Thoughts on the nature of discrimination

[askandanswer]

If I hadn't been so tired when I wrote this post, it probably would have been more concise. Its longer than it should be but I think it still makes the point I want it to.

 

 

In 2013, the last time our federal parliament gave some serious thought to same sex marriage, the church asked us to communicate our thoughts and feelings on the topic to our local Member of Parliament. I did so, and one of the lines I used in my letter was similar to the line Vort took in the news conference posting – that if we allowed same sex marriage because not to do so was unfair, unequal and discriminatory against gay couples who wanted to get married – then there was no longer any logical argument for banning daddies who wanted to marry their daughters or women who wanted to marry their dogs. A few weeks later, Senator Cory Bernardi, a government Senator and ferocious right wing hard core Christian, started making public statements along exactly the same lines. He was very strongly condemned from all sides, even his own, and after a week or two he stopped making such statement. Last year, the government wanted to remove a few words from Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which would have had the effect of reducing the number of grounds on which a person could be sued for discrimination. These two events have led me to think a bit about discrimination and exactly what it is, or might be.

 

It seems to me that the essence of discrimination is when a group that possesses a particular characteristic or attribute, is treated differently by other groups because they possess that particular characteristic or attribute. In the recent case, the attribute in question was being gay and the difference treatment was differential access to housing and jobs. If that sort of behaviour is indeed discrimination, which of the following is, and is not, discriminatory:

Limited access to housing because of gender preference

Limited access to housing because of a person's height

Limited access to housing because of ethnic origins

Limited access to housing because of inability to pay the rent

Limited access to housing because of the poor condition of the house

Limited access to jobs because of colour

Limited access to jobs because of inadequate training or not having the correct qualifications

Limited access to heaven because of sin

Limited access to disabled parking spaces because of not having a disability

Marriage only between a man and a woman

Marriage between same sex couples

Marriage between people and animals

Limited access to baptism and temples because of sin

 

Does God discriminate against those who are not worthy to enter the celestial kingdom by not allowing them entry? I certainly hope He does, otherwise there is no point in striving to meet the entry requirements. Is there a temple recommend question that discourages us from associating with certain groups or people who propagate certain beliefs? Is not the whole temple recommend interview process a means of discriminating between those who can and those who cannot enter the temple? I think that all of us, every week, need to be making decisions that involve a degree of discriminatory practice – eg, do I praise my son (different treatment) for a job well done (a characteristic)? Do I avoid my neighbour (different treatment) because he swears and is drunk (a characteristic) all the time? Do I refuse to employ the American gardener (different treatment) because he charges more than double what the Mexican gardener charges ( a characteristic) Do I make a different decision about someone or something or should my decision be influenced by (a difference) an attribute that that person has that is good or bad (a characteristic). If we answer yes to that question, we are practicing a form of discrimination. I hope we are making these kinds of decisions every day.

 

My point is that discrimination is a necessary, unavoidable, important, and everyday, although usually unrecognised part of life. There is good discrimination and bad discrimination. The line between the two is often blurred and quite mobile. To simply reject something on the grounds that it is discriminatory may be failing to recognise the true nature of discrimination. The trouble seems to arise when people can’t agree on what is acceptable basis for discrimination. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by askandanswer

[SpiritDragon]

Yes the whole concept of non-discrimination is based on faulty grounds. Discrimination seems to be the current term used to slander any decision-making not in accordance with the desired outcome of a specific group. It is a ridiculous can-of-worms. We all need to make judgment calls all the time, that is what discrimination is. 

 

The problem I see is when discrimination is based on snap-judgments (not actually having the facts) combined with hatred. This is a bad combination.

 

Going for extreme examples of non-discrimination - in the event someone proposes marriage or marital activities is it fair to deny one candidate while accepting another? This is clearly discriminating between who one chooses, and rightfully so. Nobody should have to accept a candidate that doesn't meet their expectations. Why should this be different in other aspects of life? Personally, I think it shouldn't be. Jobs should be given to the best candidate based on qualifications, experience and chemistry with co-workers and not to meet a particular quota of minorities. A land-owner should be able to choose who lives in their property on their land. After all if the place gets trashed they are the ones who have to deal with it

[The Folk Prophet]

Of course you are right askandanswer and SpiritDragon, but the point is somewhat of a non-starter when it comes to the gay-rights issue. That is because the homosexual non-discrimination discussion clearly carries the idea of biased/unfair discrimination as an implicit adjective. And bias is always, at it's core, mistaken.

 

Those who argue against non-discrimination either have to confess bias, or they must claim that homosexuality is harmful to society and there is valid reason to discriminate. That's a pretty tough argument to make in today's culture.

[Claire]

I'd agree with the basic definition of discrimination that askandanswer provided, with the caveat that this definition is the "dictionary" definition and not really what people mean when they talk about it in society. I think in that context, you could further add that the characteristic or attribute has no bearing on the difference in treatment. In other words, it would not be discrimination if was not allowed to enter the men's room due to being a woman, since my gender is relevant to that treatment. It would be discrimination if I wasn't allowed to enter a shop for the same reason, since my gender hypothetically shouldn't have any bearing on that.

 

Where things get dicey is when we try to argue which characteristics are relevant to a given situation and which aren't. To invoke TFP's "gay marriage" example, those who are opposed to it typically are on the grounds that the gender of the would-be spouses is relevant to the institution (i.e. it's just impossible for two men or two women to marry), while those who are in favor will typically argue that it's not. In the case of things like marriage, the root cause for the difference of opinion is often a more fundamental belief (i.e. marriage as a God given thing versus marriage as a man-made institution), which can often times be boiled down to even more fundamental differences in opinion (i.e. God as a reality versus God as a man-made myth). 

 

The point I think I'm trying to make is that the trick to coming to a consensus on any of these issues is going to have to be identifying and working out the more fundamental issues at their core. We are never going to reach a complete consensus on the majority of social issues (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, euthenasia, ect) until we reach a consensus on the more fundamental issues that our various stances are based upon (i.e. is there a God).

[Guest]

I don't even think we need to go so far as agreeing that there's a God.

 

We just need to agree what the purpose of Marriage (as a secular ordinance) is in society.

 

Traditionally, Marriage has always been for the security of the heirs.  SS marriage in this tradition, therefore, has no useful purpose.

 

The argument has always been that "it doesn't hurt anybody".  Yes, if we are only going to consider traditional marriage, then it doesn't hurt anybody except for the building up of the next generation (population stagnancy) - which with the population of American society today is not a critical component.  But, America has legalized non-traditional family compositions through adoption, adultery (your children don't need to be conceived by both married parties - they can be conceived through the means of a 3rd party), artificial insemination from outside donors, etc.  Therefore, marriage now carries the burden of children brought up in SS unions.

 

The argument of "it doesn't hurt anybody" can, therefore, be put in question as it pertains to children.

 

This is my basis of my personal discrimination against such marriages (I don't have to be LDS to agree with the LDS stance).  But yes, my basis that "it is detrimental to children" is from Christian teaching - not some statistical or population analysis of such events, because, unfortunately, such studies are always "after the fact" when it will take a miracle to undo what is already set in motion.

Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

Where things get dicey is when we try to argue which characteristics are relevant to a given situation and which aren't. To invoke TFP's "gay marriage" example, those who are opposed to it typically are on the grounds that the gender of the would-be spouses is relevant to the institution (i.e. it's just impossible for two men or two women to marry), while those who are in favor will typically argue that it's not. In the case of things like marriage, the root cause for the difference of opinion is often a more fundamental belief (i.e. marriage as a God given thing versus marriage as a man-made institution), which can often times be boiled down to even more fundamental differences in opinion (i.e. God as a reality versus God as a man-made myth). 

 

It's less about whether marriage is a God given thing or man-made institution as it is about what the word itself actually means. The argument on the "gays can't marry" side of things is really about that. The pro-homosexual-marriage side is essentially trying to redefine the word to mean something less than it does (a license to have sex and a contract of commitment). The anti-homosexual-marriage side is saying that marriage means more than that - it has to do with procreation, exists because of procreation, and is inherently defined based on the idea that those entering into said contract can and will likely pro-create.

 

That's not to downplay the God given thing. That debate just doesn't mean much in the political arena where it's plainly accepted that not everyone must or should believe that God even exists.

[Claire]

It's less about whether marriage is a God given thing or man-made institution as it is about what the word itself actually means. The argument on the "gays can't marry" side of things is really about that. The pro-homosexual-marriage side is essentially trying to redefine the word to mean something less than it does (a license to have sex and a contract of commitment). The anti-homosexual-marriage side is saying that marriage means more than that - it has to do with procreation, exists because of procreation, and is inherently defined based on the idea that those entering into said contract can and will likely pro-create.

 

That's not to downplay the God given thing. That debate just doesn't mean much in the political arena where it's plainly accepted that not everyone must or should believe that God even exists.

 

The reason I focus in on the "God given" part is because the origin of the institution is relevant. If it really is something man just made up, even if he originally made it up to be between only a man and a woman, men would still have the authority to change that definition. If it has its origin in some power external to man, then it is what it is and we can't change it. Even if we try to argue that the institution is rooted in nature vice God, and logically there's good reason to say that it is, it could reasonably be argued that we are not necessarily bound by those origins in establishing our civil institutions. 

 

I agree that invoking God doesn't carry a lot of weight, but I also think that that is something of a double standard that I don't think we should capitulate to. Truth is truth, whether or not everybody agrees with it, so we should be willing to invoke the truth (at least as we understand it) in the political arena. Others are of course free to disagree, and debating why we disagree is probably more profitable that trying to side-step the issue altogether.

[askandanswer]

The anti-homosexual-marriage side is saying that marriage means more than that - it has to do with procreation, exists because of procreation, and is inherently defined based on the idea that those entering into said contract can and will likely pro-create.

 

 

I'm not saying that I agree of disagree with your point here, but I do think your point is slightly weakened by the fact that there are no insurmountable barriers to procreation in female+female same sex marriages, 

[Crypto]

I think this is a difficult topic, intellectually for me. I can only approach it with what I feel and how I believe. Intellectually this is a mess to argue, because the consequences of tolerance and the consequences of exclusion both can have profound impacts negatively. Some discrimination is good, some is bad, if there is a line to be drawn by currently accepted standards it's hazy or a zig zag.

[Guest]

I'm not saying that I agree of disagree with your point here, but I do think your point is slightly weakened by the fact that there are no insurmountable barriers to procreation in female+female same sex marriages,

It's not just the creation part of procreation... It's seeing that creation through to its useful place in the society.

[mordorbund]

I think this is a difficult topic, intellectually for me. I can only approach it with what I feel and how I believe. Intellectually this is a mess to argue, because the consequences of tolerance and the consequences of exclusion both can have profound impacts negatively. Some discrimination is good, some is bad, if there is a line to be drawn by currently accepted standards it's hazy or a zig zag.

 

When we draw the lines (in the name of tolerance or equality), is it justified to only include (or exclude) groups within a class or should it be the same across a class?

 

For some examples:

 

If the previous practice was denying housing or work because a person is black, should the law be changed to say housing cannot be discriminated on the basis of being "black or white"? or should the legislation state that housing cannot be denied on the basis of "color"?

 

Same question, but now should it only include LGBT? or should we toss in the new cisgendered (just in case)? Or should it be open so that housing cannot be denied on the basis of sexuality?

 

Or would it be better to state only the conditions on which discrimination can occur? For housing, you may discriminate on income, size of family, past rental history, and past credit or payment history for instance.

 

How would this work for job discrimination? And how would you prevent the canary laws (I've coined it, you owe me a nickel every time you use it) from becoming, in essence, Jim Crow laws?

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not saying that I agree of disagree with your point here, but I do think your point is slightly weakened by the fact that there are no insurmountable barriers to procreation in female+female same sex marriages, 

 

There are no insurmountable barriers to a single woman procreating, or to male-male or single male adoptions. That is beyond the point I was making. And, also beyond the point, there is, inherently, more to the male-female raising of children than just making babies (as anatess alluded to). So I would content that an argument that my point is weakened by your point is missing a few important ideas, that I did not address, but are nonetheless valid.

[Crypto]

When we draw the lines (in the name of tolerance or equality), is it justified to only include (or exclude) groups within a class or should it be the same across a class?

 

......

 

Or would it be better to state only the conditions on which discrimination can occur? For housing, you may discriminate on income, size of family, past rental history, and past credit or payment history for instance.

 

How would this work for job discrimination? And how would you prevent the canary laws (I've coined it, you owe me a nickel every time you use it) from becoming, in essence, Jim Crow laws?

I have no idea.

The best that I think I can come up with is that discrimination on the basis of superficial things, unchangeable, or situations from which you were born into. e.g. skin color should not be discriminated against.

However there are exceptions to a general rule, such as being born poor and and not being able to afford things.

Generally discrimination shouldn't cause harm to another human being. Though prison, fines, and even the death penalty could potentially be seen as causing harm. (there is a reason we discriminate against many legally defined criminal acts)

 

Discrimination should largely be based on how an individual acts (say stealing). It's perfectly acceptable for people to avoid jerks/people they don't get along with. There is still the problem with this though, e.g. mental disorders, is it really alright to discriminate against them (probably not, though if for example you aren't capable of being say a chemist you shouldn't be one)

 

I find most arguments pro-discrimination (e.g. required education before entering college) generally have some merit. Don't discriminate against {insert here}, also generally have some merit.

The way discrimination is applied in modern society seem completely arbitrary to me.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

...the death penalty could potentially be seen as causing harm. 

 

Could be?

[yjacket]

 And how would you prevent the canary laws (I've coined it, you owe me a nickel every time you use it) from becoming, in essence, Jim Crow laws?

 

Slight bit of context.  Jim Crow laws specifically enforced discrimination in the public sector and sometimes in the private sector.  The widespread use of marriage licenses issued by the state has its roots in Jim Crow laws-it was designed to prohibit whites and blacks from marrying.

 

Jim Crow laws didn't just restrict the liberties of blacks, it restricted everyone's liberty.  If I'm a white businessman and I see profit by doing business by integrating whites and blacks, I'm prohibited to do so and my liberty as a businessman is infringed.  This actually happened with train companies in the early 1900s who wanted to integrate train cars but were prohibited by law from doing so.

 

Enforcing discrimination by law is every bit as wrong as enforcing non-discrimination by law.

Edited January 31, 2015 by yjacket

[believingisachoice]

One natural right every person has is the right of association. You can associate with whomever you choose. Imagine a government using coercion to force you to associate with people you very much disliked. Apart of that right is to be able to disassociate yourself from anyone you'd like.

 

I don't know enough about Australia to comment on that country however in the U.S. there is a "gay mafia" and they literally will destroy you if you try to resist their agenda. They use the power of the state and coercion to further their ends.

[PolarVortex]

I don't know enough about Australia to comment on that country however in the U.S. there is a "gay mafia" and they literally will destroy you if you try to resist their agenda. They use the power of the state and coercion to further their ends.

 

I would put it this way: if you are a public figure or business leader who opposes the GLBT agenda (and simply contributing money to the wrong political cause can count as opposition), then many GLBT organizations will swivel the spotlight directly upon you and lather up all kinds of howling and uproar until you resign or are forced out.  That's not right.

 

But I also think that once GLBT legal issues (e.g., same-sex marriage, adoption rights, and discrimination) have settled down, the GLBT thing will disappear from society.  A tiny percentage of marriages will be same-sex, but nobody will care much.  And in a way, that's what the GLBT industry has wanted all along.

[Guest]

The government doesn't need to legislate everything.  It should only legislate as far as public resources are concerned - housing, employment, welfare, etc.

 

Private resources should remain free to the dictates of the private owner.  If a privately-owned apartment complex want to house only Filipinos and nobody else - they should be free to do so.

 

So you might ask - well, then segregation between races, orientation, religious preferences, etc. etc. will continue to occur in the private sector!  You address all that through EDUCATION, cultural outreach, etc., instead of legislation.

Edited February 4, 2015 by anatess

[drham3rd]

As someone born with cerebral palsy, I experienced a lot of discrimination during my youth!  I know personally how it feels to be excluded from activities because you are different!  There were teachers who excluded me from activities in grade school, so it was not only the kids!!

 

There is NO justification for actively discriminating against someone!  As far as spiritual matters go, I always consider that we are to love the sinner but disagree with the sin!  Its a fine line there, but I think that a big part of being Christ like is to work hard to live unto that standard!

 

My problem with the same-sex marriage issue is that we in this country have created a set of benefits that are only attainable by being marriage!  That is where the 14th Amendment comes in here!  We should either afford any adult couple who choose to form a union those same benefits OR do away with the benefits so that all adult relationships are on the same footing legally!

 

 

[Vort]

My problem with the same-sex marriage issue is that we in this country have created a set of benefits that are only attainable by being marriage!  That is where the 14th Amendment comes in here!  We should either afford any adult couple who choose to form a union those same benefits OR do away with the benefits so that all adult relationships are on the same footing legally!

 

Marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing. It is the foundation of our society. That is why we reward and encourage it. "Marriage" between two men or two women is not a good thing, and does not form a solid foundation for our society. That is why we should not reward or encourage it.

[askandanswer]

In Australia, where the federal government has constitutional responsibility for marriage, some of the States have pushed for same sex marriage but the feds have said no. Some states have tried to get around this issue by creating something called civil unions, which same sex couples can enter into and the state governments will treat civil unions as almost the same as a marriage. It provides almost all of the benefits of marriage that can be provided by a state government but it cannot be called a marriage, Over the last few years the federal government has had a close look at all the (I think) 79 pieces of legislation that distinguish on the basis of marriage vs de facto relationships (either same sex or different sex) and have weeded out almost all the areas of distinction. Of course there is still a push to legalise same sex marriage at the federal level but I believe that the measures taken by the two levels of government have taken a lot of the oomph out of the push. 

[PolarVortex]

I am not comfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage, but I can't really say it comes from some intellectual objection or simply the discomfort of making a big social change that pushes us into uncharted waters.

 

However, I have never understood the argument that allowing same-sex marriage will endanger or degrade opposite-sex marriage.  If two men or two women get a piece of paper from a county clerk that slightly changes their taxes, rules for inheritance, and visiting rights in hospitals, then I don't see how this affects heterosexual couples at all.  I rarely agree with Barney Frank on anything, but on this topic I think he has a point.  

[The Folk Prophet]

I am not comfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage, but I can't really say it comes from some intellectual objection or simply the discomfort of making a big social change that pushes us into uncharted waters.

 

However, I have never understood the argument that allowing same-sex marriage will endanger or degrade opposite-sex marriage.  If two men or two women get a piece of paper from a county clerk that slightly changes their taxes, rules for inheritance, and visiting rights in hospitals, then I don't see how this affects heterosexual couples at all.  I rarely agree with Barney Frank on anything, but on this topic I think he has a point.  

 

I, on the other hand, cannot imagine how anyone can think that it won't affect all of society, including heterosexual marriages. One can argue that the effect will or will not be bad for society, but to claim that it won't have any effect at all seems fairly socially amaurotic*.

 

* I confess to having used a thesaurus for this word. I was looking for a better word than just "blind"...more along the lines of something that mean sticking one's head in the sand or wearing blinders than all out "blindness", but when the thesaurus pulled up amaurotic as a synonym, I couldn't resist the garrulous superciliousness** of it.

 

** 

Edited February 5, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

"Like" for the sesquipedalian word usage.

[PolarVortex]

I, on the other hand, cannot imagine how anyone can think that it won't affect all of society, including heterosexual marriages. One can argue that the effect will or will not be bad for society, but to claim that it won't have any effect at all seems fairly socially amaurotic*.

 

I was disputing the specific claim that allowing same-sex marriages will affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.  I suppose some heterosexuals could say, "Well, allowing gay marriages will change the definition of marriage, and that will hurt my feelings," but that seems like a cop-out to me.  And leave out children and adoptions, that's a separate debate.

 

Like I say, I'm skeptical of same-sex marriage, but in a secular society with separation of church and state I'm more skeptical of people who claim that certain rights apply only to some people for no good reason.

Edited February 5, 2015 by PolarVortex