>Hilariously, the two justifications for Eich as you've presented them would paint Hitler as moral. First of all, neither are justifications. It was simply ana

>Hilariously, the two justifications for Eich as you've presented them would paint Hitler as moral. First of all, neither are justifications. It was simply analyzing Eich's actions under a different moral framework as yours. Second of all, yes, you could argue (this is the key word) Hitler's actions as moral (even though everyone would almost Hilariously (not really actually) using your reasoning and your ethical framework you could also argue that paedophiles should not be discriminated against and that they deserve the right to sleep with and marry minors. As society we don't want this so we choose to discriminate against child predators. Discrimination in this case is a pretty good thing.(I don't actually believe child predators should have this "right") >As you're no doubt well aware, marriage rights encompass many other legal rights, and denying those rights is granting gays a form of second-class citizenship. This official form of discrimination combined with the private sector hate they receive for not being in a protected class causes gays ti have a higher rate of suicide than the rest of the population, continuing Turing's tradition. I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. Yes, I'm aware of these things. They don't matter in the scope of this argument. You say that reason and logic drive your believes about what is moral but this entire section of the post I quoted is just an appeal to emotion. Also don't you find it ironic that you can justify discriminating against someone because of their beliefs but you can't justify discriminating against someone because of their sexual identity? And before you respond with an argument telling me you can choose what you believe. Can you really?