(Im)mutability of Same Gender Attraction

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Really, the only relevant fact is immutablility. I'll concede the whole debate the day they prove being gay is a choice.

Does it need to be an objectively verifiable immutable characterisitc or is a subjective asseretion sufficient?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Does it need to be an objectively verifiable immutable characterisitc or is a subjective asseretion sufficient?

I don't think it's a subjective assertion when a gay witness says his experience was he didn't choose. That's factual testimony. Here we have unanimity of testimony, except, it appears, a smattering of examples Mormons and Evangelists like to trot out.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't think it's a subjective assertion when a gay witness says his experience was he didn't choose. That's factual testimony. Here we have unanimity of testimony, except, it appears, a smattering of examples Mormons and Evangelists like to trot out.

That evades the point. You are basing this issue on your claim (without scientific evidence, as asked for by AAA) that the characterisitic is, indeed, immutable. I want to know if your position would vary based on whether or not the supposedly immutable characterisitic is objectively verifiable (e.g. national orogin or race) or if subjective assertions ("I have always been this way") justify your approach.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

That evades the point. You are basing this issue on your claim (without scientific evidence, as asked for by AAA) that the characterisitic is, indeed, immutable. I want to know if your position would vary based on whether or not the supposedly immutable characterisitic is objectively verifiable (e.g. national orogin or race) or if subjective assertions ("I have always been this way") justify your approach.

The law recognizes either type of evidence as probative. I think your distinction is sophistry. Either type of evidence is a path to finding truth.

I also disagree with your adjective subjective as subjective and meaningless. I don't think someone describing a broken arm as painful would be characterized as making a subjective assertion.

Physicians rely heavily on patients' descriptions of their symptoms in diagnosing. Sometimes these descriptions incoporated into medical records can form the basis of an ADA suit.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The law recognizes either type of evidence as probative. I think your distinction is sophistry. Either type of evidence is a path to finding truth.

I also disagree with your adjective subjective as subjective and meaningless. I don't think someone describing a broken arm as painful would be characterized as making a subjective assertion.

Physicians rely heavily on patients' descriptions of their symptoms in diagnosing. Sometimes these descriptions incoporated into medical records can form the basis of an ADA suit.

Someone testifying of a national origin in Africa could be impeached by a birth certificate from Ireland or by genetic evidence to the contrary.

A broken arm is painful and that is easily obeserved objectively by any medical defintion of pain (we can watch the nerves fire, if we choose) only the degree of pain is subjective.

You once again avoid the question. Is it your position that immutability must be acknolwedged for social policy regardless of whether the characterisitic is objective or subjective?

[SeattleUte]

Besides which, Creester, it's not accurate that race itself can be identified absent testimony, recollections, etc. My first three children are 25% Japanese. Are they Asian? If so, you probably coudn't tell by just looking at them.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Someone testifying of a national origin in Africa could be impeached by a birth certificate from Ireland or by genetic evidence to the contrary.

A broken arm is painful and that is easily obeserved objectively by any medical defintion of pain (we can watch the nerves fire, if we choose) only the degree of pain is subjective.

You once again avoid the question. Is it your position that immutability must be acknolwedged for social policy regardless of whether the characterisitic is objective or subjective?

I didn't avoid it. The answer is no, I don't see a difference for the reasons I stated. A gay's testimony about his experience is not necessarily less probabive than a person's testimony about their parents' race or even physical appearance. Some would even say gays do have visible or auditory characteristics.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You need to read some Supreme Court cases on civil rights.

So if my desire to burn your house down is immutable, then it is violative of the equal protection clause for legislation to forbid be from doing so? You're even a level or two above superficial with that argument. Dig deeper. I know you can.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Besides which, Creester, it's not accurate that race itself can be identified absent testimony, recollections, etc. My first three children are 25% Japanese. Are they Asian? If so, you probably coudn't tell by just looking at them.

Maybe not by looking at them, but it can certainly be dteremined by geneticv testing, right? Moreover, it remains an objective characterisitc, although its presence may be harder to discern and whether or not a policy based on immutability should apply to a diluted characterisitic is also a different question.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I didn't avoid it. The answer is no, I don't see a difference for the reasons I stated. A gay's testimony about his experience is not necessarily less probabive than a person's testimony about their parents' race or even physical appearance. Some would even say gays do have visible or auditory characteristics.

Then doesn't this lead you to exatcly the problem popsed by UD's hypo?