equal rights sounds nice, but not inevitable.

politics as usual
rational analysis

As usual, I take a somewhat unpopular position as it regards individual liberties, or rather, the present tendencies to repress individual liberties where they create disconcerted opinions in the minds or feelings of a disconnected and aging, but vigorous, minority of Americans.



The most interesting post there though was this one

I am curious about the disconnect between normal discriminatory notions and the sudden revulsion against a homosexual teacher. As with soldiering, I'm not impressed by the conception that a homosexual cannot properly fulfill their duties. We are free, if Silver postulates, to be offended, even in discriminatory manner, by the private habits of others (even where these are natural or biological in form, such as sexuality, or in other forms caused by actual mental disorder). And in an environment such as I suggest for "public" education, we might even be free to remove or to require the sexuality be an issue for the instructor of our children. This does not however inquire properly into the ability of any such people to perform the duty of providing an educational opportunity for others.

I suggest it implies a serious disconnect to the idea of how homosexuality occurs, in other words, that a gay teacher could spread their homosexuality to their precocious flock of children, similar to the marginal opposition of adoption by homosexual couples. Or the still common misconception that homosexuals are inherently child molesters could be a factor.

Other curious points, it is generally government that is permitted by the absorption of cost inefficiencies to be discriminatory. Silver sort of obliquely touched on that by the curious double standard that we might prevent private enterprise from discrimination against gays but allow the hiring practices of teachers to include such restrictions. I'm not sure there are actual costs that are imposed in a free market sense in this case however. If a teacher is capable, their private sexual orientation should not be a factor of their hiring or performance. In a market environment such a person would be difficult to dismiss. But in a government sense, we still can use the power of government to repress the ability of people to live openly in accordance of their behavior without fear of dismissal from gainful employment for factors that do not impact their job functions. This is probably a good reason to avoid using government for things of a social imposition unless it is to be used to protect the rights of a minority of some sort. And not the other way around.

I also am amused by the notion advanced by right wingers that this is an inevitable social result, the acceptance of homosexual rights and marriage. This may well be true in the form of demographics. Young people are accepting of all sorts of things (a theory advanced by their unprecedented and broader support of a black American for President). But this is not yet a generation in charge of the agenda. And what it often makes up for in the forms of tolerance lacking in previous generations, it generally lacks of political dynamism to make up the ground of repression.