Locke

You can't change my hypothetical scenario, even though you've been doing it for the past 10 pages. Bye.

If. That isn't universal though.

Because we are discussing a universal set of beliefs, so they have to withstand scrutiny in any universal situation.

Because it's a thought experiment. You can't use anything else, such as the state, to make your argument more acceptable. Your system of belief is universal, not tied to a specific state. By amending it about the state and whether or not they should have joined, you are just coping out.

That's a cop out. I'm done discussing with someone who uses a cop out in a serious discussion.

Let me see if I can make this more clear. 1. You said the law should be blind to social and religious discrimination. 2. You admit that if someone thinks discrimination is better for society, they should vote for that. And if the majority votes, it should be. Those viewpoints are inconsistent.

It doesn't matter. That is not the reason for the vote. The vote is for discrimination. If you are going to discuss a philosophical thought experiment, you have to do it properly. Maybe I should write it like this, so you quit changing it. If they are voting for discrimination, and discrimination is the reason, under your system of thought that vote is acceptable. This is speaking to the universality of your belief system. You are not to assume anything about the government they are in, or their right to vote. Ceteris paribus. Discrimination isn't a reason for voting. Discrimination is not voting for your beleif. Thats like saying "I'm voting for homosexuality my reason is homosexuality" which doesn't make sense. If I am voting against homosexuality because I have unfair prejudices against them, then my only reason is discrimination. I've already stated that the vote for discrimination is under the belief that discrimination will help society. Under your belief system, that is an acceptable vote. Yet it is inconsistent with your original post.

It doesn't matter. That is not the reason for the vote. The vote is for discrimination. If you are going to discuss a philosophical thought experiment, you have to do it properly. Maybe I should write it like this, so you quit changing it. If they are voting for discrimination, and discrimination is the reason, under your system of thought that vote is acceptable. This is speaking to the universality of your belief system. You are not to assume anything about the government they are in, or their right to vote. Ceteris paribus.

No. The different system of rule is an after effect of voting for discrimination. Quit changing the wording just to suit your needs.

The reason is still discrimination.

So? They are still voting for what's best for society. Your belief is based on the idea that since it's subjective, and can always be changing. Your belief should have no problem with voting for a different system of rule.

Unless discrimination is better for the society in their eyes, according to you.

Discrimination is the reason. Didn't you read my post?

If they are voting for the reason of discrimination, and they think discrimination is better for society, then you are being inconsistent with your original post.

If someone is voting to ban homosexual marriage, because they think it's immoral, they clearly think it's better for society to not have immoral things legal. Whether or not you consider that "voting against harm" is your call, but they obviously think they are doing what's best for society.

Once again you use the harm principle to avoid the reality of your own beliefs. It doesn't matter if they believe if it will harm anyone or not, if they believe it's better to vote against it, under your beliefs that is what should be done. How many times are you going to run back and hide behind your "harm principle" just to avoid being inconsistent?

You said that people should not ban things on sociological or religious reasons, yet you said any reason is good enough for a majority to ban something. That is inconsistent.

Your initial post, which you have yet to retract, is inconsistent with your belief that any reason is an okay reason to ban anything in society.

No it's not. So not it's not important. I continually have said that the harm principle is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't matter to anyone in this discussion except you. You keep using it as a way to get out of admitting your own beliefs are inconsistent.

Quit bringing up your harm principle. That's irrelevant from a universal perspective because only you think it's the way to go.

Then all discrimination has a reason. If you are saying, "It's better this way" is a reason, then everyone who discriminates does it for a reason. Everyone who discriminates thinks it better to discriminate. You're talking in circles. Again.

If the majority of people "just don't like" homosexual marriage, and they think society would be better without it, discrimination is the reason. The point though, is under your system of belief, there doesn't need to be a reason at all. The reason can simply be "I think this is better," as long as the majority of people agree.

You are still changing your original post. No where in your initial post did you say that "having any reason at all makes it not discrimination." Further, you would have to accept that if the reason the people have is discrimination and they think that will help society best, then that's what should be done.

If you believe that banning gay marriage is discrimination it still doesn't effect that it's being done because people think it's best for society. Period. Also, read this line carefully: Notice the word "however?" You were specifically referencing the first part of your post. The point is that under your own beliefs, the reason doesn't matter. Yet in your initial post, you claimed the reason does in fact matter.

Finally. Now I can show you why your initial point is inconsistent with your own beliefs. According to your own belief, it doesn't matter why they decide it is better for society to ban it, as long as they as a majority think that it is better. So according to your own belief, the law should not be blind to any reason, sociological or religious if the majority thinks what is being banned is wrong. It doesn't matter where their sense of morality comes from, according to you, as long as they believe what they are doing is right. This is why your initial point, that sparked all of this discussion, is contradictory to your own set of beliefs.