# Who are "some homosexual activists" and WTF is their "agenda"? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 27, 2003, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-some-homosexual-activists-and-wtf-is-their-agenda/184680 "2003-06-27T02:24:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-some-homosexual-activists-and-wtf-is-their-agenda/184680/101 "2003-07-08T01:38:15Z")
Thank you, **Lilarien** , that was a wonderful statement of understanding and empathy. ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-some-homosexual-activists-and-wtf-is-their-agenda/184680/102 "2003-07-08T03:14:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > #2 is a logical error. (I’m sure those familiar with logic have some Greek term for it.) Essentially, if B follows from A, this does NOT imply that the absence of A means an absence of B. Actually it does. If B -\> A, then ~A -\> ~B. The latter statement is called the _contrapositive_ of the former. Technically my phrasing was poor, that much is true. > [@](#): > > I’m amazed that this is so difficult for you to understand. Riiiight. _I’m_ the one who doesn’t understand. That makes it so much easier for you, doesn’t it, when _I’m_ the one who doesn’t understand… Whatever. > [@](#): > > Scalia offered **two** arguments, _either one of which_ would negate the Equal Protection argument. He offered the nudity argument in support of the first only. Did I not recognize this above? And did I not point out that I didn’t find either an effective argument? Did I _also_ not point out that you could have your own opinion on this? > [@](#): > > Beyond this, what you seem to be saying is that in the particular example of nudity, the “preferences” argument is not needed, because it will suvive without it, based on the rational basis test. OK, perhaps or perhaps not - this might be a separate debate (I imagine some nudists might disagree with you). In point of fact I’ve argued elsewhere that a blanket restriction against public nudity is in fact unconstitutional–but on free speech grounds. (Reference the arguments about “images observable” in MADSEN v. WOMEN’S HEALTH CTR., INC.) Again, another debate… > [@](#): > > But at worst, it was a poorly chosen analogy - there are probably others that he could have used. Yes, I particularly liked the “auto mechanic” version myself. We really don’t want them types a-reproducin’ anyways. 😉 > [@](#): > > The essential principle is unchanged (that being that “preferences” is enough to disallow an Equal Protection claim - at least in Scalia’s opinion). And in summation, I disagreed. Shall I rephrase my opinion on this once again for you? Naaaah. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-some-homosexual-activists-and-wtf-is-their-agenda/184680/103 "2003-07-08T03:16:27Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by mrblue92 \* > \*\* Requiring auto mechanics as a group to give an estimate before carrying out repairs would seem to be rational. Forbidding sex with all auto mechanics would not._\* Considering most of the auto mechanics I’ve ever met, I’m not so sure. 😉 Julie ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-some-homosexual-activists-and-wtf-is-their-agenda/184680/104 "2003-07-08T13:22:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mrblue92 \* > Actually it does. If B -\> A, then ~A -\> ~B. The latter statement is called the _contrapositive_ of the former. Yes, but that’s not what you said. What you said was if B -\> A, then ~ **B** -\> ~ **A** (B being “rational basis”, and A being “unequal protection”). Possibly this is what you refer to as poor phrasing, but I have no idea what you might have actually meant in that case. ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-some-homosexual-activists-and-wtf-is-their-agenda/184680/105 "2003-07-08T17:09:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > Yes, but that’s not what you said. What you said was if B -\> A, then ~ **B** -\> ~ **A** (B being “rational basis”, and A being “unequal protection”). Possibly this is what you refer to as poor phrasing, but I have no idea what you might have actually meant in that case. Very well. It’s possible my logic was flawed even if the conclusion was correct. I’ll use a different tactic: Your statements: 1. Unequal treatment based on differing preferences does not violate Equal Protection. 1a) If it did, then banning nudity would violate Equal Protection. 1. Even if unequal treatment based on differing preferences DOES violate Equal Protection (IOW even if 1) is false), a rational basis is enough to allow for unequal protection. (1) is the supposition, (1a) and (2) contain conjectures. If we reduce the negatives, then we get: 1a. If unequal treatment based on differing preferences does violate Equal Protection, then banning nudity would violate Equal Protection. 1. If unequal treatment based on differing preferences does violate Equal Protection, a rational basis is enough to allow for unequal protection. Combined: If unequal treatment based on differing preferences does violate Equal Protection, then banning nudity would violate Equal Protection AND a rational basis is enough to allow for unequal protection. BUT… as I think we agree, it’s quite clear that if we can find a rational basis for allowing unequal protection with regards to nudity, then banning nudity would NOT violate Equal Protection. Is that better? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-some-homosexual-activists-and-wtf-is-their-agenda/184680/106 "2003-07-08T17:28:37Z")
**mrblue92** , I agree with your most recent post, if I understand it correctly. I think I acknowledged the validity of this point in my last post yesterday (5:16 PM EST). Essentially, you are saying that 1a) is not correct, because of 2). Scalia cannot _prove_ himself right with regards to his “preferences” principle from the nudity analogy, because nudity is sustainable on “rational basis” grounds. So I agree that the analogy is wanting on these grounds. Scalia would have been better off finding another example, though this might have been hard - if you assume that most laws have a rational basis - some would dispute this ;). Still, I think the analogy has some validity as an illustration, if not as a proof. I think many people would recognize that in the nudity case - as in other similar cases - the law does not in fact rely on the rational basis principle but instead relies on the principle that this does not amount to unequal protection, due to the preferences issue. Most of the posters in this thread, for example, took this for granted, and tried to distinguish on other grounds (e.g. centrality of sexual identity, or privacy of conduct). So it does tend to illustrate the point, though again you are correct that it does not prove it. ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-some-homosexual-activists-and-wtf-is-their-agenda/184680/107 "2003-07-08T18:48:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > I agree with your most recent post, if I understand it correctly. I think I acknowledged the validity of this point in my last post yesterday (5:16 PM EST). I believe you did as well, but since the that previous argument might fail strict rules of logic, I felt compelled to provide this most recent one. > [@](#): > > Essentially, you are saying that 1a) is not correct, because of 2). Scalia cannot _prove_ himself right with regards to his “preferences” principle from the nudity analogy, because nudity is sustainable on “rational basis” grounds. Yes! It all ties together, you see… and of course this is where that distinction between public and private behavior could conceivably come in–the rational basis phase. > [@](#): > > So I agree that the analogy is wanting on these grounds. Scalia would have been better off finding another example, though this might have been hard - if you assume that most laws have a rational basis - some would dispute this ;). That is indeed another argument–what makes a law “rational”? We’d have to start from square one on that question. > [@](#): > > Still, I think the analogy has some validity as an illustration, if not as a proof. I think many people would recognize that in the nudity case - as in other similar cases - the law does not in fact rely on the rational basis principle but instead relies on the principle that this does not amount to unequal protection, due to the preferences issue. Yes, I believe this is true as well. However, at minimum a case could be made that nudists in taxis, buses, subways, restaurants, etc. would endanger public health by aiding the spread of hepatitis, crabs, etc. > [@](#): > > Most of the posters in this thread, for example, took this for granted, and tried to distinguish on other grounds (e.g. centrality of sexual identity, or privacy of conduct). So it does tend to illustrate the point, though again you are correct that it does not prove it. It feels good to have this thing sorted out. Now let’s fix the federal budget, shall we? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-some-homosexual-activists-and-wtf-is-their-agenda/184680/108 "2003-07-08T18:50:18Z")
3 pages to get to “I agree?” My head hurts. ☹ Esprix [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-some-homosexual-activists-and-wtf-is-their-agenda/184680.md?page=5)