Yuyutsu, mate, without the rule of Law, which has to involve the threat of coercion, there is no society.

If you find it intolerable to live with the threat of consequences for your actions, legal or otherwise, then I suggest you're sh!t out of luck.

Dear Craig,

If I allow others to coerce others in my name, then I would have to live with the consequences of being an accessory to coercion.

The specific issues discussed on this thread do not affect me personally in any significant way, but if I allow X to coerce Y in my name only in situations when Y is threatening to hurt X, then I am only an accessory to self-defence, while if I allow X to coerce Y in my name just because X desires to achieve their petty goals through coercing Y, then I am fully guilty as well and will have to live with the consequences, which might well include that tomorrow X or Y would coerce me on other matters that are most important to me.

If you find it intolerable to live with the law of karma, then I suggest you're sh!t out of luck.

YuYutsu:

“It becomes clearer that the problem is not same-sex marriage, but the anti-discrimination laws.”

The problem is that such anti-discrimination laws exist without any burden of proof upon those who claim discrimination. This is much more of a worry than same-sex marriage. For discrimination to be present you have to be able to prove that some other group has something which you are being denied on the basis of some characteristic or trait that you have such as gender or race. It is easy enough to prove the first part but how do you prove the second part if that trait is sexual orientation? How do you even define such a thing and if you can define it in such a way that everyone could agree upon then how do you prove that a particular individual has that trait and deserves protection from discrimination. It is simple to tell what race a person is or what gender but how do you prove sexual orientation?

As it stands anyone examining a case of discrimination simply takes the word of the claimant as true without any need for proof. It is just accepted that the claimant’s own analysis of his behaviour is sufficient. In what other area of law would such laxity be allowed? If a murderer analysed his own behaviour and declared it was not murder would the judge just accept that and let him off?

There has to be some objective measure of what is sexual orientation otherwise the laws are a joke. Homosexual people are changing the face of things like the education curriculum just by claiming discrimination. They know they do not have to prove it so they will just keep pushing as far as they can go.

I wonder how the references to actions taken against opponents of same sex marriage would stack up against a dossier of harm done to homosexuals by religious fundamentalists and those partly inspired by their bigotry.

I can remember when the term "poofter bashing" was not all that rare. I can recall a number of famous actors who have felt the need to hide their sexuality for all or most of their lives because of the backlash if being gay was acknowledged. Plenty of rumours around of some still feeling the need to do that. I can recall when being same sex orientated was regarded as a security risk because exposure was a blackmail risk. There are still places in the world where homosexual acts can lead to a death penalty http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/02/24/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death/ I'm sure others could quickly add to the list.

Vandalising an office is not a legitimate activity but I find the moral outrage over acts such as that hard to take seriously while so much harm to homosexuals is still so recent in our past and to some extent ongoing.

R0bert

Dear Phanto,

What you describe is an additional problem.

Thanks for pointing that out, but what I referred to as the problem was the very existence of anti-discrimination laws that criminalise individuals for something they refuse to do - whatever that something is.

Forcing people to perform a job they don't want to do, for whatever reason, amounts to slavery.

Forcing people to give or sell something they don't want to give, for whatever reason, amounts to robbery.

It's that simple!

(and it's also my 4th post for today, so I won't be able to reply further till tomorrow)

Robert:

The fact that some people were treated badly in the past or are being treated badly in other countries in the present is no excuse for destroying someone else’s property in the present. If revenge becomes the law of the land then what does that say about homosexual people?

It is de-humanising to act that way. There are many groups and individuals who have been treated badly throughout history but have maintained their dignity and not lowered themselves to such primitive responses.

De-facing someone’s property might not be a major crime but it says something about the person who does it. It says they are not content with obtaining justice they want to lash out and hurt someone who has done nothing more than express an opinion which they did not like.