Thanks for the clarification.
As I said, it started out as a freedom of conscience matter, I lost interest, and got pulled into the discussion from time to time. (Sometimes I do not read posts when I have lost interest in the discussion). I made clear the grounds of my concern, involving recognized religious or philosophical views, and Jewel never clarified that the ground had shifted. I am sorry for the confusion, and apologize to all.
I do think that people are allowed some latitude for eccentricity, unless there is a solid reason for the state to interfere, and that some allowance for intimate situations might be made without freedom of conscience being invoked. However, the relation to state interests is much more fragile in that case. If, for example, the state makes it a condition of licensure that one not discriminate on any basis, I do not think that not liking it merely as such creates grounds for an exception.
As far as the statistics go, it is up to the state to decide if there is sufficient risk to allow discrimination on the basis of sexual proclivity. I remember vaguely an allusion to the statistics. The use was flawed, insofar as having a figure of something like 70% who knew of an abusive situation does not mean that abuse is rampant, it means that a lot of people know of the handful that occur. I know someone who was murdered: so did nearly everyone in my college (St. John's has a tiny student body) when she was a student, more than 500 people. Count up the total number of lifetime acquaintances, and perhaps one or two thousand people know a murder victim off of that one incident.
I admit that, absent religious scruples, I myself do not see it likely that the individual posited would have a healthy degree of sexual maturity........... |
