males/females or transgenders, why would you hire a one in a position where they can make people uncomfortable and hurt profits?
That is why sometimes the government has to intervene and tell people that if you do that kind of discrimination, you will lose certain benefits. If the thing you are discriminating on is not a bona fide job qualification, like being able to type or having experience working with kids, it is illegal. And sometimes the government has taken the lead in non-discriminatory hiring, like the post office and the military were integrated employers who paid equal wages, long before the rest of society caught up.

Some people wonder why so many black people, women, etc. have worked for the government--because that was the one employer who had to hire based on qualifications only, paid fairly, gave equal benefits and had a pension plan. Many private employers did not do this until they were forced to.

Like there are religious groups that don't want to hire people of other faiths or no faith or gay or whatever. They can do that, but should not get any government funds that all of us pay for through taxes. So you can discrimination on non-bona fide qualifications like sexual orientation or race, if you don't mind losing those government benefits. I say, they should stick to their guns (so to speak) hire only the kind of people they prefer, and not take any government money. And no tax breaks for you, either. :)

Job qualifications? Half of what makes a person effective at their job has nothing to do with their job qualification.

What use would an excellent professor be if he was gay/lesbian and creeped out students with his non-conformity? The easy fix would be for him/her to take on a fake working persona but it will still be more efficient for the employer not to even look at that demographic. Time spent sifting through the social outcasts is far better spent at something easier and more time/cost-effective.

Forgive me if this line of thinking rubs you the wrong way. From the standpoint of an employer, humans are just numbers. We either up or raise the bottomline. Why would an employer give a shit about your personal struggle against discrimination?
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: nogodsforme on October 26, 2012, 10:51:36 AM
^^^^All true. People don't want to hire people who "creep them out".  Which is why there are anti-discrimination laws. If being "creepy", ie Muslim, or short, or gay or black or female or in a wheelchair is not relevant to ability to do a job, an employer is not supposed to discriminate. Expect to be sued or fined.

And don't expect those government contracts.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: on:bread:alone on October 26, 2012, 08:05:41 PM
i once landed a job at a XXX shop because the manager was gay and thought i was cute. i was also wearing leather pants and make-up. personally, i am not gay, but i have no problem with people who are. i have a t-shirt that has a grayscale rainbow with the word "straight" underneath it, and another that says "sorry boys, i eat pussy." ...both of which i would wear to work, and both of which my gay boss found hilarious. i'm glad there are anti-discrimination laws in place, because i don't think a person's sexual preference should enter into the professional environment... but on the flip side of that, a straight guy might not have hired me... and that job was fuckin' awesome.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: kindred on October 26, 2012, 09:35:05 PM
@nogodsforme

I find that to be very stupid about anti-discrimination laws. It forces businesses to start the trend of equality and equity when that is not the responsibility of businesses. Profit is the only responsibility of a business. Governments are essentially coercing the business owners to participate in an international anti-discrimination project free of charge.

Its just so irrational. Its the responsibility of every individual to change the society. When individuals fail to do so then we as a society ought to reap the fruits of our mistakes. We shouldn't be coercing a few people to do the change for us.

It is irrational and unfair. I'd rather the entire world suffer then force a few people to have to bear the burden for everybody. Unfair is unfair, even if it is the only way for improvement. Lets just let discrimination run rampant since we obviously don't deserve equality as a species if we are going to rely on a few select individuals to give it to us.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: nogodsforme on October 27, 2012, 01:06:57 PM
So, if businesses will not do the right thing without the law compelling them to, we should not have the laws at all? We should wait for people to figure out the right thing on their own.  Or not. Whatever.

So why have any laws regulating businesses, if all they have to do is make money? Why have laws telling businesses that they have to label their products? Why have laws telling businesses that they have to serve food that is clean and not spoiled? As long as they are making money selling rotten food labeled fresh, why should the government interfere? Buyer beware and all that. If you get sick, don't shop there.

People will someday stop abusing kids-- we don't need no child abuse laws. People will someday treat gays fairly-- we don't need no equal rights laws. Until then, people just need to shut up and be abused or discriminated against.

Problem is, that the law does not come first-- the people being hurt compel the law. If people were being hired and treated right, they would not be pushing for the laws. The law is the reaction to the people being hurt. Just like the food labeling and inspection laws were a reaction to people getting sick and dying from bad products. Of course businesses should try to make money, but they have to do it in ways that don't hurt people. Or people will eventually get together and do something about it.
Title: Re: POLL: Sexuality Question.
Post by: kindred on October 27, 2012, 07:52:51 PM
^

All good points and I agree with all of them but in this specific instance, people are piling up the responsibility on one party. I don't care about the fact that the consequences are good. It is still unfair. It is everybody's job to not be racist. Business shouldn't be given the lion's share of the responsibility.

In the case of food regulations, of course its the businesses responsibility because it is their product. That should be the case, you are responsible for your conduct and not other people's. Their shouldn't be this notion that because businesses HAVE more power to stop inequality that we should expect more from them. We should expect the same amount of things from everybody(equity/equality and all that) regardless of their skill or power unless the expectation is inherent in their position, say a president or something.

It all boils down to a matter of values. I value the consequences less than the ethics. I don't care about how good the effects of pushing businesses to better society if it is at the cost of placing an unfair amount of burden on the business owners.

Unfair is unfair no matter the consequences.