We have become so open minded that our brains have fallen out. ;)

People who liked this debate also liked:

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Instead_of_deriving_law_from_morality_we_now_derive_morality_from_law

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Once_society_cedes_its_moral_authority_to_a_court_of_law_then_all_things_become_possible

Again, fred is kind of dopey.

This basically says that if the majority does not impose their own virtue on the minority, then they somehow are magically themselves having some other form of virtue imposed on them.

No one needs to be intolerant of anyone. And not being intolerant does not in any way infringe on the rights of those not being intolerant...

I mean, that's like if I were to say, "since I like Kool-aid, everyone needs to drink Kool-aid, or my right to like Kool-aid myself is in danger."

If someone wants to drink the Kool-aid, fine, but don't try to make everyone else.

The veiled argument against tolerance and equal civil rights being extended to gays fails both in its essential premises and in its two central comparisons.

The premise that we are not already imposing the moral will of the majority is just basically incorrect. We do impose the morality of the majority. Murder, bestiality, child molestation, rape, theft, and a grand many kinds of drugs . . . all illegal.

What we do not do is allow the immediate selfishness of the majority to override the basic civil rights and liberties common to all citizens and (philosophically at least) to all human beings. This is why you can't own slaves or beat up your wife anymore.

Law IS the imposition of a set of moral norms, and under our republican system of government it IS largely dictated by the majority subject to the sanctity of basic common rights.

The comparisons are simply non sequiturs:

1) "Gay bars will be ignored" -- bars, gay or otherwise, are ordinary everyday businesses. A bar that caters to a homosexual clientele is hardly on its face more subversive or sexually offensive than a strip club or a porn shop, in which sex is blatantly for sale. A gay bar, on the other hand, is simply a meeting place like any other bar, and is an entirely ordinary and lawful business just the same as is a "biker bar" or "yuppie bar" or any other kind of bar.

2) "Riding naked on the subway" -- the subway is a public place and public lewdness -- gay, straight, with duct tape and chickens, or otherwise -- is illegal. Make especial note of the word "public."

This is ludicrous. The only laws that should be made which "enforce morality" are those that protect people. So basically, murder, stealing, drunk driving, rape, incest, etc. should all be illegal, as they are actions that hurt others. Any action which does not hurt other people, on the other hand, such as the use of drugs or sex with a same-sex partner, should not. These are merely choices people make that some people disagree with. Your disagreement on a moral basis does not mean I should not have the choice for myself.

A society may agree that if homosexuals choose to be discreet, then society in return will leave them alone – that they will suffer no persecution or penalties, that gay bars discreetly run will be discreetly ignored. The compromise is a useful one. It permits homosexuals to live largely as they wish, yet heterosexuals will not have thrust on them practices that they find repugnant.

That's fucked up. Heterosexuals having to coexist with homosexuals is not an issue that needs addressing. It's called tolerance. Some people are different from you. Deal with it.