Comments about ‘Letters: Activity vs. identity’

"More importantly, real people wonder which immoral group will become the next liberal cause celebre, for which they'll loudly proclaim a desperate need for special legal protections." ...like they've done so often in the past with slaves, women, minorities, handicaped, etc. Seriously your're hyperbolic leaps of fantasy would be amusing if they weren't so tragic.

This issue like so many others will take only one thing to make it go into the dustbin of history...the approval of the Church. In Salt Lake City, the passage of this ordinance included regular consultations with the hierarchy of the Church thinking people realize it is just a matter of time before Procura's question: "Adulterers? Polygamists? Child molesters? will look as silly as it truly is.

@procurador

What protected class? Are you telling us you have no gender identity or sexual orientation?

Re: "Seriously your're hyperbolic leaps of fantasy would be amusing if they weren't so tragic."

So, which immorality would get your vote as the next one government should protect and foster?

Excellent letter. I would add this: a great many heterosexual adults engage in consensual activities that Senator Reid would also regard as immoral. I notice that he doesn't propose to discriminate against adulterers when it comes to housing or employment. Senator Reid would say, I think, that it's none of the government's business what consulting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. Our gay friends only ask that that standard be applied to them as well.
As for procuradorfiscal's comments, they're not worthy any response whatsoever.

Procure: I know it is your way to make every issue into a sanity vs. liberal issue, but best check your back on this one. Libertarianism has returned to Republicanism and Rand Paul says this is not your business.

Even the LDS Church at BYU doesn't care about one's sexual orientation. If the orthodoxy at byu can manage to distinguish between orientation/identity and behavior, then that shows you just how truly archaic Sen. Reid's viewpoints are.

Re: ". . . Rand Paul says this is not your business."

I agree with Rand Paul -- it is simply not government's business to pick and choose which immoralities to protect and foster.

"So, which immorality would get your vote as the next one government should protect and foster?"

procuradorfiscal...simple, the next human right you find immoral.

Re: " . . . which immorality would get your vote as the next one government should protect and foster? -- [S]imple, the next human right you find immoral."

Thanks for making my point.

Liberals assume all they have to do is unilaterally label their favorite perversion a "human right," then demand that the government encourage, protect, and advance it.

That's why we've got to fight to have liberal, "progressive" government stay out of moral issues.

It just doesn't have much experience with morality, and will inevitably get it wrong anytime it undertakes to make a decision based on morality.

I wonder how anyone would ascertain who is homosexual. Word-of-mouth? Confession? Same-sex roommate?

Without being openly intimately promiscuous (which is illegal for hetero and homosexuals)there is no way to determine orientation.

So, I don't think it should be legal to deny housing to someone simply because of what they say or what you hear.

Mr. Reid's decision seems to have been based on personal prejudice rather than critical thinking and logical conclusion.

"So, which immorality would get your vote as the next one government should protect and foster?"

Alcoholism. It is not a vice, it is a disease, and the victim can't help him/herself. Sure alcoholics don't make good employees or renters, but they need to live somewhere and they need an income, so we shouldn't allow evil rich employers and landlords to discriminate against them.

The next one should be adulterers. You never know how bad their spouse is, so they might have a good reason to cheat. Discriminating against them is wrong. Just because they violate the contract they made through the state with their spouse doesn't mean they will violate the contracts they make with employers and landlords.

Better yet, just have a state agency dictate who will rent what housing so the landlords can't discriminate in any way. Same for employment. Why should people be able to choose who they hire or who can use their property?

Just think, if the state gave random assignments on jobs, sexuality would be out of the picture completely. The sexy girls and studly handsome guys wouldn't be the first to get jobs!

procuradorfiscal..thanks for making my point. Conservatives assume all they have to do is unilaterally label their current hatred "an immoral act" then demand that the government prohibit it.

Human Right..an act or behavior that enhances the well being of humanity. It's not something that enhances the pleasure of an individual..but the well being of humanity. Nothing unilaterl or exclusive here..such as the bible says etc.