Forcing equality can be very harmful and cause detriment even when somebody *is* qualified for the job/etc. Sean works in law enforcement and not only qualified on all of his exams, but was #1 in his “class,” however, the dept. he works for also uses affirmative action in their hiring process and Sean is one of only three officers of Asian descent on the *entire* force. Obviously Sean knows that he is a good officer & well qualified, but he gets to question if his qualification were the sole reason of his hire, and later on, the only reason for his (God willing) promotion. This is certainly not a great feeling to have and Sean has called it the most blatant racism he has ever experienced. Discernment in the hiring process is most certainly important, but this only works when people are chosen/not chosen for the right or appropriate reasons.

As I said, I wouldn’t oppose dancing unless it was all slow dancing, and by that I mean the close together, back and forth, with nothing but being up against a girl with sweatpants on (not exactly modest for a teen guy with hormones). Let’s just say that my problem with that is personal experience. It’s hard to remove the sexual component when it comes to slow dancing. Though my wife and I’ve actually talked about getting into some kind of ball room dancing for the exercise.

Can you explain your race example more? I mean, trying to look at it differently, the thing I can see is similar is that races traditionally just had people that could run, and now they have all sorts of people in it. And they usually have different categories of racing. But then there are also races that are specifically for certain people.

I guess I would say that, personally, I’m not against people saying “this race is just for runners” or “this race is just for cancer survivors” or “this race is just for church members” because of the Freedom of Assembly. Where I start having a problem is when people outside the qualifications believe they have a right to be included in the group because of who they are, what they look like, etc.

I think that we can go so far in trying to force equality that we have negative impacts: “I got this job just because I’m black– I wouldn’t have got it if they went for the more qualified person.”

If we are talking about job qualifications, then you are correct: we have to discriminate somewhat, although I really don’t think that’s the correct word to use. We wouldn’t hire the blind art teacher to teach painting (although he’d be very well suited for sculpture), and we wouldn’t have the chemist to teach music.

However, in both of the aforementioned cases, those people wouldn’t necessarily possess the qualifications needed to teach those things- an artist eye and a musical ear, so it really wouldn’t be discrimination.

An issue develops when you deny a person employment (or whatever), even though they DO possess all the necessary qualifications for the job because you don’t happen to like their creed, skin color, or with whom they sleep.

If that is indeed what you are suggesting, Min, I have to categorically disagree with you. Your post seems to start out with job qualifications, and then venture into an entirely different realm (I don’t want to say moral fiber, but that’s the only thing that comes to mind).

That’s a really hard sell, and also a terribly slippery slope. My questions become: where does it end? Who fits into your “master plan” here? Where does your discrimination end and who is safe?

I don’t have a problem with people having differing views from me to a point– there’s obviously always lines in there, and it obviously has to deal with whether or not said views are enforced (obviously not a phys ed class unless, somehow, they’re getting into the realm of spirituality with some type of yoga or something). I know some people have had problems with gym classes and dancing, but I’m on the fence there and probably would not oppose it unless it was all slow dancing, but I digress.

I’m not sure what “my” concept of qualifications are. I don’t know how your example of a race applies? Certainly he was qualified to win the race because they accepted entrants that did not have legs. But how can a person that cannot see judge a painting? Feeling the canvas? I understand that a blind person may paint, to some extent, and maybe, to a limited extent, they could teach other blind people to paint, but how can they express depth of field, framing a photo from an experiential point of view rather than simply from the theoretical?

Perhaps instead of a pure “can do, can’t do” there’s degrees of ability where you could have a blind person teach art, but that would be down on the ladder from someone who can actually paint or draw. Maybe it should be based on the laws of scarcity. Likewise, it’s not a problem to have a homosexual phys ed teacher, but it certainly wouldn’t be my first choice because of the attraction factor and the possibility of having them in the shower room. I mean, there were days when our male coach was sick, and the female teacher was the only one there was. She stayed out of the locker room (or yelled cover when she came in) and this was somewhat acceptable. It definitely wasn’t ideal.

And that’s I guess my point (which isn’t a hard one) is that we are constantly discriminating in that we try to choose the best one for the job, and in many cases that means that we have to take people’s actions and statements into account when choosing who will be in a position– especially in a position of authority over children.

Does that make any sense?

“…with probably the same amount of men, but also there are many female on female cases as well.”

Statistics, statistics, statistics. Where on earth are your statistics to back up your claims? (you ask why I keep coming back- this is the reason- to make you back up some of your more outrageous claims).

“16-18 year old teens can look like they are 20 years old, so the whole “they are children” and I can’t be physically effected by looking at them does not necessarily carry a lot of weight”

Yeah, and this isn’t just a homo issue, though your veiled attempt is to do just that. This whole locker room thing is just getting old. I’ve checked with six local high schools so far, and gym teachers are NOT in the changing areas with the students, boys or girls. I’ve been told by my administrators and gym teachers that this has become the norm throughout the country. So why continue to bark up this tree? (and then you wonder why you have the “trolls” stopping in).

Actually, I think I have found the point of this: Discrimination is fine and dandy as long as it is in regards to a person’s sexual orientation. Wow, this is indeed and important post. I’ll totally agree with this as long as I can discriminate against the Christians.

Musicguy self comment check to avoid censorship:

respectful…check
no name calling…check
no making fun of religions beliefs…check
no belittling…check
playing nice in “Min’s house”…check