Originally Posted by
SaptaZapta
@
FrozNlite; So you define legal equality by there being specific laws to protect LGBT? That's not equal, that's preferential, in a way.
Or let me put it another way: in an ideal world, with perfect equality, a definition of marriage would still be on the books. But a law saying "you can't fire people because they're gay" would be about as pointless as "you can't fire people because they have green eyes". It'd be on those lists of funny laws that make you think "why did they ever find it necessary to legislate that?" The law should simply be "people shouldn't be fired for anything that isn't how they do their job."
Wow holy pomegranate do you actually know how social protection laws are written? It's ALL about the wording. No one seeking equality for any identity is looking for super-specific laws in addition to what's already on the books - they just want to edit the current law that says "you cannot discriminate based on" to include whatever identity for which they're fighting. Because duh, a million additional laws like you mentioned are pointless.
So really, yes to your entire last sentence, but that's what any effort of equality seeks anyways. I mean, the vast majority if not all of the same-sex marriage laws on the books or looking to be written are not new laws stating "Thou shalt now allow the marriage of the gays," but simply editing existing marriage law from stating something like "The marriages this governing body performs and recognizes are those between one man and one woman" to "The marriages this governing body performs and recognizes are those between two people" or "two consenting adults" or whatever.
The entire basis of discrimination against various identities exists in creating loopholes from these relatively minor phrases. But, after all, like I've stressed a million times on this forum, semantics is everything. I can't think of a better example.
Bookmarks