Originally Posted by protonitron

The fact that people with ADHD are not necessarily treated differently unless they can't handle it and end up causing trouble. To put this back on topic here is an analogy: If someone is gay then discrimination (the type you have talked about) against them is unjustified since the "disorder" to use your terminology has not caused any problems. If someone is gay and continuously hits on heterosexual guys who he knows he is making feel uncomfortable then he should probably seek some sort of specialist help because he is causing a problem. Now you might think this fits with your argument that discrimination is acceptable but I believe the same goes for heterosexual guys hitting on women, if they end up making people feel uncomfortable and don't care if a girl isn't interested then he should seek specialist help on account of causing a problem and making people feel uncomfortable.

You are right that as someone with ADHD I a) take medication and b) see specialists but you failed to mention the fact that nobody really enforces my medication, I have it as an option and I just carry packets of tablets around with me for when I need to concentrate, my dad chooses not to and is not discriminated for ADD at all. I see a specialist once a year so I can continue taking medication, it costs money to see them and it is a private company in my case. It isn't just a case of refusing or accepting medication, if I didn't want to take medication I could probably just continue with my life and nobody (except my close family and aforementioned specialists) would care until I started acting annoying.

In other words, you are comparing two things which are rather different and you don't understand one of them very well. Prejudicial discrimination is not the same as discrimination where discriminant has to ask to be discriminated beforehand. If a gay guy asks for medication to neuter them and is willing to pay for the prescription then sure, your analogy works, but I don't think that is what you were arguing.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

The common pro-gay-marriage argument is "Banning homosexuality or limiting the rights of homosexuals is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." (to quote Redundant) Is this a logical argument?

The main assertion here is that it is wrong to discriminate between people based on who they are.

Originally Posted by Oracle

You're asking questions that you leave unanswered. Don't step abstractly around the point you're trying to make, come out and say it. If you truly believe what you're saying is correct and, as you mention later, we'll look pretty stupid in 40 years, then get the last laugh by saying explicilty what you're hinting at.

Originally Posted by Oracle

I'm going to assume you're against gay marriage, possibly trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and afford a hopefully reasonable retort.

Originally Posted by Oracle

The major weakness of your implied argument is whether homosexuality causes harm. Your only example to support that it is the political unrest that the gay rights movement has caused in several countries. The problem with this assertion is that it's assuming they would be harmful by default and cause unrest anyways. Would that be true? Hard to say, as homosexuality in the modern era has existed almost solely in a hostile environment, with threat of ostracism, both socially and economically, and death. And in such an environment, discontent and unrest is not uncommon amongst any group. So it would be rather unfair, and illogical, to assume that homosexuality is harmful solely based on a revolt against the social order.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I'm just challenging the assertion that homosexuality is harmless. If we were to tally up the good and bad aspects, would we really come up with a net positive impact? I find it somewhat hard to believe, there's very rarely any discussion about the positive aspects of having a society where homosexuality is normalized, but there are often very specific complaints from people about why they dislike homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Bringing criminality into this discussion, and saying why do we punish criminality but shouldn't punish homosexuality if they are both genetically linked is a red herring at it's finest. That being said, I'll take it on briefly before never touching it again, as it's irrelevant. Criminality, by definition, is conflicting and detrimental to society. Homosexuality was once synonymous with criminality, but that was based on religious views to sodomy. In a modern take, there is nothing inherently conflicting about homosexuality with society, other than the current pursuit of rights. Criminality is still conflicting with society. There are not enough similarities between homosexuality and criminality's influence on society to use them as suitable parallels for the sake of this argument.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Lastly, another red herring that I will address only once, we treat mental disorders because, in the majority of situations, they are detrimental to and/or unwanted by the afflicted. The vast majority of people with mental disorders are those with anxiety and depression, and a near entirety do not want to have those disorders. The relatively few people with more difficult disorders like schizophrenia or dementia often lack the cognitive capabilities to realize their situation, but the disorder is actively detrimental to their well-being, often robbing them of their abilities to care for themselves. The similarities between homosexuality and mental disorders stop at genetic disposition. The only cases where homosexuality was unwanted was in response to outside pressure or rejection. And homosexuality is not detrimental to a person's well-being.

Originally Posted by Redundant

The logic behind my argument is the default position that all things should be legal until sufficient reasons are found to ban them, not the other way around.
If you disagree with that we disagree on a fundamental level.

Originally Posted by Redundant

Comparing homosexuality with criminality is an insult. Ignoring “do not harm others” clause makes no sense because it is the reason why those things cannot be compared.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

So ignoring the "do not harm others" clause, we say that some people are criminals in the same way that some people are homosexuals? Is it right to limit their rights?

Originally Posted by Redundant

I suppose I misinterpreted you then. That is what I was referring to.

Originally Posted by protonitron

The fact is that ADHD is just an extreme at the end of a spectrum, some people will never be offered treatment or even know about it since it is pretty much a normal character trait which can get out of hand. If there was a situation where homosexuals were offered medication as soon as they were found to be homosexual even if the trait wasn't getting to the point where it was problematic in everyday life then this would be a more extreme case of discrimination than that of medication of ADHD since ADHD is very rarely diagnosed unless the behaviour is actually problematic. ADHD is tested through behavioural symptoms and people are unlikely to notice such symptoms in everyday life unless they are causing a problem.

If you are going to ague that since ADHD is a disorder it is inherently problematic and that unproblematic cases are not really ADHD then the comparison between it and homosexuality breaks down at the point where some homosexuals just keep quiet about it.
-----
Now lets focus on another analogy perhaps since this one isn't working very well.